AXJXVW 2011

Lower Sonoran and

Sonoran Desert

National Monument

Draft Resource Management Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement

Lower Sonoran Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Department of Interior
Mission Statement

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the balanced management of public 

lands and resources and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that 

will best serve the needs of the American people. Management is based on the principles of 

multiple use and sustained yield, a combination of uses that takes into account the long-term 

needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include 

recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; fish and wildlife; designated

wilderness and wilderness characteristics, and natural, scenic, scientific, and cultural values.

Abstract

The Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) Draft Resource 

Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) describe and analyze 

five alternatives for managing approximately 1.4 million surface acres and 1.5 million subsurface 

acres on public lands in south-central Arizona, mainly south and west of the Phoenix 

metropolitan area. Information provided by the public, other agencies and organizations, and 

BLM personnel has been used to develop and analyze the alternatives in these DRMP/EIS.

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 and cultural settings than under Alternative B. Alternative D emphasizes preservation of 

undeveloped primitive landscapes, including natural and cultural resources and opportunities for 

non-motorized recreation. Alternative E, the agency’s preferred alternative, provides for a 

balance between human use and influence with protection of sensitive resources. Major issues 

addressed in the DRMP/EIS include management of recreation, travel management, energy and 

mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and 

heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and 

designation and management of special areas.

BLM/AZ/PL-11/003
United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

Phoenix District 

Lower Sonoran Field Office 

21605 North 7th Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85027 

www.blm.gov/az/

 

August 17, 2011 

In Reply, Refer To: 

1610 (P020) 

Dear Reader: 

Enclosed for your review and comment is the Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument 

(SDNM) Draft Resource Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DRMP/EIS) for 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO), Arizona. The BLM 

prepared this document in consultation with cooperating agencies and in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 

implementing regulations, the BLM's Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1), and other applicable 

laws and policies. 

The Planning Area consists of about 8.9 million acres of land that includes 1.4 million surface acres 

and 1.5 million subsurface/mineral-estate acres managed by the LSFO. These acres include about 

486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the SDNM. When completed, the approved 

RMP and associated Record of Decision for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas will guide 

management of public lands administered by the LSFO into the future. The plans will replace the 

Lower Gila South RMP, the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the Phoenix 

Resource Area Plan, and applicable amendments, for all public lands within those decision areas. The 

Lower Sonoran and SDNM DRMP/EIS and supporting information are available on the BLM Arizona 

land use planning web page at www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/planning/son_des.html. 

The BLM invites you to provide information and comments pertaining to the analysis presented in the 

Draft RMP/EIS. We are particularly interested in feedback concerning the adequacy and accuracy of 

the proposed alternatives, the analysis of their respective management decisions, and any new 

information that would help the BLM as it develops the plan. In developing the Proposed RMP/Final 

EIS, which is the next phase of the planning process, the BLM may select various management 

decisions from each of the alternatives analyzed in the DRMP/EIS to create a management strategy 

that best meets the needs of the resources and values in this area under the principles of multiple use 

and sustained yield. As a member of the public, your timely comments on the Lower Sonoran and 

SDNM DRMP/EIS will help formulate the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Comments will be accepted for 

ninety (90) calendar days following the Environmental Protection Agency's publication of the notice of 

availability in the Federal Register (www.gpo.gov/fdsys). The BLM can best utilize your comments 

and resource information submissions if received within the review period. 

Your comments on the content of the Draft RMP/EIS are critical to the success of this planning effort. 

If you wish to submit comments, we request that you make them as specific as possible. Comments 

will be more helpful if they are substantive in nature and specifically reference a section or page 

number. Substantive comments do at least one of the following: question, with reasonable basis, the 
accuracy of information; question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or 

assumptions used for the environmental analysis; present valid new information relevant to the 

analysis; present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed; and/or cause changes or revisions 

in one or more of the alternatives. Please note that comments containing only opinion or preferences 

will be considered and included as part of the decision making process, but they will not receive a 

formal response from the BLM. 

To facilitate analysis of comments and information submitted, only written comments will be accepted 

and need to at least include your full name and address, but preferably also include your phone number 

and email address, if applicable. They may be submitted electronically following instructions provided 

on the land use planning web page, or submitted by mail, or in person, to the following address: 

BLM, Phoenix District 

LS-SDNM RMP 

21605 North 7th Avenue 

Phoenix, AZ 85027 

Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment, including your personal 

identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personally identifying information from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Public meetings to provide an overview of the document, respond to questions, and take public 

comments will be announced by local media, website, and public mailings at least 15 days in advance. 

Exact dates, places, and times of public meetings will be posted on the land use planning web page. 

Printed copies of the Draft RMP/EIS have been sent to affected Federal, state, and local government 

agencies. Copies are also available for public inspection at the following BLM office locations: 

BLM, Lower Sonoran Field Office 

21605 North 7th Avenue 

Phoenix, Arizona 85027 

BLM, Arizona State Office 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Copies will also be available at the following public library branches: Apache Junction, Buckeye, Casa 

Grande, Gila Bend and Salazar-Ajo. 

Thank you for your continued interest in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP/EIS. We 

appreciate the information and suggestions you contribute to the planning process. For additional 

information or clarification regarding the plan or the planning process, please call the RMP Project 

Manager, Penny Foreman, at 623-580-5500 during business hours. You may also leave a message on 

the LSFO planning team’s voice mail at 623-580-5526, or you may send an email to 

blm_az_ls_sdnm_plan@blm.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Emily Garber 

Field Manager, Lower Sonoran Field Office 

Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... xlv

1. Purpose & Need for the RMP ................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2

1.1.1. Purpose and Need .................................................................................................. 2

1.1.2. Need for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMPs ................................................... 2

1.2. Planning Area and Setting ................................................................................................ 3

1.2.1. Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 3

1.2.2. Decision Areas ....................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2.1. Lower Sonoran Decision Area .................................................................... 4

1.2.2.2. SDNM Decision Area ................................................................................. 5

1.2.2.3. The Barry M. Goldwater Range Relinquished Parcels ............................... 5

1.3. Planning Process and Issues .............................................................................................. 5

1.3.1. Planning Process .................................................................................................... 5

1.3.2. Public Scoping ....................................................................................................... 7

1.3.3. Collaboration .......................................................................................................... 7

1.3.4. Planning Issues Addressed in the RMP Process .................................................... 8

1.3.4.1. Issue 1: Travel Management ....................................................................... 8

1.3.4.2. Issue 2: Wilderness Characteristics ............................................................ 9

1.3.4.3. Issue 3: Wildlife .......................................................................................... 9

1.3.4.4. Issue 4: Livestock Grazing ......................................................................... 9

1.3.4.5. Issue 5: Energy Development ................................................................... 10

1.3.4.6. Issue 6: Recreation .................................................................................... 10

1.3.5. Issues Considered But Not Analyzed .................................................................. 11

1.3.5.1. Issue Considered 1: Water Control ........................................................... 11

1.3.5.2. Issue Considered 2: Biological Resources ................................................ 11

1.3.5.3. Issue Considered 3: Livestock Grazing .................................................... 12

1.3.5.4. Issue Considered 4: Wild Horse & Burro Management ........................... 12

1.3.5.5. Issue Considered 5: Minerals Management .............................................. 12

1.3.5.6. Issue Considered 6: Land Tenure Adjustment & Withdrawals ................ 12

1.3.5.7. Issue Considered 7: Corridors, Communications Sites & Renewable

Energy Sites ................................................................................................ 13

1.3.5.8. Issue Considered 8: Special Area Designations ....................................... 13

1.3.5.9. Issue Considered 9: Visual Resources ...................................................... 14

1.3.5.10. Issue Considered 10: Travel Management ............................................. 14

1.3.5.11. Issue Considered 11: Airspace ................................................................ 14

1.3.5.12. Issue Considered 12: Socioeconomics ................................................... 15

August 2011 Table of Contents
iv Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1.3.5.13. Considered 13: Border Activity – Undocumented Immigrants and

Drug Smuggling ......................................................................................... 15

1.3.6. Other Elements not Addressed in this Plan .......................................................... 16

1.4. Planning Area Guidance ................................................................................................. 16

1.4.1. Lower Sonoran Planning Guidance ..................................................................... 16

1.4.1.1. Significance of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area ................................... 16

1.4.1.2. Management Vision .................................................................................. 17

1.4.1.3. Overarching Goals .................................................................................... 17

1.4.2. SDNM Planning Guidance .................................................................................. 17

1.4.2.1. Monument Purpose ................................................................................... 17

1.4.2.2. Significance of the SDNM ........................................................................ 21

1.4.2.3. Management Vision .................................................................................. 21

1.4.2.4. Overarching Goals .................................................................................... 21

1.5. Planning Criteria ............................................................................................................. 22

1.5.1. General Planning Criteria .................................................................................... 22

1.5.2. Lower Sonoran Planning Criteria ........................................................................ 23

1.5.3. SDNM Planning Criteria ...................................................................................... 24

1.6. Relationship to Other Plans ............................................................................................ 24

1.6.1. Relationship to Other Plans ................................................................................. 24

1.6.2. Relationship to Other Plans ................................................................................. 25

1.6.2.1. Specific Agreements ................................................................................. 25

2. Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 27

2.1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 29

2.2. Types of BLM Decisions ................................................................................................ 29

2.2.1. Resource Management Plan Decisions ................................................................ 30

2.2.1.1. Goals & Objectives ................................................................................... 30

2.2.1.2. Management Actions and Allowable Uses ............................................... 30

2.2.2. Implementation Decisions ................................................................................... 30

2.2.3. Administrative Actions ........................................................................................ 31

2.3. Summary of the Alternatives .......................................................................................... 31

2.3.1. No Action Alternative Summary ......................................................................... 31

2.3.2. Summary of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area Alternatives ............................. 31

2.3.3. Summary of SDNM Alternatives ......................................................................... 36

2.3.3.1. No-Action Alternative A ........................................................................... 36

2.3.3.2. Action Alternative B ................................................................................. 37

2.3.3.3. Action Alternative C ................................................................................. 37

2.3.3.4. Action Alternative D ................................................................................. 38

2.3.3.5. Preferred Alternative E ............................................................................. 39

2.4. Alternatives Considered but not Further Analyzed ........................................................ 40

2.4.1. Public Safety ........................................................................................................ 40

2.4.2. Travel Management ............................................................................................. 41

2.4.3. Land Tenure ......................................................................................................... 41

2.4.4. Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................ 41

2.5. Management Common to All Alternatives ..................................................................... 42

2.5.1. Existing Management Decisions and Decisions to be Carried Forward .............. 42

2.5.2. Wilderness ............................................................................................................ 42

2.5.3. Arizona Land Health Standards ........................................................................... 43

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS v

2.5.3.1. Standard One: Upland Sites ...................................................................... 44

2.5.3.2. Standard Two: Riparian-Wetland Sites ..................................................... 44

2.5.3.3. Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions ............................................. 45

2.6. Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 46

2.6.1. Standard Operating Procedures & Best Management Practices .......................... 47

2.7. Resources ........................................................................................................................ 48

2.7.1. Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 48

2.7.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Air Quality. 48

2.7.1.2. Action Alternatives for Air Quality (AQ) ................................................. 48

2.7.2. Cave Resources .................................................................................................... 51

2.7.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) For Cave

Resources ................................................................................................... 51

2.7.2.2. Action Alternatives for Cave Resources Management (CR) .................... 51

2.7.3. Cultural & Heritage Resources ............................................................................ 52

2.7.3.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternatives A (No Action) For

Cultural & Heritage Resources .................................................................. 53

2.7.3.2. Action Alternatives for Cultural & Heritage Resources (CL) .................. 54

2.7.4. Paleontological Resources (PL) ........................................................................... 61

2.7.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Paleontological Resources .......................................................................... 61

2.7.4.2. Action Alternatives for Paleontological Resources (PL) .......................... 61

2.7.5. Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) ............................................................. 63

2.7.5.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat ........................................................... 65

2.7.5.2. Action Alternatives for Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat

Management (PS) ....................................................................................... 69

2.7.6. Soil Resources (SL) ............................................................................................. 85

2.7.6.1. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A - No Action) Soil

Resources ................................................................................................... 85

2.7.6.2. Action Alternatives for Soil Resources (SL) ............................................ 86

2.7.7. Vegetation Resources ........................................................................................... 89

2.7.7.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) .................. 89

2.7.7.2. Action Alternatives for Vegetation Resources (VM) ................................ 91

2.7.8. Visual Resources (VR) ......................................................................................... 97

2.7.8.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for Visual

Resources ................................................................................................... 98

2.7.8.2. Action Alternatives for Visual Resources (VR) ........................................ 99

2.7.8.3. Management Actions and Allowable Uses ............................................... 99

2.7.9. Water Resources (WR) ....................................................................................... 102

2.7.9.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Water

Resources (WR) ....................................................................................... 102

2.7.9.2. Action Alternatives for Water Resources (WR): .................................... 103

2.7.10. Wild Horse & Burro Management (HB) .......................................................... 106

2.7.10.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) .............. 106

2.7.10.2. Wild Horse & Burro (HB) Action Alternatives .................................... 107

2.7.11. Wilderness Characteristics (WC) ..................................................................... 108

2.7.11.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A – No Action for

Wilderness Characteristics ....................................................................... 110

2.7.11.2. Action Alternatives for Wilderness Characteristics (WC) .................... 110

August 2011 Table of Contents
vi Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.12. Wildland Fire Management (WF) .................................................................... 114

2.7.12.1. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A - No Action) ............. 114

2.7.12.2. Action Alternatives for Wildland Fire Management (WF)) ................. 115

2.7.12.3. Administrative Actions ......................................................................... 116

2.8. Resource Uses ............................................................................................................... 118

2.8.1. Lands & Realty (LR) ......................................................................................... 118

2.8.1.1. Land Use Authorizations (LUAs) ........................................................... 118

2.8.1.2. Land Tenure ............................................................................................ 122

2.8.1.3. Withdrawals, Classifications & Segregations ......................................... 124

2.8.1.4. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A — No Action) Lands

& Realty ................................................................................................... 125

2.8.1.5. Action Alternatives for Lands & Realty (LR) ........................................ 128

2.8.2. Livestock Grazing (GR) ..................................................................................... 137

2.8.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Livestock

Grazing ..................................................................................................... 140

2.8.2.2. Action Alternatives for Livestock Grazing (GR) .................................... 142

2.8.3. Minerals Management (MM) ............................................................................. 151

2.8.3.1. Existing Management Decision, Alternative A (No Action) .................. 151

2.8.3.2. Action Alternatives for Minerals Management (MM) ............................ 153

2.8.4. Recreation Management (RM) .......................................................................... 158

2.8.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) For

Recreation Management ........................................................................... 159

2.8.4.2. Action Alternatives for Recreation Management (RM) ......................... 165

2.8.5. Travel Management (TM) .................................................................................. 180

2.8.5.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A — No Action For

Travel Management .................................................................................. 181

2.8.5.2. Action Alternatives for Travel Management (TM) ................................. 183

2.9. Special Designations ..................................................................................................... 194

2.9.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ........................................... 194

2.9.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) ................ 194

2.9.1.2. Action Alternatives for Areas of Environmental Concern (AC) ............ 195

2.9.2. National Byways (NB) ....................................................................................... 200

2.9.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternatives A (No Action) National

Byways ..................................................................................................... 200

2.9.2.2. Action Alternatives for National Byways (BY) ...................................... 200

2.9.3. National Trails (NT) ........................................................................................... 203

2.9.3.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) ................ 203

2.9.3.2. Management Actions for National Trails (NT) Action Alternatives ...... 203

2.9.4. Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area (GB) .......................... 207

2.9.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) ................ 207

2.9.4.2. Management Actions for Resource Conservation Area (RCA) Action

Alternatives .............................................................................................. 208

2.10. Tribal Interests, Public Safety, & Social and Economic Conditions .......................... 209

2.10.1. Hazardous Materials & Public Safety .............................................................. 209

2.10.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety ...................................................... 209

2.10.1.2. Action Alternatives for Hazardous Materials & Public Safety (PS) ..... 209

2.10.1.3. Management Actions and Allowable Uses ........................................... 210

2.11. Scientific Research, Education & Public Outreach ..................................................... 213

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS vii

2.11.1. Scientific Research ........................................................................................... 213

2.11.2. Interpretation, Environmental Education & Outreach ..................................... 213

2.11.2.1. Resources Education ............................................................................. 214

2.11.2.2. Public Uses and Visitor Information ..................................................... 215

2.11.2.3. Public Safety and Fire Education .......................................................... 215

2.12. Implementation, Adaptive Management & Monitoring ............................................. 215

2.12.1. Implementation & Partnerships ....................................................................... 215

2.12.2. Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 216

2.12.3. Monitoring & Partnerships .............................................................................. 217

2.13. Requirements for Further Environmental Analysis .................................................... 217

2.14. Interrelationships ......................................................................................................... 218

2.15. Comparison of Impact Intensities ............................................................................... 219

3. Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 251

3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 253

3.2. Resources ...................................................................................................................... 254

3.2.1. Air Quality ......................................................................................................... 254

3.2.1.1. Clean Air Act Land Classifications ......................................................... 254

3.2.1.2. Emission Sources .................................................................................... 255

3.2.1.3. Quantifiable Indicators ............................................................................ 256

3.2.2. Cave Resources .................................................................................................. 260

3.2.3. Climate Change .................................................................................................. 260

3.2.3.1. Emission Sources .................................................................................... 260

3.2.3.2. Global Effects ......................................................................................... 261

3.2.3.3. Regional Effects ...................................................................................... 261

3.2.4. Cultural & Heritage Resources .......................................................................... 263

3.2.5. Paleontological Resources ................................................................................. 266

3.2.6. Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat ................................................................... 266

3.2.6.1. Wildlife Habitats ..................................................................................... 267

3.2.6.2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species ..................... 269

3.2.6.3. BLM Sensitive and Other Priority Wildlife Species ............................... 276

3.2.6.4. Non-native Invasive Animal Species ...................................................... 279

3.2.7. Soil Resources .................................................................................................... 279

3.2.8. Vegetation Resources ......................................................................................... 282

3.2.8.1. Vegetation Communities ......................................................................... 283

3.2.8.2. Special Status Plant Species .................................................................... 285

3.2.9. Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 287

3.2.9.1. Visual and Scenic Resources .................................................................. 289

3.2.10. Water Resources ............................................................................................... 289

3.2.10.1. Groundwater ......................................................................................... 289

3.2.10.2. Surface Water ........................................................................................ 290

3.2.10.3. Water Rights .......................................................................................... 296

3.2.11. Wild Horse & Burro Management ................................................................... 296

3.2.12. Wilderness Characteristics ............................................................................... 298

3.2.13. Wildland Fire Management ............................................................................. 302

3.2.13.1. Fire Ecology .......................................................................................... 302

3.2.13.2. Fire and Fuels Management .................................................................. 303

3.2.13.3. Fire Regimes and Condition Classes .................................................... 304

August 2011 Table of Contents
viii Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.2.13.4. Fire History ........................................................................................... 306

3.3. Resource Uses ............................................................................................................... 307

3.3.1. Lands & Realty .................................................................................................. 307

3.3.1.1. Land Use Authorizations ........................................................................ 307

3.3.1.2. Withdrawals ............................................................................................ 316

3.3.1.3. Land Tenure ............................................................................................ 317

3.3.2. Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................. 319

3.3.2.1. Rangeland Health and Condition ............................................................ 319

3.3.2.2. Grazing in the SDNM ............................................................................. 322

3.3.2.3. Range Improvements .............................................................................. 323

3.3.3. Minerals Management ....................................................................................... 323

3.3.3.1. Categories of Minerals on BLM Lands .................................................. 324

3.3.3.2. Mineral Potential Maps ........................................................................... 329

3.3.4. Recreation Management .................................................................................... 330

3.3.4.1. Recreation Management in the Decision Areas ...................................... 330

3.3.5. Travel Management ........................................................................................... 333

3.3.5.1. Regional Travel Routes ........................................................................... 333

3.3.5.2. Motorized Vehicle Access to Public Lands ............................................ 335

3.3.5.3. Existing Travel Management Situation in the Decision Areas ............... 336

3.3.5.4. Non-Motorized Travel ............................................................................ 336

3.3.5.5. Visitor Use & Travel Modes by Geographic Area .................................. 337

3.3.5.6. Data Collection and Analysis for Travel Planning ................................. 338

3.4. Special Designations ..................................................................................................... 339

3.4.1. National Landscape Conservation System ......................................................... 339

3.4.2. Congressional Designations ............................................................................... 341

3.4.2.1. Wilderness Areas .................................................................................... 341

3.4.2.2. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail ........................................ 342

3.4.3. Administrative Designations .............................................................................. 343

3.4.3.1. Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area ......................... 343

3.4.3.2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ............................................... 344

3.4.4. Other Special Designations ................................................................................ 345

3.5. Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Social and Economic Conditions ............................. 345

3.5.1. Tribal Interests ................................................................................................... 345

3.5.2. Hazardous Materials & Public Safety ................................................................ 347

3.5.2.1. Landfills and Wildcat Dumping .............................................................. 347

3.5.2.2. Active and Abandoned Mines ................................................................. 348

3.5.2.3. Military Operations and Unexploded Ordnance ..................................... 348

3.5.2.4. Recreational Target Shooting .................................................................. 349

3.5.2.5. Motor-Vehicle Operations ....................................................................... 351

3.5.2.6. Other Permitted Uses .............................................................................. 352

3.5.2.7. Illegal Drug Production ........................................................................... 352

3.5.2.8. Drug Smuggling and Undocumented Immigrant Traffic ........................ 352

3.5.2.9. Wildfires and Fire Management .............................................................. 353

3.5.3. Social and Economic Conditions ....................................................................... 354

3.5.3.1. Demographics ......................................................................................... 354

3.5.3.2. Employment, Income, and Subsistence .................................................. 357

3.5.3.3. Attractiveness of the Decision Areas ...................................................... 366

3.5.3.4. Environmental Justice ............................................................................. 367

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS ix

4. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 371

4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 373

4.1.1. Impact Assessment Methods .............................................................................. 373

4.1.2. Overall Assumptions .......................................................................................... 373

4.1.3. Levels of Analysis (Programmatic & Implementation) ..................................... 374

4.1.4. Types of Effects (Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative) .......................................... 374

4.1.5. Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts .................................................. 375

4.1.6. Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS ............................................. 376

4.2. Impacts on Air Quality .................................................................................................. 385

4.2.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 385

4.2.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 385

4.2.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 386

4.2.1.3. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios ................................... 386

4.2.1.4. Program Areas with no Impacts on Air Quality ..................................... 386

4.2.1.5. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 386

4.2.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 387

4.2.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 387

4.2.2.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 387

4.2.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 387

4.2.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 387

4.2.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 387

4.2.3.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 387

4.2.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 389

4.2.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 391

4.2.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 391

4.2.4.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 391

4.2.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 392

4.2.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 393

4.2.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 393

4.2.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 394

4.2.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 395

4.2.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 397

4.2.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 397

4.2.6.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 397

4.2.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 398

4.2.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 399

4.2.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 399

4.2.7.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 399

4.2.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 400

4.3. Impacts on Cave Resources .......................................................................................... 402

4.4. Impacts on Cultural & Heritage Resources .................................................................. 403

4.4.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 404

4.4.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 404

4.4.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 404

4.4.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 405

4.4.1.4. Program Areas with No Impacts on Cultural Resources ........................ 406

4.4.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 406

4.4.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 406

August 2011 Table of Contents
x Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.4.2.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 408

4.4.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 409

4.4.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 409

4.4.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 409

4.4.3.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 410

4.4.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 413

4.4.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 414

4.4.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 414

4.4.4.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 415

4.4.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 418

4.4.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 420

4.4.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 420

4.4.5.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 420

4.4.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 423

4.4.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 425

4.4.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 425

4.4.6.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 425

4.4.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 427

4.4.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 429

4.4.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 429

4.4.7.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 429

4.4.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 432

4.5. Impacts on Paleontological Resources .......................................................................... 434

4.6. Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat Management ..................................... 435

4.6.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 436

4.6.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 436

4.6.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 436

4.6.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and

Habitat Management ................................................................................ 437

4.6.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 437

4.6.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 438

4.6.2.1. Common to Both Decision Areas ........................................................... 438

4.6.2.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 438

4.6.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 439

4.6.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 439

4.6.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 439

4.6.3.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 440

4.6.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 443

4.6.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 444

4.6.4.1. Common to Both Decision Areas ........................................................... 444

4.6.4.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 446

4.6.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 448

4.6.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 450

4.6.5.1. Common to Both Decision Areas ........................................................... 450

4.6.5.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 452

4.6.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 454

4.6.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 455

4.6.6.1. Common to Both Decision Areas ........................................................... 455

4.6.6.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 456

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xi

4.6.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 459

4.6.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 460

4.6.7.1. Common to Both Decision Areas ........................................................... 460

4.6.7.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 461

4.6.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 463

4.7. Impacts on Soil Resources ............................................................................................ 465

4.7.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 465

4.7.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 465

4.7.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 465

4.7.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Soil Resources ............................... 466

4.7.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 466

4.7.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 467

4.7.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 467

4.7.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 468

4.7.3.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 468

4.7.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 472

4.7.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 475

4.7.4.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 475

4.7.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 477

4.7.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 479

4.7.5.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 479

4.7.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 482

4.7.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 484

4.7.6.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 484

4.7.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 487

4.7.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 489

4.7.7.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 489

4.7.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 492

4.8. Impacts on Vegetation Resources ................................................................................. 494

4.8.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 494

4.8.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 494

4.8.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 494

4.8.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Vegetation Resources .................... 494

4.8.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 495

4.8.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 495

4.8.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 495

4.8.2.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 497

4.8.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 497

4.8.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 498

4.8.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 498

4.8.3.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 498

4.8.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 501

4.8.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 504

4.8.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 504

4.8.4.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 504

4.8.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 506

4.8.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 507

4.8.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 507

4.8.5.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 508

August 2011 Table of Contents
xii Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.8.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 510

4.8.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 511

4.8.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 511

4.8.6.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 511

4.8.7. Sonoran Desert National Monument ................................................................. 513

4.8.8. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 515

4.8.8.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 515

4.8.8.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 515

4.8.8.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 516

4.9. Impacts on Visual Resources ........................................................................................ 519

4.9.1. Methods of Analysis .......................................................................................... 519

4.9.1.1. Indicators ................................................................................................. 519

4.9.1.2. Assumptions ............................................................................................ 519

4.9.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Visual Resources ........................... 520

4.9.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale ...................................................................... 520

4.9.2. Common to All Alternatives .............................................................................. 521

4.9.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................... 521

4.9.2.2. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 522

4.9.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 524

4.9.3. Alternative A (No Action) ................................................................................. 526

4.9.3.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 526

4.9.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 527

4.9.4. Alternative B ...................................................................................................... 528

4.9.4.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 528

4.9.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 529

4.9.5. Alternative C ...................................................................................................... 530

4.9.5.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 530

4.9.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 531

4.9.6. Alternative D ...................................................................................................... 532

4.9.6.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 532

4.9.7. Sonoran Desert National Monument ................................................................. 533

4.9.8. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................. 534

4.9.8.1. Lower Sonoran ........................................................................................ 534

4.9.8.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument ...................................................... 535

4.10. Impacts on Water Resources ....................................................................................... 537

4.10.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 537

4.10.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 537

4.10.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 537

4.10.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Water Resources .......................... 538

4.10.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 538

4.10.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 539

4.10.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 539

4.10.3.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 539

4.10.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 543

4.10.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 545

4.10.4.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 545

4.10.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 548

4.10.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 550

4.10.5.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 550

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xiii

4.10.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 553

4.10.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 554

4.10.6.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 554

4.10.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 557

4.10.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 559

4.10.7.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 559

4.10.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 561

4.11. Impacts on Wild Horse & Burro Management ........................................................... 562

4.12. Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics ....................................................................... 563

4.12.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 563

4.12.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 563

4.12.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 564

4.12.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics .......... 564

4.12.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 564

4.12.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 565

4.12.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 565

4.12.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 566

4.12.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 566

4.12.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 567

4.12.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 568

4.12.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 568

4.12.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 574

4.12.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 577

4.12.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 577

4.12.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 578

4.12.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 581

4.12.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 583

4.12.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 584

4.12.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 584

4.12.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 588

4.12.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 591

4.12.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 591

4.12.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 591

4.12.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 594

4.12.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 596

4.12.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 597

4.12.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 597

4.12.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 600

4.13. Impacts on Wildland Fire Management ...................................................................... 603

4.13.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 603

4.13.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 603

4.13.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 603

4.13.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Wildland Fire Management ......... 604

4.13.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 604

4.13.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 604

4.13.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 604

4.13.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 606

4.13.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 606

4.13.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 606

August 2011 Table of Contents
xiv Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.13.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 606

4.13.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 608

4.13.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 608

4.13.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 609

4.13.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 609

4.13.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 610

4.13.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 611

4.13.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 612

4.13.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 612

4.13.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 613

4.13.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 613

4.13.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 614

4.13.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 614

4.13.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 615

4.13.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 615

4.13.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 616

4.13.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 616

4.13.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 617

4.13.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 617

4.14. Impacts on Lands & Realty Management ................................................................... 618

4.14.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 618

4.14.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 618

4.14.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 618

4.14.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Lands & Realty Management ...... 619

4.14.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 619

4.14.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 619

4.14.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 619

4.14.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 621

4.14.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 621

4.14.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 622

4.14.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 622

4.14.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 622

4.14.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 626

4.14.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 626

4.14.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 627

4.14.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 629

4.14.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 631

4.14.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 631

4.14.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 631

4.14.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 634

4.14.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 635

4.14.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 635

4.14.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 635

4.14.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 637

4.14.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 638

4.14.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 638

4.14.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 638

4.14.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 639

4.15. Impacts on Livestock Grazing .................................................................................... 641

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xv

4.15.1. Method of Analysis .......................................................................................... 641

4.15.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 641

4.15.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 641

4.15.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Livestock Grazing ....................... 642

4.15.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 642

4.15.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 642

4.15.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 642

4.15.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 643

4.15.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 644

4.15.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 644

4.15.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 644

4.15.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 645

4.15.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 647

4.15.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 649

4.15.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 649

4.15.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 650

4.15.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 652

4.15.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 655

4.15.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 655

4.15.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 655

4.15.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 658

4.15.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 660

4.15.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 660

4.15.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 661

4.15.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 661

4.15.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 661

4.15.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 661

4.15.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 661

4.15.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 663

4.16. Impacts on Minerals Management .............................................................................. 666

4.16.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 666

4.16.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 666

4.16.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 666

4.16.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Minerals ....................................... 666

4.16.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 667

4.16.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 667

4.16.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 667

4.16.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 667

4.16.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 667

4.16.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 667

4.16.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 668

4.16.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 668

4.16.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 670

4.16.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 670

4.16.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 670

4.16.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 670

4.16.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 672

4.16.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 673

4.16.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 673

August 2011 Table of Contents
xvi Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.16.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 673

4.16.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 675

4.16.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 675

4.16.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 675

4.16.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 675

4.16.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 677

4.16.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 677

4.16.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 678

4.16.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 678

4.16.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 680

4.17. Impacts on Recreation Management ........................................................................... 681

4.17.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 682

4.17.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 682

4.17.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 682

4.17.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Recreation ................................... 682

4.17.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scales ................................................................... 682

4.17.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 683

4.17.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 683

4.17.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 685

4.17.3.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 685

4.17.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 687

4.17.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 688

4.17.4.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 688

4.17.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 691

4.17.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 693

4.17.5.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 693

4.17.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 694

4.17.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 696

4.17.6.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 696

4.17.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 697

4.17.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 698

4.17.7.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 698

4.17.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 699

4.18. Impacts on Travel Management .................................................................................. 700

4.18.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 704

4.18.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 704

4.18.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 706

4.18.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Travel Management ..................... 706

4.18.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 707

4.18.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 707

4.18.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 707

4.18.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 707

4.18.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 707

4.18.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 710

4.18.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 714

4.18.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 714

4.18.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 714

4.18.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 718

4.18.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 722

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xvii

4.18.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 722

4.18.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 722

4.18.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 726

4.18.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 729

4.18.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 729

4.18.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 737

4.18.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 737

4.18.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 737

4.18.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 740

4.19. Impacts on Special Designations ................................................................................ 743

4.19.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 744

4.19.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 744

4.19.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 745

4.19.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 747

4.19.1.4. Program Areas with no Impacts on Special Designations .................... 747

4.19.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 748

4.19.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 748

4.19.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 751

4.19.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 751

4.19.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 752

4.19.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 752

4.19.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 755

4.19.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 761

4.19.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 765

4.19.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 766

4.19.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 767

4.19.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 773

4.19.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 777

4.19.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 777

4.19.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 779

4.19.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 785

4.19.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 789

4.19.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 789

4.19.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 790

4.19.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 801

4.19.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 805

4.19.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 805

4.19.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 806

4.19.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 814

4.20. Impacts on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety ...................................................... 818

4.20.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 818

4.20.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 818

4.20.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 819

4.20.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety ........................................................................................................ 819

4.20.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 820

4.20.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 820

4.20.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 820

4.20.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 820

August 2011 Table of Contents
xviii Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.20.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 820

4.20.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 820

4.20.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 820

4.20.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 821

4.20.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 823

4.20.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 825

4.20.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 825

4.20.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 825

4.20.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 827

4.20.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 829

4.20.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 829

4.20.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 829

4.20.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 830

4.20.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 832

4.20.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 832

4.20.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 832

4.20.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 833

4.20.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 834

4.20.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 834

4.20.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 835

4.20.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 836

4.21. Impacts on Socioeconomics ........................................................................................ 837

4.21.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 837

4.21.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 837

4.21.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 837

4.21.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Socioeconomics ........................... 838

4.21.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 838

4.21.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 839

4.21.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 839

4.21.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 839

4.21.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 839

4.21.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 840

4.21.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 840

4.21.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 842

4.21.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 843

4.21.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 843

4.21.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 844

4.21.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 845

4.21.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 846

4.21.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 847

4.21.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 847

4.21.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 849

4.21.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 850

4.21.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 851

4.21.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 852

4.21.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 854

4.21.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 855

4.21.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 856

4.21.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 856

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xix

4.21.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 858

4.21.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 858

4.22. Impacts on Environmental Justice .............................................................................. 859

4.22.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 859

4.22.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 859

4.22.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 859

4.22.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Environmental Justice .................. 859

4.22.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 859

4.22.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 859

4.22.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 859

4.22.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 860

4.22.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 860

4.22.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 860

4.22.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 860

4.22.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 860

4.22.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 861

4.22.4.1. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 861

4.22.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 861

4.22.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 861

4.22.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 861

4.22.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 862

4.22.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 862

4.22.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 862

4.22.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 862

4.22.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 862

4.22.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 862

4.22.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 862

4.22.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 862

4.22.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 863

4.22.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 863

4.23. Impacts on Tribal Interests .......................................................................................... 864

4.23.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 864

4.23.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 864

4.23.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 864

4.23.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Tribal Interests ............................. 864

4.23.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 864

4.23.2. Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 865

4.23.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 865

4.23.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 865

4.23.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 865

4.23.3. Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................... 865

4.23.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 865

4.23.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 867

4.23.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 868

4.23.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 868

4.23.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 868

4.23.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 869

4.23.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 870

4.23.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 870

August 2011 Table of Contents
xx Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.23.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 870

4.23.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 871

4.23.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 871

4.23.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 872

4.23.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 872

4.23.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 873

4.23.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 873

4.23.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................... 874

4.23.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 874

4.23.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 875

4.23.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 875

4.24. Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................... 875

4.24.1. Methods of Analysis ........................................................................................ 875

4.24.1.1. Indicators ............................................................................................... 875

4.24.1.2. Assumptions .......................................................................................... 876

4.24.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale .................................................................... 876

4.24.2. common to all alternatives ............................................................................... 876

4.24.2.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 876

4.24.2.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 882

4.24.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 883

4.24.3. Alternative a (no Action) ................................................................................. 884

4.24.3.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 884

4.24.3.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 885

4.24.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 888

4.24.4. Alternative B .................................................................................................... 890

4.24.4.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 890

4.24.4.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 891

4.24.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 893

4.24.5. Alternative C .................................................................................................... 895

4.24.5.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 895

4.24.5.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 895

4.24.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 897

4.24.6. Alternative D .................................................................................................... 899

4.24.6.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 899

4.24.6.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 899

4.24.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 901

4.24.7. Alternative e (Preferred alternative) ................................................................ 902

4.24.7.1. Both Decision Areas ............................................................................. 902

4.24.7.2. Lower Sonoran ...................................................................................... 903

4.24.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument .................................................... 904

4.25. Implementation Level Analysis .................................................................................. 906

4.25.1. Methodology for Analyzing Implementation-Level Decisions Within the

SDNM .............................................................................................................. 906

4.25.1.1. Route Designations ............................................................................... 906

4.25.1.2. Livestock Grazing ................................................................................. 907

4.25.1.3. Target Shooting ..................................................................................... 907

4.25.2. Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural & Historical Sites Monument

Objects .............................................................................................................. 907

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxi

4.25.3. Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife & Habitat Species

Monument Objects ........................................................................................... 920

4.25.4. Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation Monument Objects ............... 931

Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 947

Appendix A. Sonoran Desert National Monument Presidential Proclamation .................... 999

Appendix B. Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies .................................................... 1003

B.1. General Laws, Regulations & Policies ....................................................................... 1003

B.1.1. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979 ............................. 1003

B.1.2. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook ............................................................... 1003

B.1.3. BLM Manual ................................................................................................... 1003

B.1.4. Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 & Amendments of 1977 and 1990 ................. 1004

B.1.5. CERLA and SARA ......................................................................................... 1004

B.1.6. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 ......................................................... 1005

B.1.7. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898, February 11, 1994) ..................... 1005

B.1.8. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 ....................... 1005

B.1.9. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 ...................................... 1006

B.1.10. Sikes Act of 1960 .......................................................................................... 1006

B.1.11. Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented ........................ 1006

B.1.12. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968 .............................................. 1007

B.2. Program-Specific Laws, Regulations & Policies ....................................................... 1007

B.2.1. Resources ........................................................................................................ 1007

B.2.2. Resource Uses ................................................................................................. 1014

B.2.3. Special Designation Management ................................................................... 1019

B.2.4. Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Socioeconomics .......................................... 1020

Appendix C. State, County, Local and Other Related Agency Plans .................................. 1023

C.1. State ............................................................................................................................ 1023

C.2. County ........................................................................................................................ 1023

C.3. City ............................................................................................................................. 1024

C.4. Other Federal .............................................................................................................. 1024

Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment ................................................. 1027

D.1. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment .......................................................... 1027

D.2. ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the Lower Gila River ................................. 1034

Appendix E. Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis ....................................................... 1039

E.1. Background ................................................................................................................. 1039

E.1.1. A Brief History of Grazing on Public Lands ................................................... 1039

E.1.2. Historic Use of Gila Bend, Arizona, and Surrounding Areas ......................... 1040

August 2011 Table of Contents
xxii Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

E.1.3. Current Land Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Management on

Public Lands ................................................................................................... 1041

E.1.4. Current Livestock Grazing Management on the SDNM ................................. 1041

E.1.5. Legal Mandates Relating to Public Lands Grazing ......................................... 1042

E.2. Compatibility Analysis & Determination Process ..................................................... 1042

E.2.1. Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects Specific to the SDNM ...................... 1043

E.2.2. Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review .............................................................. 1047

E.2.2.1. Functioning Desert Ecosystem ............................................................. 1047

E.2.2.2. Saguaro Cactus Forests ......................................................................... 1048

E.2.2.3. Vegetation Communities ...................................................................... 1048

E.2.2.4. Wildlife ................................................................................................. 1049

E.2.2.5. Archaeological and Historic Sites ........................................................ 1050

E.2.2.6. Summary of the Literature Review ...................................................... 1052

E.2.3. Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation ..................................................... 1052

E.2.3.1. Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................... 1054

E.2.3.2. Analysis, Interpretation & Evaluation of Effects of Livestock Grazing

on Monument Objects ............................................................................ 1055

E.2.3.3. Summary of Land Health Evaluation Findings by Monument Object . 1066

E.2.4. Step 4: Analysis of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on Archaeological &

Historic Objects .............................................................................................. 1071

E.2.4.1. Indicators to Evaluate the Condition of Monument Cultural Objects .. 1071

E.2.4.2. Summary of Grazing Effects on Cultural Monument Objects ............. 1073

E.2.5. Step 5: Compatibility Analysis Findings and Determination ......................... 1074

E.2.5.1. Findings ................................................................................................ 1074

E.2.5.2. Determination ....................................................................................... 1075

E.2.6. Step 6: Develop Full Range of Livestock Grazing Management Alternatives

in the Draft Lower Sonoran & SDNM RMP .................................................. 1075

E.2.6.1. Manager Recommendation ................................................................... 1076

E.3. References .................................................................................................................. 1077

Appendix F. Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National

Monument ..................................................................................................................... 1081

F.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1081

F.2. Monument Profile ....................................................................................................... 1081

F.2.1. Monument Description .................................................................................... 1081

F.2.2. Physical Description of the SDNM .................................................................. 1082

F.2.2.1. Grazing Allotments within the SDNM ................................................. 1082

F.2.2.2. Climate .................................................................................................. 1083

F.2.2.3. Soils ....................................................................................................... 1084

F.2.2.4. Watersheds ............................................................................................ 1084

F.2.2.5. Water Quality ........................................................................................ 1084

F.2.3. Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 1084

F.2.3.1. Vegetation .............................................................................................. 1084

F.2.3.2. Major Land Resource Areas ................................................................. 1086

F.2.3.3. Wildlife Resources ................................................................................ 1086

F.2.3.4. Special Status and Sensitive Species: ................................................... 1086

F.2.3.5. General Wildlife: .................................................................................. 1088

F.2.4. Special Management Areas .............................................................................. 1088

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxiii

F.2.5. Recreational Resources .................................................................................... 1089

F.2.6. Visual Resources .............................................................................................. 1089

F.2.7. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 1089

F.3. Grazing Management .................................................................................................. 1089

F.3.1. Grazing History ................................................................................................ 1089

F.3.2. Current Management ........................................................................................ 1090

F.3.3. Terms and Conditions of the Current Permits .................................................. 1090

F.4. Planning and Environmental Documents .................................................................... 1092

F.5. Rangeland Management Programs Objectives ........................................................... 1092

F.5.1. BLM Objectives ............................................................................................... 1092

F.5.2. SDNM Desired Future Conditions ................................................................... 1093

F.5.3. SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site ......................................... 1093

F.5.3.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites .............................................. 1097

F.5.3.2. Land Health Standard 2 — Riparian — Wetland Site .......................... 1098

F.5.3.3. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resource Conditions .................... 1098

F.5.3.4. Ecological Site-Level Desired Plant Community Objectives ............... 1098

F.5.4. Utilization Guidelines ...................................................................................... 1102

F.6. Inventory and Monitoring Methodology ..................................................................... 1102

F.6.1. Rangeland Survey ............................................................................................ 1102

F.6.2. Key Areas ......................................................................................................... 1103

F.6.3. Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site Data ............................................................ 1104

F.7. Management Evaluation and Summary of Studies Data ............................................ 1105

F.7.1. Actual Use ........................................................................................................ 1105

F.7.2. Precipitation ..................................................................................................... 1105

F.7.3. Key Area Data .................................................................................................. 1106

F.7.4. Utilization and Use Pattern Mapping ............................................................... 1106

F.8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 1107

F.9. Barry M. Goldwater Range/Area A Reference Site .................................................... 1108

F.10. Big Horn Allotment .................................................................................................. 1108

F.10.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1108

F.10.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1109

F.10.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1109

F.10.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................ 1113

F.11. Beloat Allotment ....................................................................................................... 1114

F.11.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1114

F.11.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1114

F.11.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1115

F.11.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................. 1117

F.12. Conley Allotment ...................................................................................................... 1118

F.12.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1118

F.12.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1119

F.12.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1119

F.12.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................ 1121

F.13. Hazen Allotment ....................................................................................................... 1123

F.13.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1123

F.13.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1123

August 2011 Table of Contents
xxiv Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.13.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1124

F.13.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................ 1126

F.14. Lower Vekol Allotment ............................................................................................. 1127

F.14.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1127

F.14.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1127

F.14.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1127

F.14.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................ 1129

F.15. Arnold Allotment ...................................................................................................... 1130

F.15.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites ....................................................... 1130

F.15.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions ........................... 1131

F.15.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas and

PBI Sites ................................................................................................. 1131

F.15.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis ................................................ 1131

F.16. Management Recommendations ............................................................................... 1132

F.17. References ................................................................................................................. 1134

F.18. ATTACHMENT 1: Arizona Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for

Grazing Administration .......................................................................................... 1135

F.18.1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1135

F.18.2. Fundamentals & Definitions of Rangeland Health ........................................ 1136

F.18.3. Standards and Guidelines Definitions ............................................................ 1137

F.18.3.1. Implementing Standards & Guidelines ............................................... 1138

F.18.4. Arizona Standards & Guidelines .................................................................... 1139

F.18.4.1. Standard 1: Upland Sites .................................................................... 1139

F.18.4.2. Standard 2: Riparian-Wetland Sites .................................................... 1140

F.18.4.3. Standard 3: Desired Resource Conditions .......................................... 1141

F.18.5. Lotic and Lentic Checklist ............................................................................. 1142

F.19. ATTACHMENT 2: SDNM Presidential Proclamation ............................................. 1144

F.20. ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data .......................................................................... 1147

F.21. ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots ................................. 1165

F.22. ATTACHMENT 5: Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study ............................ 1179

F.23. ATTACHMENT 6: Resource Condition Objectives Related to Grazing

Management ........................................................................................................... 1180

F.24. ATTACHMENT 7: Key Management Species List ................................................. 1180

Appendix G. Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreational Target Shooting

Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 1183

G.1. Summary .................................................................................................................... 1183

G.2. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1183

G.3. Method of Analysis .................................................................................................... 1184

G.3.1. Phase One: GIS Analysis ................................................................................ 1184

G.3.1.1. GIS Criteria 1: Presence of Monument Objects .................................. 1184

G.3.1.2. GIS Criteria 2: Presence of Suitable Terrain ....................................... 1185

G.3.2. Phase Two: Field Analysis .............................................................................. 1186

G.3.2.1. Field Criteria 1: Monument Objects or High Resource Sensitivity ..... 1186

G.3.2.2. Field Criteria 2: Visitor Safety and Experience ................................... 1187

G.3.2.3. Field Criteria 3: Accessibility by Motor Vehicle ................................. 1189

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxv

G.3.2.4. Field Criteria 4: Physical Suitability of Terrain ................................... 1189

G.3.2.5. Field Rating .......................................................................................... 1190

G.4. Results of Analysis ..................................................................................................... 1190

G.4.1. Phase One: GIS Analysis ................................................................................ 1190

G.4.1.1. Results from Significant Presence of Monument Objects ................... 1190

G.4.1.2. Results from Presence of Suitable Terrain ........................................... 1191

G.4.2. Phase Two: Field Analysis .............................................................................. 1191

G.4.2.1. Step 1: Summary Rankings by Area and Field Criteria ...................... 1191

G.4.2.2. Step 2: Numeric Suitability Rankings by Area and Field Criteria ...... 1192

G.4.2.3. Step 3: Site Categorization Based on Numeric Ranking ..................... 1192

G.5. Summary Conclusions ............................................................................................... 1193

G.6. Figures ........................................................................................................................ 1194

G.7. References .................................................................................................................. 1202

G.8. Attachment G-1: Comparison of Impacts Documented at Shooting and

Non-Shooting Sites ................................................................................................ 1202

G.8.1. Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 1202

G.8.2. Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................... 1204

G.8.2.1. Method ................................................................................................. 1204

G.9. Attachment G-2: Sample Field Rating Sheet ............................................................. 1209

Appendix H. Best Management Practices & Standard Operating Procedures .................. 1211

H.1. Resources ................................................................................................................... 1211

H.1.1. Cave Resources ............................................................................................... 1211

H.1.2. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 1211

H.1.3. Paleontological Resources .............................................................................. 1212

H.1.4. Soil Resources ................................................................................................. 1213

H.1.5. Vegetation Resources ...................................................................................... 1213

H.1.6. Visual Resource Management ......................................................................... 1214

H.1.7. Wildlife Resources .......................................................................................... 1214

H.2. Resource Uses ............................................................................................................ 1215

H.2.1. Lands & Realty ............................................................................................... 1215

H.2.2. Livestock Grazing ........................................................................................... 1217

H.2.3. Mineral Resources ........................................................................................... 1218

H.2.4. Recreation ....................................................................................................... 1218

H.2.5. Travel Management ........................................................................................ 1225

H.2.6. Wildland Fire & Fuels Management ............................................................... 1226

H.3. Special Designations .................................................................................................. 1227

H.3.1. Back Country Byways .................................................................................... 1227

H.3.2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ....................................................... 1228

H.4. Social & Economic .................................................................................................... 1228

H.4.1. Public Health & Safety ................................................................................... 1228

Appendix I. Cultural Use Allocations ..................................................................................... 1231

Appendix J. Wildlife & Plant Priority Species ...................................................................... 1235

August 2011 Table of Contents
xxvi Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Appendix K. Conservation Measures from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions 1239

Appendix L. Guidelines for Grazing Administration ........................................................... 1253

Appendix M. Painted Rock Burro Herd Manageability Analysis ....................................... 1257

Appendix N. Analysis for Renewable Energy Sensitivity ..................................................... 1263

Appendix O. Arizona Land Tenure Strategy ......................................................................... 1267

O.1. Background Summary ................................................................................................ 1267

O.2. Strategic Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. 1267

O.3. Acquisition Tools for Land Tenure ............................................................................ 1268

O.4. Disposal Tools for Land Tenure ................................................................................. 1269

O.5. Implementation Goals and Measures ......................................................................... 1270

O.6. LAND TENURE EVALUATION PROCESS ........................................................... 1273

O.7. Appendix A ................................................................................................................ 1274

Appendix P. Grazing Allotment Information ........................................................................ 1281

Appendix Q. Recreation Settings and Descriptions .............................................................. 1285

Q.1. Community Interface ................................................................................................. 1285

Q.2. Front Country ............................................................................................................. 1286

Q.3. Passage ....................................................................................................................... 1287

Q.4. Back Country ............................................................................................................. 1288

Q.5. Description Matrix ..................................................................................................... 1289

Appendix R. Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets ............................................................ 1295

Appendix S. Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis ........................................ 1311

S.1. Route Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................. 1311

S.1.1. Route Inventory ............................................................................................... 1311

S.1.2. Route Evaluation ............................................................................................. 1311

S.2. Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 1313

Appendix T. Route Mitigations ............................................................................................... 1319

Appendix U. Definition of Transportation Asset Type, Functional Class, Maintenance

Intensity ......................................................................................................................... 1321

Table of Contents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxvii

Appendix V. ACEC Evaluations ............................................................................................. 1325

Appendix W. Land Health Standards .................................................................................... 1339

W.1. Standard One: Upland Sites ...................................................................................... 1339

W.2. Standard Two: Riparian-Wetland Sites ..................................................................... 1339

W.3. Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions .............................................................. 1340

Appendix Y. List of Preparers ................................................................................................. 1345

Appendix Z. References ........................................................................................................... 1349

Appendix AA. Abbreviations & Acronyms ........................................................................... 1367

Index .......................................................................................................................................... 1369

August 2011 Table of Contents
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxxv

List of Tables

Table 1. Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area ....... xlvii

Table 2. Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the SDNM Decision Area ..................... xlix

Table 3. Environmental Consequences by Program Area for the Planning Area (In

Alphabetical Order) ............................................................................................................ lix

Table 1.1. Current Land Use Plans and Plan Amendments ............................................................. 2

Table 1.2. Surface Management Responsibility/Ownership in the Lower Sonoran Planning Area 4

Table 1.3. Land Use Planning Process ............................................................................................. 6

Table 1.4. SDNM Objects .............................................................................................................. 18

Table 2.1. Wilderness Areas of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas .......................... 43

Table 2.2. Program Area Categories and Abbreviations ................................................................ 46

Table 2.3. Proposed Site Use Allocations by Alternative .............................................................. 54

Table 2.4. Proposed Cultural and Historic Resources Land Use Allocations (SCRMAs) ............ 55

Table 2.5. Wildlife Habitat Areas by Alternative .......................................................................... 70

Table 2.6. VRM Classes by Alternative ......................................................................................... 99

Table 2.7. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative ........ 110

Table 2.8. Description of LUA Types .......................................................................................... 119

Table 2.9. Lands and Realty Allocations For the Lower Sonoran Decision Area ....................... 128

Table 2.10. Lands and Realty Allocations For the SDNM Decision Area .................................. 129

Table 2.11. Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for Lower Sonoran Decision Area .......... 142

Table 2.12. Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for the SDNM .......................................... 143

Table 2.13. Proposed Permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for the SDNM .......................... 143

Table 2.14. Proposed Livestock Grazing Acres for the SDNM North of Interstate 8 Only ........ 144

Table 2.15. Acres of Public Lands Available for Mineral Activity by Alternative ..................... 153

Table 2.16. Recreation Management Area and Zone Allocations ............................................... 165

Table 2.17. Recreation Allocations by Decision Area for LSFO and SDNM ............................. 178

Table 2.18. Recreation Settings by Decision Area ...................................................................... 178

Table 2.19. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations by Alternative .......................................... 183

Table 2.20. Proposed Route Designation Table by Alternative ................................................... 184

Table 2.21. ACEC Acres Based on Alternative ........................................................................... 195

Table 2.22. Potential Byway Designations by Alternative .......................................................... 201

Table 2.23. Comparison of Impact Intensities ............................................................................. 219

Table 3.1. Estimated Extent of Cultural Resources Survey and Recorded Resources ................ 264

Table 3.2. Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Area Soils (BLM Land) ..................................... 282

Table 3.3. Vegetative Communities on Public Lands in the Planning Area ................................ 283

Table 3.4. Special Status Plant Species on Public Lands in the Planning Area ........................... 285

Table 3.5. Extent of VRI Class Designations .............................................................................. 288

Table 3.6. Monthly Mean Discharge (Flow) of Key Streams in Planning Area .......................... 291

Table 3.7. Montly Temperature & Precipitation for Planning Area (Gila Bend Weather Station) 291

Table 3.8. Definition of Hydrologic Unit Codes in the Planning Area ........................................ 292

Table 3.9. Surface Water Sub-basins in Planning Area ............................................................... 292

Table 3.10. Units Under Consideration - Wilderness Characteristics .......................................... 301

Table 3.11. Fire Management Units in Phoenix District that Overlap the Planning Area ........... 303

Table 3.12. Communities at Risk in the Planning Area by Fire Management Unit .................... 304

Table 3.13. Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity .............................. 304

Table 3.14. Current Fire Regime Condition Classes by Vegetative Community ......................... 305

Table 3.15. Utility Corridors within the Lower Sonoran ............................................................. 308

Table 3.16. Existing Utility Corridors within the SDNM ............................................................ 314

Table 3.17. Animal Unit Months 1998–2007 .............................................................................. 322

August 2011 List of Tables
xxxvi Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 3.18. BLM Mineral Estate Acreage ................................................................................... 323

Table 3.19. Acreage Open to Minerals Activity .......................................................................... 324

Table 3.20. Locatable Mineral Potential in Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Areas .............. 326

Table 3.21. Leasable Mineral Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM ............................................. 327

Table 3.22. Mineral Materials (Salable) Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM ............................. 329

Table 3.23. Types of Trail Users as a Percentage of Population, 2003-2008 .............................. 331

Table 3.24. Recreation Land Use Allocations in the Decision Areas .......................................... 331

Table 3.25. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area ... 332

Table 3.26. Primary Use and Current Settings for Existing Travel Routes ................................. 337

Table 3.27. Special Designations Within the Planning Area ....................................................... 340

Table 3.28. Population Growth 2000 to 2008, Six Cities and Towns near the Decision Area .... 355

Table 3.29. Selected 2008 Demographic Information ................................................................. 356

Table 3.30. Key Employment Statistics: Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region ....... 357

Table 3.31. Unemployment Rates, Annual Averages 2000-2005 ................................................ 358

Table 3.32. Key Income Statistics: Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region ................ 359

Table 3.33. Employment and Income in the North American Industry Classification System ... 359

Table 3.34. Comparison of National, State, and Decision Area Trend in Decorative Rock

Values ............................................................................................................................... 360

Table 3.35. 2001 Economic Impacts of Wildlife Viewing (in $ millions) ................................... 362

Table 3.36. 2001 Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing (in $ millions) .............................. 362

Table 3.37. 2002 Economic Impacts of OHV Recreation Activity (in $ millions ....................... 363

Table 3.38. 2009 PILT Entitlement Acreage by Federal Agency ................................................ 364

Table 3.39. PILT Payment and Entitlement Acreage ................................................................... 365

Table 3.40. Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2003 .......................................................... 368

Table 4.1. Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts ........................................................... 375

Table 4.2. Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the Lower Sonoran ..................... 389

Table 4.3. Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the SDNM .................................. 390

Table 4.4. Acres of Soils with Potential for Wind Erosion by Grazing Type under Alternative A 469

Table 4.5. VRM Classes by Alternative ....................................................................................... 521

Table 4.6. Lower Sonoran Travel Management RFD Scenarios ................................................. 524

Table 4.7. SDNM Designated Route Mileage ............................................................................. 525

Table 4.8. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran ..... 527

Table 4.9. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative A in the SDNM .................. 528

Table 4.10. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative B in the Lower Sonoran ... 529

Table 4.11. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative B in the SDNM ................ 530

Table 4.12. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative C in the Lower Sonoran ... 531

Table 4.13. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative C in the SDNM ................ 532

Table 4.14. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative D in the Lower Sonoran ... 533

Table 4.15. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative D in the SDNM ................ 534

Table 4.16. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative E in the Lower Sonoran ... 535

Table 4.17. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative E in the SDNM ................ 535

Table 4.18. Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs and ROS Settings,

Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 572

Table 4.19. Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within Visual Resources

Management Classes, Alternative A ................................................................................ 573

Table 4.20. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within SRMAs and

Recreation Management Settings, Alternative C ............................................................. 586

Table 4.21. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics and VRM Classes,

Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 587

List of Tables August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS xxxvii

Table 4.22. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within Recreation

Management Areas and Settings, Alternative D .............................................................. 593

Table 4.23. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs

and Recreation Management Settings, Alternative E ....................................................... 598

Table 4.24. Alternative A Mineral Entry Status .......................................................................... 668

Table 4.25. Alternative B Mineral Entry Status ........................................................................... 670

Table 4.26. Alternative C Mineral Entry Status ........................................................................... 673

Table 4.27. Alternative D Mineral Entry Status .......................................................................... 675

Table 4.28. Alternative E Mineral Entry Status ........................................................................... 677

Table 4.29. Equivalency of the Statutory Authority Related to Route Evaluation Questions ..... 701

Table 4.30. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects ................................................................................................... 907

Table 4.31. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species Monument

Objects .............................................................................................................................. 920

Table 4.32. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument Objects . 931

Table D.1. Observations on Gila River Segments Assessed for WSR Eligibility ..................... 1027

Table D.2. Flow of Gila River Segments Considered for WSR Eligibility ............................... 1028

Table D.3. Presence and Extent of Scenic, Recreational, Geological, Fish and Wildlife,

Historical, Cultural or Other Values in Gila River Segments ........................................ 1030

Table E.1. Acres of Public Lands and Permitted Use within SDNM Grazing Allotments ........ 1041

Table E.2. Monument Objects Specific to the SDNM ............................................................... 1044

Table E.3. Creosote Bush-Bursage Land Health Standard Achievement Status ....................... 1056

Table E.4. Palo-Verde Mixed Cactus Land Health Standard Achievement Status .................... 1057

Table E.5. Desert Wash Community Land Health Standard Achievement Status ..................... 1057

Table E.6. Average Number of Perennial Species Per Plot (Diversity) ..................................... 1058

Table E.7. Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object) .... 1060

Table E.8. Land Health Standard Status & Causal Factor Determination by

Allotment/Ecological Site .............................................................................................. 1068

Table E.9. Land Health Standard Status & Determination by Vegetation Community ............. 1070

Table E.10. Results of the Cultural Evaluation by Monument Object ....................................... 1071

Table F.1. SDNM Grazing Allotments, Acreage of Public Lands and Permitted Use North of

Interstate 8 ...................................................................................................................... 1083

Table F.2. Land Health Objectives by Monument Object .......................................................... 1094

Table F.3. Rangeland Health Attributes ..................................................................................... 1104

Table F.4. Grazing Allotment Use, Permitted and 10 Year Average ......................................... 1105

Table F.5. Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Gila Bend, Arizona, 1999 to 2008 ................. 1105

Table F.6. Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Maricopa, Arizona, 1999 to 2008 .................. 1106

Table F.7. Utilization Estimates on Key Areas Within the Big Horn and Conley Allotments .. 1106

Table F.8. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site –

BGR/Area A ................................................................................................................... 1108

Table F.9. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big

Horn Allotment .............................................................................................................. 1113

Table F.10. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Beloat

Allotment ........................................................................................................................ 1118

Table F.11. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen

Allotment ........................................................................................................................ 1122

Table F.12. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen

Allotment ........................................................................................................................ 1126

August 2011 List of Tables
xxxviii Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table F.13. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Lower

Vekol Allotment ............................................................................................................. 1130

Table F.14. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Arnold

Allotment ........................................................................................................................ 1132

Table F.15. SDNM Grazing Allotments Permitted Use* (AUMs) ............................................ 1132

Table F.16. Vegetation Composition Data ................................................................................. 1147

Table F.17. Departure from Ecological Site Description ........................................................... 1159

Table F.18. Ground Cover Data (%) .......................................................................................... 1160

Table F.19. Average Cover of Microbiotic Crusts (% by Plot) .................................................. 1161

Table F.20. BMG/Area A Comparison Plots – Big Horn Allotment ......................................... 1161

Table F.21. BGR/Area A Pacific Biodiversity Institute Plots .................................................... 1162

Table F.22. Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots ................................................................ 1165

Table F.23. : Saguaro Cover & Stem Count Information for the Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

Community (PBI 2004) .................................................................................................. 1179

Table G.1. Shooting Analysis Criteria ....................................................................................... 1184

Table G.2. Field Criteria for Resources and Monument Objects ............................................... 1187

Table G.3. Field Criteria for Visitor Safety and Nearby Uses and Facilities ............................. 1188

Table G.4. Field Criteria for Motor Vehicle Accessibility ......................................................... 1189

Table G.5. Field Criteria for Physical Suitability of Target Shooting ........................................ 1190

Table G.6. GIS Overlays and Cumulative Acreage of the SDNM Not Suitable for Recreational

Target Shooting .............................................................................................................. 1191

Table G.7. Summary of Field Analysis for Sites Potentially Suitable for Recreational Target

Shooting in the SDNM ................................................................................................... 1191

Table G.8. Numeric Suitability Rankings for Sites Potentially Suitable for Target Shooting in

the SDNM ...................................................................................................................... 1192

Table G.9. Summary of Potentially Suitable Target Shooting Sites by Numeric Ranking ........ 1193

Table G.10. Comparison of Impacts Documented at Shooting & Non-Shooting Sites in the

SDNM, 2003-2005 ......................................................................................................... 1203

Table J.1. Priority Species in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas ......................... 1235

Table O.1. PROPOSED STAFFING .......................................................................................... 1276

Table P.1. Grazing Allotment Information ................................................................................. 1281

Table Q.1. Description of Recreation Management Settings for Lower Sonoran and SDNM .. 1289

Table S.1. Description of SDNM Site-Specific Sample Areas .................................................. 1314

Table T.1. Nature of the conflict with routes and use of routes ................................................. 1319

List of Tables August 2011
Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is engaged in

a planning process to update management direction for the portion of the State of Arizona

administered by the BLM’s Phoenix District, Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO). The Lower

Sonoran Planning Area includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties.

The geographic region encompassed in the Planning Area includes approximately 8.9 million

acres of public, state, and private lands, of which approximately 1.4 million surface acres and

1.5 million subsurface acres are administered by the BLM (refer to Map 1-1). These include

about 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the Sonoran Desert National

Monument (SDNM), referred to as the SDNM Decision Area. In the areas located outside of

the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran Decision Area, the BLM manages about 930,200

surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres.

The BLM manages public lands, including both surface land and subsurface mineral estate,

under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 [43 United States Code

(USC) 1701 et seq.] and other applicable laws. The BLM’s land use planning regulations, 43

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1600, set forth procedures for preparing land use plans and

making planning decisions in accordance with FLPMA. These plans and decisions are the basis

for every on-the-ground action the BLM undertakes. To ensure that management of public lands

is consistent with FLPMA and other applicable laws and policy guidance, BLM prepares and

periodically updates its resource management plans (RMPs).

While BLM makes decisions applicable only to public lands and the resources it administers, it is

responsible for collaboratively planning with adjacent jurisdictions and the public to encourage

compatible land uses within a regional context (Planning Area).

The LSFO is preparing one Draft RMP to provide management direction for the Lower Sonoran

and SDNM Decision Areas. The Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP will consolidate

or replace current management guidance for the two Decision Areas under existing plans

implemented from 1983 through 2005. Seven management plans and plan amendments currently

apply to all or parts of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area, and five of these apply to all or parts

of the SDNM established in 2001.

The SDNM is guided by Presidential Proclamation 7397, issued on January 17, 2001. The

proclamation supersedes some of the guidance provided by the area’s current land use plans, and

is the legal instrument that established its boundaries and purposes. Management priority for

SDNM must be protective of the natural and cultural resource values for which it was designated.

PURPOSE & NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP/Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) is to provide guidance for managing the use of public lands and provide a framework for

future land management actions within the Planning Area. The Draft RMP/EIS will consolidate

and replace the current management guidance for the Decision Areas and respond to changed

conditions by identifying and carrying forward previous decisions that are still applicable and,

where necessary, modify existing management direction. While the RMP is consistent with the

xlv
planning framework, each Decision Area will have unique goals and management direction

where appropriate.

First and foremost, the SDNM RMP is needed to respond to the establishment of SDNM.

Presidential Proclamation 7397 assigns BLM the responsibility to protect the special qualities for

which the monument was designated and requires an RMP be prepared to ensure management

actions needed to do so are identified and implemented. In the absence of such a plan, current

management for SDNM falls under interim monument guidance, the various existing RMPs, and

plan amendments. These documents do not address many of the current management issues.

In addition, there is a need to consolidate the three previous RMPs and seven plan amendments

because these plans contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. Over the

past 30 years, significant and ongoing changes have occurred that dramatically altered the natural

and social environments. Existing management decisions in these plans have not kept pace with

changing circumstances, demographics, resource conditions, and/or policies. A new RMP is

needed to address these changing conditions, which include:

● Unprecedented regional population growth and urban expansion into surrounding public

lands is increasing demand for access to and use of public lands and resources. Growth

contributes to dramatic increases in and demands for commodities, utilities, renewable energy,

communication, transportation, and infrastructure on public lands.

● Emerging recreational activities, some based on recent technologies, has yielded new

recreational equipment and increased use of public lands.

● New legal and BLM policy requirements have resulted in additional or revised management

responsibilities.

● New information and understandings of ecological relationships has led to changes in

management direction.

PLANNING ISSUES & MANAGEMENT CONCERNS

IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING

Analysis of more than 6,000 comments received during scoping showed that the various

concerns expressed by the public, non-governmental organizations, agencies, and tribal and

local governments could be grouped into 18 issue categories. Six of the 18 issue categories

accounted for more than 95 percent of the comments received. The six issue areas most frequently

mentioned by all respondents were:

● Issue 1: Travel Management: How will travel and access be managed?

● Issue 2: Wilderness Characteristics: How will wilderness characteristics be managed in

the Decision Areas?

● Issue 3: Wildlife: How will BLM address wildlife management, including special status

species and wildlife water developments, in the Decision Areas?

● Issue 4: Livestock Grazing: How will livestock grazing be addressed in the Decision Areas,

particularly in the SDNM?

xlvi
● Issue 5: Energy Development: How will renewable and traditional energy facilities (including

transmission corridors) be managed?

● Issue 6: Recreation: How will public recreation activities be managed?

The character of the comments grouped in the issue categories varied considerably. For example,

some favored designation of additional wilderness and other special management areas, some

criticized the way existing areas are managed, and others either opposed any expansion in

these areas or called for their elimination. Some people and organizations favored reducing or

eliminating livestock grazing on public lands while others supported its continuation. Some

parties favored more liberal access to public lands for public use, including off-highway vehicle

(OHV) access, while others expressed concerns that excessive recreation access, including that

for recreational vehicles, threatens sustainable management of biological and cultural resources.

Although they may be in opposition with each other, all of these comments are equally valid and

of use to the planning process for the Draft RMP. They reflect the range of values BLM must

consider and balance when managing public lands for both resource sustainability and multiple

use. The collective sweep of the comments received helped to define the breadth and character of

the management issues these new plans should address. These issues help to define the range of

alternatives that must be addressed through the associated EIS in order to provide BLM decision

makers and the public with a reasonable range of options to consider for the future management

of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas.

ALTERNATIVES

This section summarizes the alternatives for managing the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision

Areas. The 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; be reasonable; provide a mix of resource protection, use, and development; be responsive to

the issues; and 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, BLM would

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

and guidance. Each alternative reflects intergovernmental and interagency collaboration, and

public participation.

Table 1, “Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area” (p. xlvii) and Table 2, “Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the SDNM Decision

Area” (p. xlix) identify key land use allocations and decisions proposed under the No Action

(Alternative A) and the four action alternatives proposed for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM

Decision Areas. Following these tables is a brief description of the five alternatives.

Table 1. Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Resources

Cultural: Number of Sites/Total Acres of Proposed Site Allocations for Lower Sonoran

xlvii
Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Public

and

Scientific

Use

1 site/200 acres 3 sites/283 acres

3 sites/283

acres

1 site/200

acres

3 sites/283

acres

Scientific

Use Only

2 sites/83

acres

Cultural: Acres in Special Cultural Resource Management Areas

Total 0 142,300 0

Priority Wildlife: Acres Managed as Wildlife Habitat Areas

Total 0 425,900 255,700 255,700

Wilderness Characteristics: Acres Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Total 0 128,100 276,500 55,400

Resource Uses

Lands & Realty: Acres Avoided and Excluded from Utility-scale Renewable Energy Development

Avoided 0 520,900 604,300 328,300 310,200

Excluded 105,100 126,500 510,700 380,100

Lands & Realty: Acres of Land Available for Disposal

Total 27,400 38,200 36,200 19,400 30,500

Livestock Grazing: Acres Available and Unavailable for Livestock Grazing and Total AUMs

Available 830,200 0 830,200

Unavailable

100,000 930,200 100,000

Total 17,541 10,431 17,541 0 17,541

Minerals: Acres Available within BLM Managed Surface Estate

Locatable Minerals

713,300 710,950 710,950 331,800 710,350

Leasable

Minerals

713,300 713,050 713,050 331,800 659,600

Mineral

Materials

713,300 647,500 528,500 191,900 521,000

Recreation: Acres in Special Recreation Management Areas

xlviii
Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Total 379,400 646,600 639,000 100,200 639,800

Travel Management: Acres Open, Closed, and Limited for Motorized Travel

Open 0 40 0 40

Closed 110,700 101,800 378,300 152,800

Limited

to

Existing

Roads

819,500 0

Limited

to Designated

Roads

0 828,360 551,900 777,360

Special Designations

Acres in Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs)

Total 8,900 63,300 267,100 250,800

Table 2. Key Land Use Allocations and Decisions for the SDNM Decision Area

Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Resources

Cultural: Number of Sites/Total Acres of Proposed Site Allocations for SDNM

Public and

Scientific

Use

1 site/3,600

acres

4 sites/3,615

acres

4 sites/3,615

acres

4 sites/3,615

acres

Scientific

Use Only

4 sites/3,615

acres

Cultural: Acres in Special Cultural Resource Management Areas

Total 0 17,700 0 17,700

Wilderness Characteristics: Acres Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

Total 0 112,200 153,000 110,900

Resource Uses

Lands & Realty: Acres Avoided and Excluded from Utility-scale Renewable Energy Development

xlix
Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Avoided 0

Excluded 486,400

Lands & Realty: Acres of Land Available for Disposal

Total 0

Livestock Grazing: Acres Available and Unavailable for Livestock Grazing and Total AUMs

Available 252,200 244,0000 207,700 0 157,210

Unavailable 233,900 242,400 278,700 486,400 329,190

AUMs 8,703 5,321 7,092 0 3,114

Recreation: Acres in Special Recreation Management Areas

Total 486,400

Travel Management : Acres Open, Closed, and Limited for Motorized Travel

Closed 161,200 157,700 157,700 310,700 157,700

Open 0

Limited to

Existing Roads

325,200 0

Limited to

Designated

Roads

0 328,700 328,700 175,700 328,700

Travel Management Route Designations: Miles of Designated Open, Closed, or Limited Road Networks

Open 604.9 555.6 419.3 261.0 392.2

Closed 26.6 69.5 150.2 322.2 193.6

Limited 0 6.0 44.5 11.0 41.0

Limited to

Administrative

Use

0 0.4 17.5 37.3 4.7

New Proposed 0 8 0 0 8

ALTERNATIVE A — NO ACTION

l
The No Action Alternative is the current management situation for both the Lower Sonoran and

SDNM Decision Areas, and serves as a baseline for most resource and land-use allocations.

Selecting Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran RMP would continue current management without

change to land or public uses or resource management, and would not address issues that were

unforeseen or nonexistent when the current plans were prepared. Selecting Alternative A for the

SDNM RMP would continue current management under the existing land use plans as modified by

Presidential Proclamation 7397, which established it and specified certain management provisions.

ALTERNATIVE B

The management decisions prescribed under Alternative B identify the greatest amount of public

lands suitable for appropriate multiple uses. Emphasis is placed on motorized and developed

recreational uses, while opportunities to visit remote settings and experience non-motorized,

primitive recreation would be reduced from current conditions. As a result, this alternative

would require the most intensive management as well as “hands-on” resource stabilization

and restoration measures in order to ensure the desired outcomes would be achieved and/or

to maintain resource conditions. Actions and allocations would ensure that SDNM resources,

set in the proclamation, would be protected.

ALTERNATIVE C

This alternative represents an attempt to balance resource protection with human use and

influence. It provides opportunities for a variety of uses while placing emphasis on resource

protection and conservation, and proposes a mix of natural processes and “hands-on” techniques

for resource stabilization and restoration. These measures would likely reduce the need for

intensive management to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. As under Alternative B, actions

and allocations would ensure that SDNM resources, set in the proclamation, would be protected.

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D places the greatest emphasis on minimizing human use/influence and maintaining

primitive landscapes. It focuses on natural processes and other unobtrusive methods for resource

stabilization and restoration, so the need for both intensive management and “hands-on” resource

measures would be the least in comparison to any other alternative. As under Alternative B

and C, actions and allocations would ensure that SDNM resources, set in the proclamation,

would be protected.

ALTERNATIVE E — PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

This is BLM’s preferred alternative for public land management within the Lower Sonoran and

SDNM Decision Areas. This alternative incorporates elements from each of the other action

alternatives, offering a unique way for managing the Decision Areas while at the same time

providing long-term protection and conservation of resources. Alternative E places a priority on

the protection and conservation of its resources while offering increased recreational opportunities.

Alternative E thus attempts to balance human use and influence with resource protection.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

li
The planning issues for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMPs were identified through scoping,

a process conducted early in the planning effort, that seeks input from agencies and the public.

Public scoping for the draft RMPs and accompanying EIS was announced in a Federal Register

notice on April 24, 2002 for the SDNM RMP and a second notice on December 9, 2002 for the

Lower Sonoran RMP. The opportunity to comment was also publicized through news releases,

mail notification, flyers, and other methods. Eleven scoping meetings were held where the public

could voice their concerns. The public was also invited to submit written comments. More than

6,000 comments were received during this period.

Since scoping, BLM has held additional public workshops throughout the Planning Area to

collaborate on the topics of (1) purpose, significance, management vision, and overarching goals;

(2) RMP goals and objectives; and (3) preliminary alternatives.

Consultation with American Indian tribes and coordination with numerous agencies and

governments at the Federal, State, and local levels has been an ongoing aspect of the planning

process, and periodic interdisciplinary team meetings have been held at key points in the process.

Early in the process, BLM invited all agencies and tribes in Arizona to attend a workshop

discussing the cooperating agency process. As a result, cooperating agencies for preparation of

these draft RMPs and EIS include the Tohono O’odham Nation, Ak-Chin Indian Community,

U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security (Border Patrol), Federal

Highway Administration, Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Arizona Department of

Transportation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also exists between BLM and the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to both agencies’ responsibilities under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Another MOU exists between BLM and the Arizona State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for cultural resources.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The EIS portion of this document describes the environmental components of public lands within

the Planning Area (i.e., the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas) that would potentially

be affected by implementation of the draft RMPs. The Decision Areas’ resources, uses, and

conditions are described below.

RESOURCES:

AIR RESOURCES

The largest source of particulate matter emissions within the Decision Areas is related to

surface-disturbing activities including construction, mining, and OHV (recreation-related) travel.

These activities are managed through State and local non-point source regulations. Regardless of

air quality permit requirements, all sources must comply with best management practices (BMPs).

These BMPs include implementation of mitigation measures (such as watering or using chemical

dust suppressants), which can reduce the amount of emissions in the localized area.

Most vehicle routes in the Decision Areas are unpaved. Travel on such routes results in particulate

emissions, or fugitive dust, except during periods with high levels of humidity (e.g., after a

rainstorm), which are generally rare in the Planning Area. Although fugitive dust is not included

in air qualityevaluations, it can affect local air quality, especially in areas of concentrated travel

on unpaved roads and during periods of heavy winds.

lii
CAVE RESOURCES

The Decision Areas contain Paleozoic sedimentary deposits and Tertiary volcanic rocks known

to contain caves elsewhere in Arizona. While Paleozoic limestones occur in the Sand Tank

Mountains, no caves or cave resources are known to exist on public lands in the area; however,

two lava tubes occur in the Sentinel Plain.

CULTURAL & HERITAGE RESOURCES

Most of the public land cultural resources are archaeological sites, reflecting both pre-Columbian

and post-contact occupation of the region. Almost 80 percent of the sites reflect aboriginal

occupation and 13 percent reflect Euro-American occupation, while the cultural and temporal

affiliations of the remaining sites have not been determined. Four percent of the Lower Sonoran

Decision Area has been surveyed and almost 600 sites recorded, while 6 percent of the SDNM has

been surveyed with almost 300 sites discovered. These statistics suggest there could be 13,000

archeological sites in the Lower Sonoran and 5,000 within the SDNM Decision Areas.

Approximately 127,737 acres of the Anza Trail cross the Decision Areas. The setting of the trail

through SDNM has probably been altered less since its original use than any other segment of

the entire 1,200 mile route (National Park Service 1996). The Painted Rock Petroglyph Site has

thousands of aboriginal petroglyphs, as well as some pictographs and historic-period glyphs. The

site is located along the Butterfield Overland Stage Route.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Three physiographic provinces characterize Arizona: the Colorado Plateau, Basin and Range, and

a Transition Zone between those two provinces having some characteristics of each. Most of the

Planning Area is within the Basin and Range province. The Gila River is the main drainage for

mountains and valleys and flows east to west, carrying sediments from the various rock units. In a

few areas, steep cliff faces and unusually-shaped rock features provide high scenic values, i.e.,

Saddle Mountain, Gila River cliffs, and the San Tank Mountains.

Paleontological resources include vertebrate and invertebrate animal fossils, plant fossils, and

trace fossils. In the Planning Area, fossils of birds, fish, and mammals are typically found

in unconsolidated Quaternary silt, sand, and gravel deposits and Tertiary sedimentary rocks;

however, no significant paleontological resources are known to occur in the Decision Areas.

PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES & HABITAT

A total of 28 special status plant and animal species reside or have the potential to reside within

the Decision Areas. These species include nine mammals, five birds, four reptiles, three fish, and

one invertebrate. Five of these (lesser long-nosed bat, Sonoran pronghorn antelope, Yuma clapper

rail, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Arizona hedgehog cactus) are federally listed under the

ESA. The yellow-billed cuckoo is a candidate species, meaning enough information is available

to list it, but is precluded by other, higher priority species. As of December 2010, the Sonoran

desert tortoise has been federally listed as an endangered species candidate. The population is

deemed vulnerable and declining over much of its range due to habitat loss, degradation, and

fragmentation; genetic contamination; collection; and disease (AGFD 1996).

liii
SOIL RESOURCES

Soils are primarily the product of climate, parent material (i.e. underlying bedrock lithology or

alluvium), and landscape. Landforms in the Planning Area consist of broad, alluvial basin floors

separated by basaltic or granitic mountains, hills, and rock outcrops, dissected by several major

drainages and numerous ephemeral ones. Upland parts of the basins are carved by desert washes

with soils that are coarse- to medium-textured and cobbly to gravelly on the surface. Several large

desert ephemeral (i.e. xeroriparian) washes divide the Planning Area. Deep, stratified sands, silts,

and cobbles underlie the channels and floodplains with textures dependent on flow regimes.

Soil disturbance and compaction are present in long-term use areas, including

livestock-congregation sites, roads, and parking areas. Larger areas of accelerated erosion and

sedimentation are mainly in the Vekol Valley south of I-8. Based on best-available data and

analysis in the allotment evaluations, accelerated soil erosion occurs infrequently. Water-erosion

hazard is highest on the coarse-textured, steeper soils found in the granitic soils in the western

and southwestern portions of the Planning Area. Wind-erosion hazards are highest on the

fine-textured, irrigated soils of the major drainages. Except for data collected on allotments, very

little soil condition data is collected that could be used to indicate trends.

VEGETATION RESOURCES

The Decision Areas contain eight major ecological zones: Creosote bush-Bursage,

PaloVerde-Mixed Cacti, Sonoran Desert Mountain Community, Apacherian-Chihuahuan upland

scrub, Mogollon Chaparral, Desert Grasslands, Riparian, and large Desert Washes (Xeroriparian).

Six species of status plant species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within

theDecision Areas. The acuña cactus is a candidate species for listing, meaning there is enough

information available to list, but they are precluded by other higher priority species. Invasive

species occur to varying degrees throughout the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas

and include Sahara mustard (Brassica tournefortii), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum),

buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare), and salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima), among others. In most

cases these species are sparsely scattered throughout the planning area and can be controlled

through proactive control measures. Infestation by salt cedar in some locations within the riparian

community is so great that some native species are threatened with extirpation due to competition

as well as habitat degradation and destruction.

VISUAL RESOURCES

The Planning Area typifies the Sonoran Desert, with northwest-southeast trending mountain

ranges separated by broad valleys dissected by numerous ephemeral and perennial riparian

corridors, the largest of which are the Gila River and Salt River systems. The dominant mountains

within the Decision Areas are considered scenic quality Class A because of their distinctive

ridgelines and dark color contrasts against the tan and green desert floor. In addition, Class A and

Class B units are identified in bajada and xeroriparian areas, where there are added elements of

visual interest from variation in landform, vegetation, color, and influence of adjacent scenery.

Class C units are primarily found in the valley floors where variation is lowest in the flat terrain

interspersed with low-to-moderate density coverage of desert scrub vegetation. Some areas are

assigned a higher scenic quality rating due to the overall scarcity (i.e., unique, memorable, or

liv
rare) within the region. In the Planning Area, the elements of “visibility” and “dark skies” also

contribute to scenic quality.

WATER RESOURCES

The Planning Area includes portions of seven ground water basins and sub-basins, including the

Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area and Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson Active Management

Areas. Shallow groundwater quality issues throughout the Planning Area are primarily related to

the infiltration of agricultural wastewater, particularly in the Gila and Salt River valleys. Under

the current amounts of groundwater mining, levels under the Planning Area will drop; however,

the effects will be felt differently in different locations.

The Gila River is the predominant watercourse in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. The BLM

conducted an evaluation of the Gila River from Hayden Dam to the Colorado River to assess its

eligibility for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, but concluded that this

river does not meet the necessary qualifications.

WILD HORSE AND BURRO MANAGEMENT

Wild burros and, occasionally, a few wild horses have historically used portions of the Decision

Areas on a year-round basis. Burros and wild horses are managed within the 215,000 acre Painted

Rock Herd Area, which only exists in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. The last census in the

herd area (1999) found no animals present.

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Wilderness characteristics are fully considered in the LS-SDNM Draft RMP. Approximately

429,500 acres were considered representing over 31 percent of the land in the combined Planning

Area. Comparison of the 1978-1980 wilderness characteristics review, completed for Arizona

public lands, with fieldwork conducted in 2003 and 2005, indicated that no incompatible land

uses with long-lasting or irreversible effects had occurred. In fact, this comparison revealed a

greater acreage than expected was found to exhibit wilderness characteristics in the Planning Area

in 2005, indicating that recent land use patterns might have been favorable for maintenance of

wilderness characteristics.

WILDLAND FIRE

Fire is not a major natural process in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem as associated vegetation types

are not considered dependent or adapted to fire; however, above average winter precipitation can

generate a sufficiently dense growth of grasses and other annual plants to potentially carry wildfire

over a more widespread area than during years with average or below-average precipitation.

Based on information collected for the Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire,

Fuels, and Air Quality Management (2003), most public lands in the Planning Area are a mixture

of Condition Class 1 and 2, with a small component of Condition Class 3, under average and less

than average annual moisture trends. Condition classes are moisture dependent and above-average

annual moisture results in a greater percentage of Condition Classes 2 and 3, which can result in

the propagation of more grasses and invasive species.

lv
RESOURCE USES:

LANDS & REALTY

The BLM administers approximately 1,416,600 acres of public lands (surface estate) in the

Decision Areas, which includes 486,400 acres in the SDNM and 930,200 acres in the Lower

Sonoran. The current land pattern is difficult to manage in areas of scattered and isolated

parcels. Larger blocks of public lands provide for improved and more efficient management.

Approximately 30,500 acres are designated as disposal or exchange areas (for surface estate)

within the Lower Sonoran. The proclamation designating SDNM said all public land within it

would be retained, unless a proposed exchange would further its protective purposes.

Currently, there are 10 designated utility corridors in the Lower Sonoran and three in the SDNM

Decision Areas. The corridors generally are 1-mile wide, although near designated wilderness

areas, widths are slightly narrower.

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area has the potential to support utility-scale renewable energy

developments (primarily in the form of solar development); however no suitable locations for

such developments exist in the Decision Area. Wilderness areas and the SDNM are closed to

utility-scale renewable energy development.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area has 44 permitted BLM-authorized grazing allotments,

21 of which have the potential to be ephemeral. There is a perennial permitted capacity of

17,541 Animal Unit Months (AUM’s) for livestock forage. The SDNM Decision Area has 6

BLM-authorized grazing allotments north of Interstate-8. The total perennial permitted capacity

is 8,703 AUMs. The SDNM proclamation mandated that grazing permits on public lands within

the Monument south of I-8 would not be renewed at the end of their current term. All of these

permits expired in 2008 and 2009. The proclamation also states that grazing on public lands

north of I-8 will be allowed to continue only to the extent that the BLM determines that grazing

is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the Monument objects identified in the

proclamation. Overall, AUM’s within the Planning Area have decreased over time, although the

actual number varies from year to year as operators adjust their livestock numbers based on

climatic conditions. This is due to grazing and grazing management in the Planning Area being

substantially dependent on precipitation and the corresponding improvement in the abundance

and vigor of forage species, as well as non-forage species that support the general health and

condition of the soil and plant community.

MINERALS MANAGEMENT

There have been 33 exploratory wells drilled in the Planning Area since 1913. There has been no

economic production to date, although there is moderate potential for oil and gas resources in

approximately 10 percent of the Decision Areas. There is low potential and no known occurrences

or prospects for carbon dioxide, helium, sodium or coal in the Planning Area. There is high

potential for low-temperature geothermal resources in approximately 5 percent of the Planning

Area, and moderate potential in about 85 percent of the Planning Area and Decision Areas.

SDNM is closed to mineral leasing, subject to valid existing rights.

lvi
There is moderate potential for locatable minerals in approximately 10 percent of the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area, located primarily in the mountain ranges with mineralized rock

outcroppings in the Ajo Block, Gila Bend Mountains, and Buckeye Hills, and on public lands

in northeast Pinal and Gila counties. Salable mineral resources have high potential throughout

most of the Planning Area; there are currently eight pits in the Lower Sonoran and three existing

pits in the SDNM Decision Areas.

RECREATION MANAGEMENT

Recreational experiences, setting, and activities in the Planning Area range from areas with

primitive, unroaded qualities to more modified and roaded natural areas. Within the Decision

Areas, visitors can, among other things, bike, camp, hike, ride horseback, backpack, hunt, target

shoot, drive OHVs on vehicle routes, picnic, rock hound, geocache, observe cultural and historic

sites, view/photograph wildlife, and experience wilderness areas.

The dramatic increase in population within and surrounding the Planning Area has resulted

in increased demands for outdoor recreational opportunities and management of public lands.

Recreational activities in both Decision Areas have increased substantially due to newly

developed residential communities adjacent to large blocks of public lands.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

The Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas are affected by surface and air transportation,

including motor vehicle use on highways, secondary roads, local streets, and improved and

unimproved roads; OHV travel; non-motorized travel; and railroad operations.

Non-motorized travel commonly includes pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycling activities. All

three occur within both the Decision Areas, although day hiking and backpacking are the most

prevalent. All wilderness areas and the Coffeepot Botanical and Vekol Valley Grasslands ACECs

are closed to OHV use. In all other parts, motor vehicles are limited to existing or designated

routes. Visitors are required to obtain an annual safety briefing and access permit prior to entering

and traveling in the Sand Tank Mountain area of SDNM.

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Seventeen special designation areas currently exist within the Decision Areas. Five are located

within the Lower Sonoran Decision Area and include Sierra Estrella, Signal Mountain, and

Woolsey Peak wildernesses; Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT); and Coffeepot

Botanical ACEC. Six occur within the SDNM Decision Area and include the Monument itself

plus the North and South Maricopa Mountains and Table Top wildernesses; Vekol Valley

Grasslands ACEC; and Juan Bautista de Anza NHT.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & PUBLIC SAFETY

Seven active landfills are located within the Planning Area, but none within the Decision

Areas. A significant waste issue, commonly known as “wildcat dumping,” frequently occurs on

public lands, and commonly occurs near the urban-interface areas. Another form of hazardous

lvii
and non-hazardous waste involves litter from recreational users in the Decision Areas and

undocumented aliens traveling through.

Data show over 180 active and abandoned mines located in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM

Decision Areas. The BLM is researching and ranking the human health and safety risks from

known abandoned sites to develop long-term reclamation, remediation, and restoration projects.

Known and potential unexploded ordnance contamination represents an immediate public safety

hazard. It exists in and around the Sand Tank Mountains (formerly Area A of the Barry M.

Goldwater Range [BMGR]) and Sentinel Plain, due to their longtime inclusion in the BMGR).

Available data associated with the use of paved public highways, unpaved backcountry roads, and

off-road areas indicate that the highest numbers of accidents on public highways and roads in the

Decision Areas occur on I 8, State Route 85, and State Route 238/Maricopa Road. A number

of accidents were also attributed to livestock along State Route 238/Maricopa Road. Excessive

speed is the most common contributor to accidents on major roadways traversing public lands.

SOCIAL & ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, the population of the tri-county region (consisting of Maricopa,

Pima, and Pinal counties) was nearly 4.1 million, with nearly 3.1 million (75 percent) residing in

Maricopa County, representing nearly 80 percent of Arizona’s total population. Between 2000

and 2005, the region added another 750,000 persons.

Local population estimates, available for incorporated cities and towns, indicate the City of

Maricopa had the fastest-growth rate of any city or town in the state between 2000 and 2005,

while Buckeye and Goodyear had growth rates ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. Some

communities, however, showed extremely slow population growth. This is especially true for the

Gila County communities of Globe and Miami.

Resources and programs, such as minerals, renewable energy, livestock grazing, recreation, lands

and realty, and public finance and government services provide direct, public economic ties that

are important in some localities near the Decision Areas. Some resources, such as open spaces

and sense of place, share closer social affinities than economic ties. As a result, there are stronger

overall social ties between the public lands and the large economic centers in the Planning Area

than there are economic ties to local communities.

Environmental Justice relates to disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of programs, policies, and activities on minority populations, low-income

populations, and American Indian tribes. The proportion of minority population in Pima and

Pinal counties exceeds that of the state, while Maricopa and Gila counties have a smaller minority

share than the state. Most of the individual incorporated and unincorporated areas analyzed

are minority communities, as well as all American Indian reservations. Of the four counties

considered (Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Gila), all but Maricopa have poverty rates that exceed the

statewide average. In most cases, poverty rates among individual communities are relatively close

to the state average. However, exceptions occur on the Gila River Indian Community and the

Tohono O’odham Nation where poverty levels were considerably higher than the state average.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

lviii
The foreseeable environmental effects of the five alternatives analyzed in these Draft RMP/EIS

on the above resources, uses, and conditions are summarized below.

Table 3. Environmental Consequences by Program Area for the Planning Area (In

Alphabetical Order)

Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

Resources::

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Minor

E Negligible-Moderate

The primary air quality measure affected by activities on public

lands is particulate matter, particularly PM10 and PM2.5. Impacts

would stem from surface-disturbing activities and vehicular travel

on unpaved routes. Management practices in all action alternatives

would generally improve air quality throughout the Decision Areas.

Alternative D would have the least impact related to air quality in

the planning area. Though BLM’s contribution to air pollution in the

Planning Area is negligible, proposals to limit motorized vehicles to

designated routes and allocations or special area designations that limit

expansion of route networks would result in target pollutants at or

reduced from current levels.

Cave Resources

No cave resources have been identified in the decision areas. Although a small amount of known Paleozoic limestone

outcrops and lava tubes do exist, LUP level impacts on these resources were are anticipated to be negligible.

Cultural & Heritage Resources

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts on cultural resources result from ground disturbance such

as cross-country OHV travel, wildfires, unauthorized collection,

vandalism, trash accumulation, and trampling due to human or

livestock activities. Other impacts, including permanent destruction

of site features, result from recreational target shooting activities,

especially those that are intensive, repetitive, and concentrated. Under

all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected

by natural weathering and erosion processes and all alternative

management actions would provide sufficient protection for known

cultural resources, although there would be varying levels of impacts

to sites developed for public use.

Paleontological Resources

Limited paleontological resources have been found in the planning area, therefore impacts on these resources are

not discussed in detail.

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat

lix
Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from loss or alteration of native habitats.

Alterations could lead to the increased expansion of noxious and

invasive weed species, decreased water availability, and increased

habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition,

and direct loss of wildlife. Actions designed to maintain or improve

conditions for the desert tortoise should help their populations and

avoid listing as threatened or endangered.

Soil Resources

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from ground-disturbing activities such

as grazing, recreation (especially OHV use), and mineral exploration.

Impacts include accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement,

puddling, and rutting of soils, which impact soils natural productivity.

Management proposed under all the alternatives provides measures to

reduce soil erosion and maintain or enhance soil productivity.

Vegetation Resources

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts to vegetation communities generally occur from surface

disturbing activities such as: mining, authorizing land actions,

recreation and livestock grazing. Impacts from various surface

disturbing activities include the direct removal of vegetation, the

spread of invasive weed species, and changes in ecological conditions

necessary to support functioning and healthy vegetation communities

(i.e. impacts to soils or water supply and/or quality).

Visual Resources

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from management actions that visibly

change the natural landscape, which are guided by visual resource

management classes. All alternatives explore allocations that minimize

visual impacts while meeting demand for public land resources. Most

impacts are associated with resource use activities such as recreation,

utility development, grazing, and mining, which typically are visual

distractions to public land visitors.

Water Resources

lx
Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Minor

E Negligible-Moderate

Impacts would stem primarily from ground-disturbing activities such

as grazing, recreation (especially OHV use), and mineral exploration.

Management practices proposed under all alternatives are designed

to promote or improve water production and quality. Most water

related issues in Arizona are a result of rapid population growth on

lands not within the National System of Public Lands. Though BLM’s

management actions can have only limited effects, proposals to manage

motorized vehicles, actions designed to improve vegetation cover and

protect or enhance riparian vegetation communities would improve or

maintain water production and quality in the Decision Areas.

Wild Horses & Burros

Due to the fact that the intent of the existing decisions and proposed alternative decision is to remove all wild horse

or burros from the Painted Rocks Herd Area, any impacts from other program areas on these wild horses and burros

would be negligible, therefore, impacts from other resources will not be discussed in detail.

Wilderness Characteristics

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from actions that affect the extent,

distribution or quality of naturalness and/or opportunities for solitude

and primitive and unconfined recreation. Although designated

wilderness would continue to be protected, current management

could allow progressive degradation of areas with wilderness

characteristics not protected by congressional wilderness designation.

The alternatives explore shifting emphasis from current management

to management of large areas allocated as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. All alternatives explore differing mixes of

allocations devoted to both motorized and non-motorized recreation.

Alternatives C, D and E emphasize a range of lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics.

Wildland Fire

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Moderate

E Negligible-Moderate

Impacts would stem primarily from actions that would affect the type

and abundance of fuels, increase or limit sources of ignition, and

affect fire-suppression activities. Though the alternatives explore

varying allocations for large undeveloped areas, few impacts to fire

suppression or fire use management are anticipated.

Resource Uses:

Lands & Realty

lxi
Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from land use allocations or actions

that would prevent the authorization of ROWs, leases, and land

tenure actions in certain resource rich areas. Impacts from restrictive

actions could force utility development onto non-federal lands in the

planning area, in order to meet the utility demands of the growing

population in the planning area. The amount of restricted acres varies

among the alternatives, with Alternative B being the least restrictive

and Alternative D being the most restrictive. However, throughout

all of the alternatives, there are available opportunities for land use

authorizations and land tenure actions.

Livestock Grazing

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from management actions that affect

forage levels, ability to construct range improvements, human

disturbance of livestock, costs associated with livestock management,

and recreation. The greatest potential for impacts would likely

occur from recreation under Alternatives A, B, C, and E. Alternative

D explores complete cessation of grazing in the Decision Areas,

potentially putting many livestock operators that currently use the

Planning Area’s public lands out of business.

Minerals Management

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Moderate

Impacts would stem primarily from land use allocations or actions that

would prohibit ground disturbing activities related to mining activities

from taking place. As with lands and realty actions, impacts from

these restrictive actions would promote mineral development on other

non-federal lands in the planning area or would hinder the mining

industry.

Recreation Management

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from management actions that affect

recreational resources and travel across public lands. Conflicts

between different types of recreation uses constitute one of the most

pressing issues on public lands in Central Arizona. Target shooting for

example is restricted within the SDNM in Alternatives D and E and

portions of the SDNM in Alternatives B and C.

Each alternative attempts to address recreation management in ways

that allow a variety of activities throughout the Decision Areas, and

places a different emphasis on the type of recreation (i.e., motorized

versus primitive non-motorized).

Travel Management

lxii
Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from RMP-level travel management

decisions for designating areas as open, limited, or closed to OHV

use, and the implementation-level decisions for designating particular

routes as open, limited, or closed to public use. The alternatives

explore progressively increasing restrictions to motorized recreation

and access, which would result in a progressively limited, motorized

route network and reduced access. Within the SDNM, a route

designation system would be implemented, except within Alternative

A. Impacts from not having a route system could result in the continue

establishment of unwanted access points and routes leading into public

lands, which would result in more negative impacts to monument

objects.

Special Designations

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Moderate

E Negligible-Moderate

Impacts would stem primarily from management of resource values

associated with the existing or proposed special designations.

Therefore, actions related to recreation, lands actions, grazing, and

mining would indirectly impact the special designations by impacting

resources such as vegetation. Proposed management would generally

have little impact to existing designations, though they are altered

under some alternatives.

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts would stem primarily from management actions that

affect responses to physical hazards (e.g., abandoned mines),

hazardous materials, and illegal activity related to the U.S./Mexico

border. Management related to wildlands fire management, utility

development, and other resource uses could present public safety

concerns. Impacts are substantially similar across all of the

alternatives.

Socioeconomics

A Negligible-Major

B Negligible-Major

C Negligible-Major

D Negligible-Major

E Negligible-Major

Impacts to social and economic conditions and environmental

justice would stem primarily from management actions that alter

employment/income and social well-being. Such impacts would be

negligible on a regional basis under all alternatives. At the local

level, however, impacts could be major under Alternative D, with the

potential loss of nearly 100 ranch businesses from grazing cessation.

Additional closures to mineral development would not result in loss

of current jobs or reduction in current economic development, but

may result in the loss of potential jobs and income for future mining

opportunities.

Implementation of any alternative proposed in these Draft RMPs

would not result in a disproportionate impact to any minority or

low-income group.

lxiii
Alternative General Range of Impact

Intensities

General Summary of the Impacts

Tribal Interests

A Negligible-Moderate

B Negligible-Moderate

C Negligible-Moderate

D Negligible-Moderate

E Negligible-Moderate

Several American Indian tribes have traditional cultural affiliations

with the Decision Areas. The Ak-Chin Indian Community, Fort

McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma,

Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt

River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Tribe,

Tohono O’odham Nation, Tonto Apache, White Mountain Apache

Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

were contacted by formal consultation letters and follow-up telephone

calls. More recently, three tribal communities, the Fort Mohave Indian

Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribes,

were identified for consultations as well.

lxiv
Chapter 1. Purpose & Need for the RMP
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepares

resource management plans (RMPs) to guide and manage resources and uses in the National

System of Public Lands. These RMPs are the basis of future management of BLM-administered

public lands (public lands) and provide a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for

specific resources and uses. The BLM’s Phoenix District, Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO)

is engaged in a planning process to update management direction for public lands in the south

central portion of Arizona, which is referred to as the Lower Sonoran Planning Area (Planning

Area) throughout this document. While the BLM makes decisions related only to public lands

and associated resources, the agency is responsible for collaboratively planning with adjacent

jurisdictions and the public to encourage compatible land uses within a regional context.

On January 17, 2001, a portion of the Planning Area was designated as the Sonoran Desert

National Monument (SDNM) when President William J. Clinton issued Presidential Proclamation

7397 (Appendix A, Sonoran Desert National Monument Presidential Proclamation (p. )). The

Monument was created to protect an array of scientific, biological, archaeological, geological,

cultural, and historical objects. These objects, both individually and collectively, in the context of

the natural environments that support and protect them, are referred to as “Monument objects.”

The LSFO is responsible for the management of public lands within the SDNM in a manner

that is consistent with management guidance outlined in the proclamation. Due to such special

management requirements for the Monument, the Lower Sonoran Planning Area is divided into

two Decision Areas: the SDNM Decision Area, which includes all public lands in the Monument,

and the Lower Sonoran Decision Area, which includes all public lands within the Planning Area

outside the Monument. In this planning effort, the LSFO will provide management direction for

the Lower Sonoran Decision Area and another for the SDNM Decision Area. The planning

process presented in this Draft RMP/EIS will be used to develop two separate RMPs/Records of

Decision (RODs): one that will provide management direction for the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area and another for the SDNM Decision Area.

This document, the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP and Draft EIS (Draft RMP/EIS), was

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.

Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) and the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementation

regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulation [CFR] 1500 et seq.). This document was produced in

accordance with all applicable Federal statutes and regulations (Appendix B, Applicable Laws,

Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003)). The selected planning approach is consistent with the

requirements found in the Federal Land Policy & Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC

1701). The process is also compliant with the set of instruction memoranda, information bulletins,

and other appropriate BLM manuals, handbooks, and strategic plans that embody the most current

BLM practices regarding the process and content resulting documents.

Note: New regulations, manuals, policies, and guidance have been issued that affect the management of several

resources and resource uses within the Planning Area. Less complex adjustments have been incorporated

into this draft; however, changes requiring further analysis or a re-evaluation of proposed allocations and

management decisions will be postponed until after this draft is published. Changes will be included in the

Proposed RMP/EIS, including changes related to BLM Director’s Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) No.

DOIM 2011-004, which revises recreation land-use planning guidance; IM No. AZ-2011-005, which updates

the BLM plant and animal sensitive-species list; and the addition of the Sonoran desert tortoise to the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) candidate species list.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
2 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1.1. PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1.1. Purpose for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMPs

The purpose of the Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP is to provide guidance for managing the

use of public lands and to provide a framework for future land-management actions within the

Planning Area. To accomplish this, the Draft RMP/EIS will consolidate and replace the current

management guidance for each Decision Area and respond to changed conditions by identifying

and carrying forward previous decisions that are still applicable and, where necessary, modify

existing management direction. Management of the decision areas is currently provided by a

series of existing land use plans and plan amendments that were implemented at various times

from 1983 through 2008. These existing plans, and amendments and the Decision Area to which

they apply, are presented in Table 1.1, “Current Land Use Plans and Plan Amendments” (p. 2) and

in Map 1–2. The Monument is also guided by Presidential Proclamation No. 7397 and interim

Monument guidance.

Table 1.1. Current Land Use Plans and Plan Amendments

Land Use Plans or Land Use Plan Amendment

Lower Sonoran

Decision Area

SDNM Decision Area

Land Use Plans

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983)

Yes; Saddle Mountain

area only

No

Lower Gila South RMP (BLM 1988)

Yes; excluding Saddle

Mountain, East Valley

parcels, and Sentinel

Plain.

Yes, excluding Sand

Tank Mountains

Phoenix Resource Area RMP (BLM 1989)

Yes; East Valley parcels

only

No

Land Use Plans Amendments

Lower Gila South RMP Goldwater Amendment (BLM 1990)

Yes; Sentinel Plain and

Ajo parcels only

Yes; Sand Tank

Mountains only*

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for

Grazing Administration (BLM 1997)

Yes; entire Decision

Area

Yes; entire Decision

Area

Statewide Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality (BLM

2003)

Yes; entire Decision

Area

Yes; entire Decision

Area

Cameron Allotment Amendment to the Lower Gila South RMP

(2004)

Yes; grazing allotments

in the Ajo area

No

Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework

Plan and the Lower Gila South RMP (2005)

Yes; excludes East

Valley parcels

Yes; entire Decision

Area

* Some decisions superseded by the Monument proclamation and interim guidance

1.1.2. Need for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMPs

The SDNM RMP is needed to respond to the establishment of the SDNM. The Monument

proclamation assigns the BLM with the responsibility to protect objects for which the Monument

was established, and requires that an RMP be prepared to ensure that the management actions

needed to do so are identified and implemented. In the absence of such a plan, current

management for the SDNM falls under interim Monument guidance, the various existing RMPs,

and plan amendments. These documents do not address many current management issues.

In addition, there is a need to consolidate the three previous RMPs and five plan amendments (see

Table 1.1, “Current Land Use Plans and Plan Amendments” (p. 2)) for both the Lower Sonoran

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Purpose and Need August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 3

and SDNM Decision Areas because existing plans contain obsolete planning boundaries and

management decisions. Over the nearly 30 years during which these plans have been in effect,

significant and ongoing changes have occurred that have dramatically altered the natural and

social environments in the Planning Area. Existing management decisions in these plans have not

kept pace with changing circumstances, demographics, resource conditions, and policies. New

RMPs are needed to address changing conditions, which include:

● Unprecedented regional population growth and urban expansion into surrounding public lands

is increasing demand for access to and use of public lands and resources. Growth increases

demand for commodities, utilities, renewable energy, communication facilities, transportation,

and infrastructure on public lands;

● Emerging recreational activities, some of which are based on recent technologies, have

yielded new recreational equipment;

● New legal and BLM policy requirements have resulted in additional or revised management

responsibilities; and

● New information and understandings of ecological relationships has lead to changes in

management direction.

1.2. PLANNING AREA AND SETTING

1.2.1. Planning Area

The Planning Area, identified on Map 1–1, covers nearly 8.9 million acres of south-central

Arizona and includes much of Maricopa County, as well as sections of Gila, Pima, Pinal, and

Yuma counties. Population centers within or adjacent to the Planning Area include metropolitan

Phoenix and the communities of Goodyear, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Ajo, Globe-Miami, Tonopah,

Mobile, Maricopa, Casa Grande, and Sells. The Planning Area encompasses Federal and

State-administered, private, and tribal lands. As identified in Table 1.2, “Surface Management

Responsibility/Ownership in the Lower Sonoran Planning Area” (p. 4), the BLM manages

1,416,600 surface acres of public lands in the Planning Area, which include 1,338,300 acres of

mineral estate also managed by the BLM. The State manages the remaining acres. The BLM

manages another 210,000 acres of mineral estate where the surface acres are managed by other

non-Federal landowners, which are referred to as split estate lands. More information regarding

mineral estate management may be found in Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251). Unless

otherwise identified, this Draft RMP/EIS focuses on surface acres of public lands. The BLM is

responsible only for the management of public lands within the Planning Area. These lands

are divided into the two Decision Areas (Lower Sonoran and SDNM), which are discussed

in detail in the following section.

Note: Due to BLM efforts to review, research, and correct parcels and GIS data shape files, information

regarding surface-management responsibility and other acreage/mile figures used for allocations and analysis

calculations may be adjusted between this draft and the proposed final RMP. Notes are made throughout

the document and on maps where this may occur.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Area and Setting
4 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 1.2. Surface Management Responsibility/Ownership in the Lower Sonoran Planning

Area

Surface Management

Responsibility/Ownership

Planning Area

Surface Acres

% of

Area

Planning Area

Surface Acres

(Excluding

SDNM)

% of

Area

SDNM

Surface

Acres

% of

Area

BLM 1,416,600 16.0 930,200 11.1 486,400 97.9

Other Federal Agencies 2,374,300 26.8 2,368,800 28.3 -- --

American Indian Tribes 3,237,100 36.5 3,236,100 38.7 -- --

State Lands 366,300 4.1 371,500 4.4 3,900 0.8

Private Lands 1,402,000 15.8 1,386,100 16.6 6,100 1.2

Other Non-Federal Lands 71,700 0.8 -- -- -- --

Total Surface Acres/Total

Percent of Area

8,868,000 100.0 8,371,400 100.0 496,600 100.0

SOURCE: BLM 2010

While the majority of public lands in the Planning Area are consolidated, some small tracts are

interspersed with other Federal, State, and private lands. Other Federal land managers include the

U.S. Air Force, National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau

of Reclamation, and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Some of the large landowners and managers

include Arizona State Land Departmentfor State Trust Land; county parks; and various tribes

including the Tohono O’odham Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa

Indian Community, and Ak-Chin Indian Community. In addition, other agencies may have

specialized management responsibilities, such as the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)

responsibility for managing wildlife for the State.

1.2.2. Decision Areas

As mentioned above, the BLM is responsible only for management of public lands the Planning

Area, which is divided into the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas (see Map 1–1). The

acres of public lands reported in Table 1.2, “Surface Management Responsibility/Ownership

in the Lower Sonoran Planning Area” (p. 4) Responsibility/Ownership in the Lower Sonoran

Planning Area are subject to change if the BLM acquires or disposes of such lands. Newly

acquired lands would be managed according to the decisions in the applicable RMP, negating the

need for a plan amendment.

1.2.2.1. Lower Sonoran Decision Area

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area covers a wide geographic region. Specific geographic areas

are used for reference in subsequent discussions throughout the plan. These geographic areas are

shown on Map 1–3 and are summarized below:

● Saddle Mountain (Area 1 on map): Public lands in the north portion of the Planning Area near

Tonopah and Interstate 10 (I-10)

● Buckeye Hills, and Rainbow and Vekol valleys (Area 2 on map): Tracts of public lands

east of State Route 85 but outside the SDNM

● Gila Bend and Painted Rock mountains (Area 3 on map): Public lands in the portion of the

Planning Area west of the SDNM and between Interstate 8 (I-8) and I–10

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Decision Areas August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 5

● Sentinel Plain (Area 4 on map): Public lands west of Gila Bend and south of I-8

● South Gila Bend (Area 5 on map): The small but consolidated block of public lands southeast

of Gila Bend and west of the SDNM

● Ajo Block (Area 6 on map): The tract of public lands in the vicinity of Ajo, Arizona

● East Valley and Globe/Miami (Area 7 on map): The scattered tracts east of the Phoenix

metropolitan area

1.2.2.2. SDNM Decision Area

As stated in Presidential Proclamation 7397, the SDNM was designated to protect “a magnificent

example of untrammeled Sonoran desert landscape” with an “extraordinary array of biological,

scientific, and historic resources” (see Appendix A, Sonoran Desert National Monument

Presidential Proclamation (p. )). The Monument is considered a geographic area (area 8 on Map

1-3), which contains one sub-area, the Sand Tank Mountains, formerly known as “Area A”, (area

9 on map), which is located in the southwest corner of the Monument.

1.2.2.3. The Barry M. Goldwater Range Relinquished Parcels

In addition to the above, specific geographic parcels also referred to throughout the plan are the

“BGR relinquished parcels.” These lands were withdrawn and reserved for military use in the

1940s by the Secretary of the Air Force to be managed as part of the BGR and were relinquished

to the BLM in 2001 per Public Law 106-65 (1999). These parcels include 78,000 acres in the

southern portion of the SDNM (formerly known as “Area A”), 21,400 acres in Sentinel Plain

(portions of the geographic area noted above), and 2,900 acres near the Ajo Airport referred to as

the “Ajo Airport parcels.”

1.3. Planning Process and Issues

1.3.1. Planning Process

An RMP is the master land-use plan that guides the management of public lands in a particular

area or administrative unit. They are usually prepared to cover the lands administered by a certain

field office. An approved RMP establishes the following items in a written document:

● Resource condition goals and objectives,

● Allowable resource uses and related levels of production or use to be maintained,

● Land areas to be managed for limited, restricted, or exclusive resource uses or for transfer

from BLM administration,

● Program constraints and general management practices and protocols,

● General implementation schedule or sequences, and

● Intervals and standards for monitoring the plan.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Process and Issues
6 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In accordance with 43 CFR 1610.4, preparation of an RMP involves interrelated steps as

described in Table 1.3, “Land Use Planning Process” (p. 6). This table identifies where this Draft

RMP/EIS fit in the overall planning process.

Table 1.3. Land Use Planning Process

Planning Steps Description

Identify Issues

Issues or land use problems that need to be resolved are identified. This ongoing

process ties to the NEPA scoping process.

Develop Planning

Criteria

Planning criteria establish constraints and guides for the planning process; streamline

the process; establish standards, rules, and measures; set the scope of inventory and

data collection; identify the range of alternatives; and estimate the extent of analysis.

Preliminary planning criteria developed by the BLM can be modified through public

comment.

Issue Notice of

Intent (NOI)/

Scoping

The NOI is published in the Federal Register, local media, mailings, etc. The NOI

identifies the preliminary issues and planning criteria and provides for a 30-day

public review and comment period. This is also the start of the formal NEPA scoping

process inviting the public to identify issues or land use problems that need to be

resolved. In addition to the Federal Register notice, ideas are solicited through

mailings, newspaper articles, public meetings, and workshops. Ideas from public,

private, and internal sources are gathered, screened, and evaluated. The issues to

guide the planning process are also summarized.

Collect Inventory

Data

Inventory data is collected based on the planning criteria. Data is generally collected

from existing sources. New data collection is limited to what is needed to resolve

the planning issues identified.

Write Analysis of

the Management

Situation (AMS)

Information is gathered on the current management situation, pertinent physical

and biological characteristics are described, and the capability and condition of the

resources are evaluated. This analysis provides a reference for developing and

evaluating alternatives.

Formulate

Alternatives

A range of reasonable combinations of resource uses and management practices is

identified. Reasonable alternatives are developed that address issues identified during

scoping and that offer a distinct choice among potential management strategies.

This includes a “No Action" Alternative, which is representative of the current

management situation.

Estimate Effects of

Alternatives

The impacts of each alternative on the environment and management situation are

estimated.

Select the Preferred

Alternative

The Field Manager recommends to the State Director a preferred alternative that

best resolves planning issues and promotes balanced multiple use objectives. The

State Director approves the selection of the preferred alternative along with the

other alternatives under consideration.

Issue Draft

RMP/EIS

The Notice of Availability (NOA) is published in the Federal Register, media,

mailings, etc. The NOA notifies the public of the availability of the Draft

RMP/EIS and provides for a 90-day public review and comment period.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Process August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 7

Planning Steps Description

Issue Proposed

RMP/ Final EIS

(PRMP/FEIS)

Public comments are evaluated and any needed modifications are made. A second

NOA is published and a copy of the PRMP/FEIS is filed with the Environmental

Protection Agency. This initiates the 30-day protest period under 43 CFR 1610.5-2.

Governor's

Consistency

Review

A 60-day Governor’s review to identify inconsistencies with State or local plans is

initiated simultaneously with the protest period on the PRMP/FEIS.

Protests

Protests are resolved by the Director by dismissing, denying, remanding, or granting

the protests in whole or in part. Planning decisions that are not under protest, or that

are denied or dismissed, may be implemented.

Plan Approval

Once protests have been resolved and the Governor’s consistency review has been

completed, the State Director may approve the RMPs by signing the Records of

Decision (RODs). An NOA is issued indicating that the Approved Plans/RODs

are available.

Monitor and

Evaluate the RMPs

The BLM ensures that the RMPs are continually monitored and evaluated until

they are replaced.

1.3.2. Public Scoping

The first step of preparing a draft RMP is identifying land use problems or issues that need

be addressed. These planning issues focus the direction and character of future public land

management so that existing resource conflicts may be resolved, goals and objectives may be

achieved, and future demands for resource use may be met.

Public scoping for the Draft RMP/EIS was announced in a Federal Register notice on April 24,

2002 for the SDNM Decision Area and in a second notice on December 9, 2002 for the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area. The opportunity to comment was also publicized through news releases,

mail notification, flyers, and other methods. Eleven public scoping meetings were held and

the public was invited to submit written comments. Overall, more than 6,000 comments were

received during the scoping period.

Since scoping, the BLM has held additional public workshops throughout the Planning Area to

collaborate on (1) planning criteria, (2) RMP goals and objectives, (3) the range of alternatives,

and (4) preliminary alternatives.

1.3.3. Collaboration

Consultation with American Indian tribes and coordination with numerous agencies and

governments at the Federal, State, and local levels has been an ongoing aspect of the planning

process. Periodic interdisciplinary team meetings have been held at key points in the process.

Early in the process, the BLM invited all agencies and tribes in Arizona to attend a workshop

discussing the cooperating agency process. As a result, cooperating agencies for preparation of

the Draft RMP/EIS include the Tohono O’odham Nation, Ak-Chin Indian Community, U.S.

Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, Department of Homeland Security (Border Patrol), Federal

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Public Scoping
8 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Highway Administration, AGFD, and Arizona Department of Transportation. A memorandum of

understanding (MOU) is also in place between the BLM and USFWS pursuant to both agencies’

responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. An agreement also is in place between the

BLM and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to responsibilities for cultural

resources.

1.3.4. Planning Issues Addressed in the RMP Process

One of the most important outcomes of the scoping process was the identification of significant

issues to be addressed in this Draft RMP/EIS. For planning purposes, an “issue” is defined as a

matter of controversy or dispute over potential land and resource allocations, levels of resource

use, production, and related management practices. Issues help determine what decisions will be

made in the RMP and what the Draft EIS must address as required by NEPA.

Based on the more than 6,000 scoping comments received and subsequent analysis and evaluation,

six major planning issues were identified within the scope of this Draft RMP/EIS. All six issues

center on larger issue of balancing resource use and human activity with the mandated level of

resource protection.

The issues presented here are broadly stated. Nested within each of these issues are many

resource questions that are addressed in this document. The variety of ways these questions can

be answered, within BLM legal mandates and current management direction constraints, helped

to formulate the action alternatives considered in this Draft RMP/EIS.

1.3.4.1. Issue 1: Travel Management

How will the BLM manage travel and public access?

Travel management is an important issues for the public and presents a management challenge

for the BLM. Many who commented during the public scoping process felt that existing roads

and trails should be kept open for public use and, where necessary, maintained, upgraded, or

improved to provide safe and efficient public access. Others were opposed to the creation of new

roads and/or believed that unnecessary roads should be closed for the protection of resources,

particularly those roads that might fragment wildlife habitat or damage archaeological sites or

riparian areas.

Additionally, members of the public expressed concern with the type of motor vehicle use that

should be allowed to gain access to the Decision Areas, with viewpoints falling into two general

categories: 1) those that valued off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and favored no or minimal

further limitations on such use and 2) those that expressed concern for the adverse effects from

unregulated or increased OHV activities.

The SDNM proclamation specifically states that all off-road motorized and mechanized vehicle

use will be prohibited except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. Such use,

however, is considered for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area under the action alternatives

described in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27).

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Issues Addressed in the RMP Process August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 9

1.3.4.2. Issue 2: Wilderness Characteristics

How will the BLM manage wilderness characteristics in the Decision Areas?

A number of individuals and groups voiced their concern for protecting areas with wilderness

characteristics in the Decision Areas, specifically in the SDNM. A number of citizen groups

and individuals suggested additional wilderness designations during the public scoping period,

including the establishment of 16 new wilderness study areas (WSAs) totaling 250,000 acres.

Other commenters felt that there is an abundance of existing wilderness, national monuments,

wildlife refuges, and other restricted access lands in the region and were opposed to the additional

wilderness-related allocations.

The discussion concerning recommending the designation of additional wilderness areas is

outside the scope of this Draft RMP/EIS. Only Congress can designate wilderness areas and

there is no BLM policy for establishment of WSAs. However, areas that contain wilderness

characteristics can be managed by the BLM to protect those characteristics. Various alternatives

are presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) of this document.

1.3.4.3. Issue 3: Wildlife

How will the BLM address wildlife management, including special status

species and wildlife water developments in the Decision Areas?

Various wildlife-water development programs, initiated in the 1940s and 1950s throughout the

western United States, have provided sources of freestanding water under the assumption that this

is a key limiting factor on wildlife populations in arid habitats. Critics have suggested that wildlife

water developments have not yielded expected benefits and may negatively influence wildlife by

increasing predation, competition, and disease transmission. The scientific community in Arizona,

led by the efforts of AGFD, is studying whether water developments are necessary for wildlife,

what effect developments might have on populations of non-target animals (e.g., predators), and

the development of additional wildlife waters. Scoping comments received regarding wildlife

water developments represent both sides of the debate. Some individuals advocated that no new

wildlife waters be developed while others stressed the importance of allowing the continued

access, maintenance, redevelopment, and/or construction of wildlife waters.

Wildlife corridors have also arisen as an important issue related to wildlife. Due to growth,

existing rights-of-way (ROWs), and the preponderance of wildlife corridors lying outside of

BLM jurisdiction in the Planning Area, there is concern about maintenance of sufficient wildlife

movement corridors within the Decision Areas. Several alternatives to addressing this issue are

discussed in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) of this document.

1.3.4.4. Issue 4: Livestock Grazing

How will livestock grazing be addressed in the Decision Areas, particularly in

the SDNM?

The scoping process identified livestock grazing as an important issue for a number of people.

Many comments pertained to better management of livestock grazing or were in favor of ending

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Issues Addressed in the RMP Process
10 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

livestock grazing on public lands. There were some who advocated prohibiting certain kinds of

grazing (e.g., year-round, domestic animals, stock grazing) and those who advocated prohibiting

grazing in certain areas (e.g., Sonoran pronghorn and/or desert tortoise habitat, riparian areas), or

under certain conditions (e.g., drought, when not sustainable).

The SDNM proclamation mandates that grazing permits on public lands within the Monument

south of I-8 will not be renewed at the end of their current term. All of these permits expired in

2008 and 2009. The proclamation also states that grazing on public lands north of I-8 will be

allowed to continue only to the extent that the BLM determines that grazing is compatible with

the paramount purpose of protecting the Monument objects identified in the proclamation. These

constraints are included in the grazing alternatives in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27).

1.3.4.5. Issue 5: Energy Development

How will renewable and traditional energy facilities and transmission corridors

be managed?

Given the growth in renewable energy interest in the Sonoran Desert, much concern was

expressed regarding utility corridors and some concern was expressed regarding renewable

energy, particularly solar sites. The energy-generating and transmission industries urged the BLM

to consider the importance of providing additional utility corridors to meet growing demands for

electrical energy requirements in Arizona. Others urged the BLM to consolidate requests for new

transmission lines within existing utility corridors and to refrain from granting ROWs for new

corridors. One exception to the opposition to new corridors was a proposal that new transmission

lines be accommodated within corridors established within 400 feet of each side of highways.

Given public concern and increased demand for energy, several alternatives for mineral

and transmission use, along with land use authorizations, are discussed in Chapter 2,

Alternatives (p. 27).

1.3.4.6. Issue 6: Recreation

How will public recreation activities be managed?

During public scoping, people reported that they enjoy a wide variety of activities in the Decision

Areas, including hiking, hunting, sightseeing, camping, observing wildlife, and OHV use.

They expressed desires for continued opportunities for such activities. Many of the comments

overlapped with the travel management issues, particularly with regard to OHV use. Some

disagreed with the types of recreational activities that should be allowed in the Decision Areas,

or specifically on the Monument. Many expressed concern for the management of certain types

of recreation to minimize environmental impacts. Some commenters advocated for dispersed

recreation, while others advocated for the development of various types of recreational services

(e.g., interpretive sites, restrooms, recreational vehicles areas, equestrian facilities, etc.). Some

individuals advocated the development of non-motorized recreational opportunities while

others preferred motorized forms of recreation. There were comments in support of dispersed,

primitive-type camping as well as comments in support of having more developed camping

with services and facilities.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Issues Addressed in the RMP Process August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 11

While some people indicated that they enjoy recreational shooting within the Decision Areas,

others expressed their opposition to recreational shooting due to its resource impacts as well as

noise and public safety concerns. The BLM also is concerned with the public safety implications

of recreational target shooting and the damage it may cause to resources in the Decision Areas,

particularly to Monument objects.

Given the proximity of the Decision Areas to the Phoenix metro area and the increased

participation of people in recreation pursuits on public lands over time, ineffective management

of visitor activities is recognized as potentially having profound environmental effects on both

Decision Areas. These possible effects, along with potential user conflicts, make appropriate

management of recreational activities crucial to protecting public resources. Decisions such as

where and what kind of recreational facilities to provide, how to minimize potential user conflicts,

and what types of recreation settings should be maintained in specific areas, are important

elements addressed in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) of this document.

1.3.5. Planning Issues Considered But Not Further Analyzed in

this RMP Process

The issues identified during public scoping (discussed above) shape the alternatives carried

forward in this RMP process. Others issues identified during public scoping were also considered

but are not analyzed further in this planning process because they fall outside of BLM jurisdiction

or are beyond the scope of this RMP effort. A list of these issues and the rationale for not

analyzing them further in this planning process is provided below.

1.3.5.1. Issue Considered 1: Water Control

Restore water to the rivers

● Rationale: The BLM does not control water rights on any of the rivers in the Planning Area,

and it is unlikely that any management action proposed by the BLM could restore water flow.

Local aquifers are being depleted and mineral-laden water is being pumped to the surface,

polluting waterways and killing vegetation

● Rationale: The BLM does not have the authority to permit or deny pumping of groundwater

in Arizona. Such authority lies with the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

1.3.5.2. Issue Considered 2: Biological Resources

Protect and restore native fish populations impacted by dams and non-native species

● Rationale: The BLM does not manage any suitable perennial aquatic habitat for native fish

species in the Planning Area. Streams within the Decision Areas are typically dry and flow

only in response to storm events.

Protect and manage Sonoran pronghorn and Sonoran pronghorn habitat within the SDNM

● Rationale: The SDNM is outside the current range of Sonoran pronghorn. The BLM will,

however, coordinate with the Sonoran pronghorn recovery team during the RMP process and

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Issues Considered But Not Analyzed
12 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

take any necessary measures for protection of historic habitat, as well as consider possible

reintroduction of Sonoran pronghorn into the Monument.

1.3.5.3. Issue Considered 3: Livestock Grazing

Increase grazing fees and use the money to hire more staff to study and protect the land

● Rationale: The BLM has no authority to adjust or change the grazing fee. It is set by a formula

contained in law, as is the disposition of the fees collected.

1.3.5.4. Issue Considered 4: Wild Horse & Burro Management

Do not implement wild horse and burro management in the SDNM

● Rationale: There are no wild, free-roaming horses or burros within the Monument, and

no herd areas have been designated or recognized, making it unnecessary to address their

management. There are feral burros on the adjacent Barry M. Goldwater Range and they may

extend into the southeastern part of the Monument; however, these feral burros are managed

outside of The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.

1.3.5.5. Issue Considered 5: Minerals Management

Allow mining in the Monument; do not grant new mineral leases; ensure any new mining

claims are valid and limit to small-scale operation; study/regulate coal-bed methane wells;

limit or prohibit resource use in the Monument except for strategic and low impact mineral

extraction

● Rationale: Lands within the SDNM are closed to mineral development (subject to valid

existing rights) by Monument proclamation. There is no coal in either of the Decision Areas.

It is inappropriate that hardrock mining on public lands is governed by outdated laws such as

the General Mining Law of 1872

● Rationale: The BLM does not have discretionary authority to disregard existing laws. Rather,

a course of action that complies with existing laws, such as the General Mining Law of

1872, must be pursued.

1.3.5.6. Issue Considered 6: Land Tenure Adjustment & Withdrawals

Within the SDNM, sell BLM holdings only as an absolute last resort

● Rationale: According to the Monument proclamation, the BLM does not have the authority

to sell public lands in the SDNM and can only exchange such lands when it furthers the

purposes of the Monument.

Use zoning laws to establish a balance between property rights and conservation of natural

resources

● Rationale: The BLM does not have jurisdiction over zoning laws. Rather, local and county

governments are responsible for establishing zoning laws and controlling land use through

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Issues Considered But Not Analyzed August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 13

zoning. On the other hand, the potential for acquisition, disposal, and exchange of public

lands could indirectly affect zoning and development and is considered further in the RMP.

Allow renewal of the lease for public lands bound by Mountain View Road on the east,

Goldfield Road on the west, and U.S. 60 on the north near Apache Junction

● Rationale: The land specified in this comment is under a variety of withdrawals, leases, and

permits, including a recreation and public purposes (R&PP) lease to the City of Apache

Junction for equestrian and other recreational activities. The R&PP lease will remain in effect

for the duration as identified in the lease and will not be affected by the RMP.

1.3.5.7. Issue Considered 7: Corridors, Communications Sites & Renewable

Energy Sites

In the Lower Sonoran Decision Area, do not use the Palo Verde-Devers route as a utility

corridor if it would result in building additional power lines or pipelines through the Kofa

National Wildlife Refuge

● Rationale: The Kofa National Wildlife Refuge is located outside of the Lower Sonoran

Planning Area and is administered by the USFWS. It is thus not addressed in this RMP.

1.3.5.8. Issue Considered 8: Special Area Designations

Designate 140,506 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains, Margie’s Peak, and Butterfield Pass

units as WSAs as outlined in the Arizona Wilderness Coalition proposal

In the Lower Sonoran Planning Area, designate the Sentinel Plain and Gila Bend Mountains

region, Saddle Mountain and Palo Verde Hills, and 16 other areas as WSAs, totaling 250,000

acres

Do not designate any additional wildernesses or WSAs; these misguided preservation

designations have detrimental impacts on wildlife populations because of unwarranted burdens

● Rationale: Only Congress has the authority to designate wilderness and the current DOI

and BLM policy does not provide for designation of additional WSAs. However, areas that

contain wilderness characteristics can be actively managed by the BLM to protect those

characteristics and various alternatives for this management are presented in Chapter 2,

Alternatives (p. 27) of this document.

Designate segments of the Gila River as a wild and scenic river to protect the river itself and the

surrounding riparian areas

● Rationale: The Gila River’s eligibility for the National Wild and Scenic River System

(NWSRS) was assessed in a series of field surveys from 1992 to 2005. The Wild and Scenic

Rivers Act of 1968 authorizes the protection of free-flowing rivers with “outstandingly

remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar

values.” None of the segments of the lower Gila River that run through the Planning Area

was found to be eligible for the NWSRS. See Appendix D, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment (p. 1027) for more information.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Issues Considered But Not Analyzed
14 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1.3.5.9. Issue Considered 9: Visual Resources

Protect the viewsheds through zoning and other mechanisms

● Rationale: Local and county governments control land use through zoning; however, the

BLM can address the protection of viewsheds through other means. The BLM considers

viewshed protection through the visual resource management program. Various degrees

of such protection have been incorporated into the alternatives proposed in Chapter 2,

Alternatives (p. 27).

1.3.5.10. Issue Considered 10: Travel Management

Provide additional motorized public access in wilderness areas for people who are unable to

walk long distances

● Rationale: Wilderness areas are designated by Congress and must be managed in accordance

with the Wilderness Act of 1964, which expressly prohibits motorized vehicle use by the

public for recreational purposes. The BLM thus has no authority to develop new or open old

motorized vehicle routes within designated wilderness.

Within the SDNM, designate OHV use areas in locations with low wildlife-habitat values or

where OHV use is already popular; keep each OHV use area to about 30 acres with twisting

and interlaced trails

● Rationale: Presidential Proclamation 7397 prohibits off-road use in the SDNM; consequently,

OHV areas cannot be designated within the Monument.

Provide or re-open cherry stem access of existing roads in some areas, such as

the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge

● Rationale: The BLM has no authority to address management of the Cabeza Prieta National

Wildlife Refuge due to the lack of public lands in the refuge; however, the BLM will address

vehicle access and route designation in the Decision Areas.

1.3.5.11. Issue Considered 11: Airspace

Consider how wilderness designations could adversely affect military overflights

● Rationale: As identified under Issue Considered 8, the BLM does not have the authority

designate new WSAs or wilderness areas. There would thus be no potential for conflicts

to emerge between military airspace use and new WSA/wilderness designations. In terms

of conflicts with existing wilderness areas in the SDNM, the Monument proclamation

establishing the SDNM provides for continued military use of airspace over the SDNM,

including over existing wilderness areas

Work closely with nearby military bases and airports to schedule flights and

design flight paths that are the least intrusive to wildlife populations and the

Monument

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Issues Considered But Not Analyzed August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 15

● Rationale: The Monument proclamation does not address the need for the BLM to dictate

flight paths, and the many and varied uses by the military of the airspace over the Monument

preclude establishing specific flight paths. The military already has specific high altitude flight

paths, but they are very wide and have little impact on Monument resources.

1.3.5.12. Issue Considered 12: Socioeconomics

Include a full identification of the social and economic impacts on all of the

approved regional extra-high-voltage electric system components

● Rationale: This document evaluates economic impacts of the alternatives, including those

regarding corridors and ROWs, as needed at a programmatic level to assess the potential

environmental impacts. Cumulative economic impacts (i.e., the impacts of the alternatives

when combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions) are also addressed. A

full social and economic impact analysis of the regional extra-high-voltage electric system

components, however, is beyond the scope of this EIS.

1.3.5.13. Considered 13: Border Activity – Undocumented Immigrants and

Drug Smuggling

Manage illegal immigration and drug smuggling

● Rationale: BLM does not manage specifically for illicit immigration or drug smuggling.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), under the Department of Homeland Security

(DHS), has the mission and responsibility for securing the U.S. Border and enforcing federal

immigration and drug laws. While the BLM can respond to crime and resource impacts from

border activity, jurisdiction of illegal immigration and international drug smuggling lies with

the CBP and DHS. BLM law enforcement is predominantly responsible for visitor safety and

resource protection. In coordination with CBP, DHS, and state and local law enforcement

agencies, BLM:

○ Develops integrated resource and law enforcement goals and priorities on NLCS units and

other Borderlands locales;

○ coordinates resource rehabilitation and mitigation with deployment of law enforcement

resources to maximize effectiveness of both within the Borderlands;

○ monitors smuggling activity levels, resource impacts and mitigation efforts through

existing and developing technologies;

○ communicates and coordinates effectively with agency partners and public, including

sharing of funding and intelligence;

○ works with partners to identify key areas for increased enforcement, closure, restoration,

protection efforts and visitor safety;

○ actively deploys and collaborates on enhanced communication technologies;

○ implements coordinated safety measures for agency staff, fire and law enforcement

personnel, and public visitors.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Issues Considered But Not Analyzed
16 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1.3.6. Other Elements not Addressed in this Plan

Various laws, regulations, policies, and executive orders require specific resource elements be

considered during the NEPA process. Based on an evaluation of these elements by the BLM, the

following was determined to be not present within or otherwise relevant to the Decision Areas

and is dismissed from further consideration in this analysis:

● Prime and Unique Farmlands: In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act,

the BLM determined that no prime or unique farmlands or farmlands of statewide or local

importance are present on public lands in the Planning Area.

1.4. Planning Area Guidance

The BLM developed a significance statement for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area based on

management principals identified by FLPMA. For the SDNM Decision Area, the BLM developed

“purpose” and “significance” statements to clarify the intent of the Monument proclamation and

to help shape the development of this Draft RMP/Draft EIS. Purpose statements clarify why the

Monument was set aside as units for special management, while significance statements address

what makes the area unique.

The BLM also developed a vision and goals for both Decision Areas. A vision, as used in this

context, is an ideal to strive for which is not quantifiable or set to a specific period. It reflects the

goals that are common to all alternatives that are presented in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) and

helps integrate the various resource management programs (i.e., resources, resource uses, special

designations, and social and economic conditions).

1.4.1. Lower Sonoran Decision Area Planning Guidance

1.4.1.1. Significance of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area provides a wide diversity of resources and opportunities

and includes wide-open expanses of Sonoran Desert landscapes, including some of the largest

open areas near Phoenix and Tucson. Public lands also provide important habitat to support the

robust diversity of wildlife found in the Sonoran Desert. In concert with other large landowners

and managers in southwestern Arizona, these lands provide large landscapes that help sustain

healthy populations of wildlife for the long term. Public lands also contain a history and evidence

of human use spanning more than 10,000 years, including villages, farms, rock art, ranches,

and travel corridors.

These public lands provide some of the last opportunities for undeveloped and dispersed recreation

in the area. These opportunities are particularly important because of the rapid urban growth in

Phoenix and Tucson and the increasing number of people living near and recreating on public

lands. Public lands also attract visitors from all over the United States and many other countries.

Public lands provide important resources to the growing communities in southern Arizona. These

include providing corridors for transmission of utilities to new and growing communities and

providing access to mineral and renewable energy development.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Other Elements not Addressed in this Plan August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 17

1.4.1.2. Management Vision

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area will retain its wide-open spaces and healthy functioning

Sonoran Desert ecosystems while providing opportunities for a multitude of public uses and

benefits.

1.4.1.3. Overarching Goals

● Manage natural and cultural resources to ensure that these resources are conserved, enhanced,

restored, or preserved in a healthy condition for use by current and future generations

consistent with the concepts of multiple use and sustained yield.

● Manage commercial and industrial uses of public lands to meet community needs, benefit

the public, and obtain economic return consistent with other resource management

responsibilities.

● Sustain a diverse array of recreation settings in order to produce a variety of benefits,

opportunities, and experiences to meet the needs of public land users consistent with resource

protection goals.

● Sustain a diverse array of recreation settings in order to produce a variety of benefits,

opportunities, and experiences to meet the needs of public land users consistent with resource

protection goals.

● Promote compatibility between the management of public and adjacent lands.

● Encourage interagency and community partnerships to enhance effective management of

public lands.

● Develop outreach and educational programs that build constituencies, expand understanding

and appreciation of public lands and resources, and enable an enjoyable experience on the

public lands.

● Manage public lands in a manner that considers public health and safety.

1.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument Decision Area

Planning Guidance

1.4.2.1. Monument Purpose

The purpose of the SDNM designation is to protect and manage the Monument's natural, geologic,

and cultural resources (i.e., Monument objects) for long-term conservation, and to further our

knowledge and understanding of such resources through scientific research and interpretation.

The Monument was specifically designated to protect certain resources, including:

● A large Sonoran Desert landscape that connects to other large natural areas;

● The ecological diversity of the Sonoran Desert, including a diversity of flora and fauna

associated with rare woodlands assemblages, palo verde-mixed cacti, creosote-bursage, desert

washes, and rare desert grasslands vegetation communities;

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Guidance
18 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● A cultural landscape that appears largely unchanged, with a rich history that spans at least

10,000 years, from the Archaic to modern day.

Resources mentioned above summarize the Monument objects that are to be the focus of

protection in the SDNM RMP. The Monument objects are described in the text of Presidential

Proclamation 7397. Table 1.4, “SDNM Objects” (p. 18) further clarifies the objects and identified

specific protection criteria for each object or set of objects. Specific discussion regarding

proposed uses and potential affects and impacts regarding these Monument objects may be

found in the relevant resource sections in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences (p. 371) or

the appendices of this plan.

Table 1.4. SDNM Objects

Paragraph from Presidential Proclamation 7397 Monument

Object Characteristics

Protection

Criteria

1. “The Sonoran Desert National Monument is a

magnificent example of untrammeled Sonoran desert

landscape. The area encompasses a functioning

desert ecosystem with an extraordinary array of

biological, scientific, and historic resources. The most

biologically diverse of the North American deserts,

the Monument consists of distinct mountain ranges

separated by wide valleys, and includes large saguaro

cactus forest communities that provide excellent

habitat for a wide range of wildlife species.”

Functioning

Desert

Ecosystem

Physical: Distinct

mountain ranges

separated by wide

valleys

Ecological: Sonoran

Desert landscape with

properly functioning

desert ecosystem, large

saguaro cactus forest

communities, habitat for

a wide range of wildlife

species

Prevent avoidable

soil loss.

Maintain properly

functioning plant

communities

defined by

structure,

cover, diversity,

composition,

and presence

or absence of

invasive species.

2. “The Monument's biological resources include a

spectacular diversity of plant and animal species. The

higher peaks include unique woodland assemblages,

while the lower elevation lands offer one of the most

structurally complex examples of palo verde/mixed

cacti association in the Sonoran Desert. The dense

stands of leguminous trees and cacti are dominated by

saguaros, palo verde trees, ironwood, prickly pear,

and cholla. Important natural water holes, known

as tinajas, exist throughout the Monument. The

endangered acuña pineapple cactus is also found in

the Monument.”

Diversity

of Plant

and Animal

Species

Biological: Saguaros,

palo verde trees,

ironwood, prickly pear,

cholla, acuña pineapple

cactus

Physical:: Tinajas

Ecological: Woodland

assemblages,

structurally complex

palo verde-mixed cacti

association, dense stands

of leguminous trees and

cacti

Maintain normal

variation in plant

composition,

diversity, and

abundance of

native species,

diversity of

niches, and

landscape-level

structural

complexity.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Guidance August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 19

Paragraph from Presidential Proclamation 7397 Monument

Object Characteristics

Protection

Criteria

3. “The most striking aspect of the plant communities

within the Monument are [sic] the abundant saguaro

cactus forests. The saguaro is a signature plant of the

Sonoran Desert. Individual saguaro plants are indeed

magnificent, but a forest of these plants, together with

the wide variety of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous

plants that make up the forest community, is an

impressive site [sic] to behold. The saguaro cactus

forests within the Monument are a national treasure,

rivaling those within the Saguaro National Park.”

Saguaro

Cactus Forests

Biological: Saguaro

Ecological: Plant

communities; saguaro

cactus forests; wide

variety of trees, shrubs,

and herbaceous plants

Maintain age

class and stand

structure and

density. Ensure

suitable nurse

plants are present

and saguaro

recruitment is

adequate for

cactus forest

sustainability.

4. “The rich diversity, density, and distribution

of plants in the Sand Tank Mountains area of the

Monument is especially striking and can be attributed

to the management regime in place since the area

was withdrawn for military purposes in 1941. In

particular, while some public access to the area is

allowed, no livestock grazing has occurred for nearly

50 years. To extend the extraordinary diversity and

overall ecological health of the Sand Tanks [sic]

Mountains area, land adjacent and with biological

resources similar to the area withdrawn for military

purposes should be subject to a similar management

regime to the fullest extent possible.”

Sand Tank

Mountains

Physical: Sand Tank

Mountains

Ecological: Diversity,

density, and distribution

of plants

Maintain normal

variation in

diversity, density,

and distribution of

plants.

5. “The Monument contains an abundance of packrat

middens, allowing for scientific analysis of plant

species and climates in past eras. Scientific analysis of

the midden [sic] shows that the area received far more

precipitation 20,000 years ago, and slowly became

more arid. Vegetation for the area changed from

juniper-oak-pinion pine woodland to the vegetation

found today in the Sonoran Desert, although a few

plants from the more mesic period, including the Kofa

Mountain barberry, Arizona rosewood, and junipers,

remain on higher elevations of north-facing slopes.”

Scientific

Analysis of

Plant Species

and Climates

Biological: Packrat

middens, mesic period,

Kofa Mountain barberry,

Arizona rosewood,

junipers

Protect packrat

middens, dry

caves or rock

shelters, and

relic species.

Within establish

guidelines, make

middens available

for scientific study

and analysis.

6. “The lower elevations and flatter areas of the

Monument contain the creosote-bursage plant

community. This plant community thrives in the open

expanses between the mountain ranges, and connects

the other plant communities together. Rare patches

of desert grassland can also be found throughout the

Monument, especially in the Sand Tank Mountains

area. The washes in the area support a much denser

vegetation community than the surrounding desert,

including mesquite, ironwood, palo verde, desert

honeysuckle, chuperosa, and desert willow, as well

as a variety of herbaceous plants. This vegetation

offers the dense cover bird species need for successful

Vegetation

Communities:

Creosote

Bush-Bursage,

Desert

Grassland, and

Washes

Biological: Mesquite,

ironwood, palo verde,

desert honeysuckle,

chuperosa, desert

willow, herbaceous

plants

Physical: Sand Tank

Mountains

Ecological:

Creosote-bursage

plant community,

Prevent avoidable

soil loss.

Maintain properly

functioning plant

communities

as defined

by structure,

cover, diversity,

composition,

invasive species,

desert washesbank stability,

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Guidance
20 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Paragraph from Presidential Proclamation 7397 Monument

Object Characteristics

Protection

Criteria

nesting, foraging, and escape, and birds heavily use

the washes during migration.”

desert grassland,

densely vegetated wash

communities

woody over story,

and continuity of

vertical structure.

7. “The diverse plant communities present in

the Monument support a wide variety of wildlife,

including the endangered Sonoran pronghorn,

a robust population of desert bighorn sheep,

especially in the Maricopa Mountains area, and other

mammalian species such as mule deer, javelina,

mountain lion, gray fox, and bobcat. Bat species

within the Monument include the endangered lesser

long-nosed bat, the California leaf-nosed bat, and

the cave myotis. Over 200 species of [song] birds

are found in the Monument, including 59 species

known to nest in the Vekol Valley area. Numerous

species of raptors and owls inhabit the Monument,

including the elf owl and the western screech owl.

The Monument also supports a diverse array of

reptiles and amphibians, including the Sonoran desert

tortoise and the red-backed whiptail. The BLM has

designated approximately 25,000 acres of land in

the Maricopa Mountains area as critical habitat for

the desert tortoise. The Vekol Valley and Sand Tank

Mountain areas contain especially diverse and robust

populations of amphibians. During summer rainfall

events, thousands of Sonoran green toads in the Vekol

Valley can be heard moving around and calling out.”

Wildlife

Biological: Sonoran

pronghorn, desert

bighorn sheep, mule

deer, javelina, mountain

lion, gray fox, bobcat,

bat species (including

lesser long-nosed bat,

California leaf-nosed

bat, and cave myotis),

200 species of songbirds,

raptors, owls (including

elf owl and western

screech owl), red-backed

whiptail, Sonoran green

toads, critical habitat for

Sonoran desert tortoise

Physical: Maricopa

Mountains, Vekol Valley,

Sand Tank Mountains

Ecological:: Diverse

plant communities

Maintain viable

populations of

wildlife species,

focusing, as

appropriate, on

foraging habitat,

hiding cover,

nesting/roosting

habitat, escape

cover, and thermal

cover. Prevent

avoidable loss

of special status

species.

8. “The Monument also contains many significant

archaeological and historic sites, including rock art

sites, lithic quarries, and scattered artifacts. Vekol

Wash is believed to have been an important prehistoric

travel and trade corridor between the Hohokam and

tribes located in what is now Mexico. Signs of large

villages and permanent habitat sites occur throughout

the area, and particularly along the bajadas of the

Table Top Mountains. Occupants of these villages

were the ancestors of today's O'odham, Quechan,

Cocopah, Maricopa, and other tribes. The Monument

also contains a much used trail corridor 23 miles long

in which are found remnants of several important

historic trails, including the Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail, the Mormon Battalion Trail,

and the Butterfield Overland Stage Route.”

Archaeological

and Historic

Sites

Cultural:

Archaeological and

historic sites, rock art

sites, lithic quarries,

scattered artifacts, large

villages, permanent

habitat sites, Anza

National Historic Trail

corridor, Mormon

Battalion Trail,

Butterfield Overland

Stage Route

Physical: Vekol Wash,

bajadas, Table Top

Mountains

Reduce threats

and resolve

conflicts from

natural and

human-caused

degradation

affecting integrity

of sites and

settlement

clusters, site

condition context,

setting, stability,

and capacity to

yield scientific

information.

For the Anza

Trail, reduce

threats related

to the historic

trail corridor, its

setting, and loss

of interpretative

opportunities.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Guidance August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 21

1.4.2.2. Significance of the SDNM

The SDNM includes natural resources that represent the biological diversity of the Sonoran

Desert, including ecological communities found in both the Arizona uplands subdivision and the

Lower Colorado River subdivision of the Sonoran Desert biome. The ecological communities

include large, high-quality examples of common Sonoran Desert communities such as creosote

bursage and palo verde-mixed cacti, which contain expansive saguaro cactus forests and provide

habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls, Sonoran desert

tortoise, lesser long-nosed bat, Sonoran pronghorn, and desert bighorn sheep. Less common

communities include rare woodland assemblages typically found in wetter climates, desert

grasslands, and other habitats that are important for foraging and nesting birds and amphibians.

Cutting through these communities are desert washes that provide important wildlife cover,

movement corridors, and forage, especially in hot summer months. This ecological diversity

provides habitat for animals and plants to complete their life cycles and survive drought. There

are also excellent opportunities for scientific research on many aspects of the Sonoran Desert.

The Monument includes a diverse cultural landscape that appears little changed from prehistoric

to modern times and provides a rare opportunity to protect, in one area, a wide diversity of

sites, both in time and in place. It contains sites representative of the time periods from the

Archaic through the modern day, including villages, camps, Ak-Chin farming sites, rock art,

lithic scatters, homesteads, and historic ranches, as well as economically important trade and

travel routes. These and other sites are an important connection for contemporary tribal peoples

and descendants of those who have traveled through and settled here. The Monument provides

significant opportunities to expand our knowledge and understanding of aboriginal peoples,

Spanish explorers, and Euro-Americans within a landscape that encompassed all aspects of

their daily lives.

The Monument is a large area of Sonoran Desert that supports large-scale ecological processes.

This largely undeveloped area provides important open space, wilderness opportunities, and a

valuable visual landscape in the midst of a rapidly urbanizing area.

1.4.2.3. Management Vision

The SDNM shelters and will continue to shelter a healthy and functioning ecosystem that includes

the diversity of biological, cultural, geologic, and scientific resources found in the Sonoran Desert

while providing compatible recreation and other public use opportunities.

1.4.2.4. Overarching Goals

Public land management goals are derived from the overriding purpose and vision for an area

and provide refined guidance for the RMP. The overarching plan-level goals of the SDNM RMP

are as follows:

1. Assign the highest planning and management priority to the protection of the cultural,

biological, physical, and scientific resources for which the Monument was created.

2. Protect, restore, maintain, and manage the native biological diversity and associated values

of the Monument within their broader ecosystem context, with particular attention to

retaining connectivity with other natural areas and conserving habitats for viable populations

of a full range of native species.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Guidance
22 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3. Protect and manage the cultural resources of the Monument, paying particular attention to

the cultural landscape and the relationship of individual sites to the larger landscape.

4. Encourage scientific research that aims to expand understanding and improve management

of Sonoran Desert resources.

5. Manage natural, recreational, and social settings to protect the undeveloped and natural

character of the Monument while providing opportunities for compatible, sustainable public

use and enjoyment.

6. Develop outreach and educational programs and materials that build constituencies,

expand understanding and appreciation of the Monument and its resources, and provide for

enjoyable experiences at the Monument.

7. Manage the Monument in a manner that considers public health and safety.

1.5. PLANNING CRITERIA

Planning criteria are the standards, rules, and guidelines that help to guide the RMP planning

process. The LSFO has developed planning criteria to help guide the development of this Draft

RMP/EIS. The planning criteria were derived principally from FLPMA and other applicable laws

and, in the case of the SDNM, from Presidential Proclamation 7397, as well as collaboration with

partner agencies, American Indian tribes, and the public during the RMP planning process. The

planning criteria were provided to the public for review during the scoping process and were

included in the scoping report. General planning criteria are presented below.

1.5.1. General Planning Criteria Common to Both Decision Areas

● The planning process will include an EIS that will comply with NEPA standards. Two records

of decision will be issued: one for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area and one for the SDNM

Decision Area.

● The RMP will be completed in compliance with FLPMA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.), NEPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection

Act, and all other relevant Federal laws and executive orders, as well as the management

policies of the BLM.

● Where planning decisions have previously been made that still apply, those decisions

will be carried forward into the RMP. The BLM will also use information developed and

management alternatives proposed in previous studies of the Planning Area, including the

proposed Amendment and Environmental Assessment to the Lower Gila North Management

Framework Plan and the Lower Gila South RMP (BLM 2000).

● Planning decisions will be made in the context of the best-available data, including

information specific to public lands. Regional contextual data may also be used to identify the

regional importance of public lands for resource use and protection.

● The planning team will work collaboratively with the State of Arizona; Maricopa, Pinal,

Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties; tribal governments; municipal governments; other Federal

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

individuals. Decisions in the plans will strive to be compatible with existing plans and

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Planning Criteria August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 23

policies of adjacent local, State, tribal, and Federal agencies, consistent with Federal law and

regulations. Opportunities to coordinate management with adjoining landowners for resource

protection and public uses will be considered.

● The RMP will be developed to be flexible and adaptable to new and emerging issues and

opportunities. During implementation of the RMP, the BLM will continue to work in

partnership with the public and local, State, and tribal governments and agencies to identify

priority implementation projects and to identify and resolve emerging issues.

● 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.

● Consultation with the USFWS will take place throughout the planning process in accordance

with Section 7 of the ESA and the National Memorandum of Agreement (August 30, 2000) to

identify conservation actions and measures for inclusion in the plans.

● Coordination with the Arizona SHPO will be conducted throughout the planning process.

● The plans will recognize the State's authority to manage wildlife populations, including

hunting and fishing, within the Planning Area. Coordination with AGFD will occur in

accordance with the statewide MOU (March 1987).

● The plans will set forth a framework for managing recreational and commercial activities in

order to maintain existing natural landscapes and to provide for the enjoyment and safety of

the visiting public.

● The lifestyles of area residents, including the wide variety of uses of the public lands, will

be considered in the RMP.

● Any lands, or interests therein, acquired by the BLM within the Planning Area boundary

will be managed consistently with the RMP, subject to any constraints associated with the

acquisition.

● The RMP will address travel management for the public lands. Areas will be identified as

open to vehicles, closed to vehicles, or limited to designated roads. Within the Monument and

in other areas identified in the RMP, motorized and mechanized routes will be designated.

● The RMP will recognize valid, existing rights.

● Federal Geographic Data Committee standards and other applicable BLM standards will be

followed in the development and management of data.

● Management of existing wilderness will continue. The RMP will not address reduction or

elimination of existing wilderness, changes in boundaries of existing wilderness, or opening

of roads or mechanized or motorized access into existing wilderness.

1.5.2. Lower Sonoran Decision Area Planning Criteria

● The Lower Sonoran RMP will establish management guidance for public lands outside of the

SDNM. The Lower Sonoran RMP will replace and supersede all other BLM RMPs for the

lands covered by the Lower Sonoran RMP.

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Lower Sonoran Planning Criteria
24 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1.5.3. SDNM Decision Area Planning Criteria

Planning criteria for the SDNM is derived from Presidential Proclamation 7397 that established

the SDNM “for the purpose of protecting the objects” for which the Monument was designated.

The proclamation also states that the BLM will manage the Monument “pursuant to applicable

legal authorities, to implement the purposes of the proclamation.” Thus, any BLM planning

criteria developed for the SDNM is inextricably tied to protecting the objects identified in the

proclamation.

● The SDNM RMP will establish guidance upon which the BLM will manage the SDNM, and

will replace and supersede all other BLM RMPs for the lands covered by the SDNM RMP.

● The SDNM RMP will meet the requirements of the Presidential Proclamation 7397, dated

January 17, 2001, to protect the objects of geological, archaeological, historical, and biological

value within the Monument.

● In accordance with the proclamation, acquired lands and interests within the Monument’s

boundary will be added to the Monument and will be managed consistently with the SDNM

RMP.

● To maintain the existing natural and cultural landscapes of the SDNM to the maximum extent

possible, facilities will be located outside the Monument’s boundary or in neighboring

communities. Facilities that must be located within the Monument’s boundaries will be placed

in such a way that they are unobtrusive, to the extent practicable.

● The SDNM RMP will not address Monument boundary adjustments or proposals to change

the Proclamation.

1.6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS

1.6.1. Relationship to Other BLM Plans, Plan Amendments &

Programmatic EISs

In addition to the management plans and amendments being revised in this document, a number

of existing management plans, programmatic documents, and standards and guidelines were

considered in the preparation of this Draft RMP/EIS. These documents include the following:

● “Eastern Arizona Grazing EIS and Rangeland Program Summary” (BLM 1985): applicable to

part of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area (East Valley parcels only),

● “Lower Gila North Grazing EIS and Rangeland Program Summary” (BLM 1983): applicable

to part of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area (Saddle Mountain only),

● “Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic

EIS” (BLM 2007): applicable to the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas,

● “Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental

Report” (BLM 2007): applicable to the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas,

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

SDNM Planning Criteria August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 25

● “Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal Lands in the 11 Western States Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement” (DOE 2007): applicable to the Lower Sonoran and SDNM

Decision Areas,

● “Draft Programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States”

(DOE-BLM 2010).

Management of public lands within the SDNM is directed by Presidential Proclamation 7397,

issued on January 17, 2001. The proclamation is the legal instrument that establishes the

boundaries and purposes of the SDNM. The priority for management of the SDNM is protection

of the natural and cultural resource values for which the area was designated, subject to

withdrawals, leases, and valid existing rights. The proclamation supersedes some of the guidance

provided by existing RMPs for the area.

1.6.2. Relationship to State, Local, Tribal, and other Federal

Plans, Laws, Policies & Programs

Bureau of Land Management land use planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.3), FLPMA (43 USC

1712), and regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1501.5 and 1501.6) guide the BLM in

coordinating and cooperating with other Federal and State agencies, local governments and

American Indian tribes during the land use planning process. This collective guidance instructs

the BLM to:

● Stay informed of Federal, State, local, and tribal plans,

● Ensure that it considers these plans in its own planning,

● Help resolve inconsistencies between such plans and BLM planning,

● Cooperate with other agencies and tribal governments in the development of RMPs and

NEPA analysis.

In accordance with these provisions, the BLM initially informed other Federal, State, local, and

tribal officials of its intent to prepare new RMPs, as detailed in the Scoping Report. Collaboration

with these agencies has continued throughout the planning and EIS process.

Agency coordination efforts have included reviewing numerous plans that provide the policies

and guide the activities of these agencies and governments. Plans consulted in the preparation

of this Draft RMP/EIS can be found in Appendix C, State, County, Local and Other Related

Agency Plans (p. 1023).

1.6.2.1. Specific Agreements

The BLM and AGFD have agreed to work cooperatively to manage wildlife resources on public

lands throughout Arizona. The master MOU (AZ-930-0703) between the BLM’s Arizona State

Office and the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which sets policy for the management,

preservation, and harvest of wildlife and fish resources, establishes the BLM’s responsibility for

managing wildlife habitat on public lands and the AGFD’s public trust responsibility to manage

fish and wildlife populations through the authority of the Commission. As stated in the MOU,

the BLM and the AGFD “consider the management of fish and wildlife resources as a high

August 2011

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP

Relationship to Other Plans
26 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

priority and agree to work cooperatively to achieve a shared goal to actively manage, sustain, and

enhance those resources.”

The BLM, Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and Arizona Division of Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) have agreed to establish and improve cooperative working

relationships (MOU No. AZ-931-0309 Amendment 2). This MOU provides for a coordinated

approach to accomplish land and resource management along with transportation development

and operation management. The MOU is designed to reduce/eliminate duplication of work,

establish procedures for streamlining work processes, ensure that each agency is provided with

sufficient lead-time, share available resources, and develop and execute action programs that

maximize responsiveness to public needs and concerns. Per the MOU, BLM will coordinate with

responsible agencies to develop design features that minimize the fragmenting effect of the

planned roadway and evaluate/incorporate safe and effective wildlife crossings. Where planned

roadways potentially fragment other resources, BLM will work with the responsible agency to

provide continued connectivity for those purposes. 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.

Chapter 1 Purpose & Need for the RMP August 2011
Chapter 2. Alternatives
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 29

2.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes and compares alternatives for developing the Lower Sonoran and Sonoran

Desert National Monument (SDNM) Draft Resource Management Plan and accompanying Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS). The documents consist of five alternatives:

a No-Action (or current management) Alternative and four action alternatives. The No-Action

Alternative means that management of the affected public lands and resources would continue

without change from the guidance provided by existing applicable land use plans (LUPs) and,

in the case of SDNM, Presidential Proclamation 7397 and its associated Interim Guidance. The

action alternatives present various combinations of public land uses and resource management

practices that address issues identified during the scoping process. Each alternative varies in

perspective and intensity of management, and describes a series of decisions and desired outcomes

that collectively would direct future management for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision

Areas. Additionally, each alternative consists of a set of designations, land use allocations,

allowable uses, and management actions needed for implementation of that alternative. All

alternatives have been assessed for potential environmental impacts, which are summarized at

the end of this chapter. A detailed discussion of the potential impacts is presented in Chapter 4,

Environmental Consequences (p. 371).

The alternatives represent a reasonable range of management options identified in accordance

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), other applicable laws, intergovernmental

and interagency collaboration, and public participation. These inputs were used to derive the

management purposes, missions, and goals for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP/EIS,

described in Chapter 1, Purpose & Need for the RMP (p. 1). Consistency with these purposes,

missions, and goals was a basic requirement for each alternative.

Once the purposes, missions, and goals were established, the intergovernmental/interagency

planning team developed management alternatives that incorporated decisions for a number of

resource or resource use categories. These are described below in Table 2.2, “ Program Area

Categories and Abbreviations” (p. 46)

The above information was presented, reviewed, and discussed at public workshops throughout

the Lower Sonoran Planning Area. Public input from the workshops was carefully considered

by the planning team and incorporated into the scope and content of the alternatives provided in

this DEIS.

Each alternative portrays a different management focus, as defined by the desired outcomes and

actions selected for each alternative. All alternatives meet the Bureau of Land Management’s

(BLM’s) overarching principles of multiple use and sustained yield. All action alternatives provide

a high degree of protection for SDNM resources, as required by Presidential Proclamation 7397.

2.2. TYPES OF BLM DECISIONS

These plans include two types of BLM decisions: RMP and implementation. This document

describes other administrative actions the BLM takes when managing public lands. These types

of decisions and administrative actions are described below.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Introduction
30 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.2.1. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN DECISIONS

RMP decisions represent the goals and objectives for the Planning Area, and the actions needed to

achieve them. These decisions guide future land management actions and subsequent site-specific

implementation decisions.

2.2.1.1. Goals & Objectives

LUPs must identify goals and objectives that direct the BLM actions to meet legal mandates,

regulatory responsibilities, national policy, State Director guidance, and other resource or social

needs. “Goals” are broad statements that define desired outcomes. “Objectives” define specific

desired outcomes for a selected resource or use, and are considered necessary to achieve the

overarching goal. Examples of objectives include maintaining or restoring palo verde-mixed cacti

vegetation communities or direct public recreation use to areas that provide the appropriate

resource setting, opportunity, and experience.

2.2.1.2. Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Management actions and allowable uses describe actions the BLM or its partners will take. They

guide how allowable uses of the public land will be managed to achieve the desired outcomes.

Special Designations

Special designations include those designated by Congress for special protection, such as

wilderness areas or national historic or scenic trails. Such designations are not LUP decisions;

however, designation recommendations can be made to Congress at this level. Congress may then

act on these recommendations at a later time. Administrative designations made by BLM are also

considered special designations and can be decided in the LUP. These include designating areas

of critical environmental concern (ACECs) or back country byways.

Land Use Allocations

Land use allocations are LUP decisions that describe geographic areas for specific resources or

uses, such as where grazing is authorized, specific areas to enhance wildlife habitat, target cultural

management objectives or where off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas are available. Allocations

have geographic boundaries, shown on maps provided in this document. Proposed resource

management decisions are described under the alternatives.

2.2.2. IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS

Implementation decisions are management actions tied to a specific location, and are used to

implement LUP decisions. Unlike RMP-level decisions, implementations are not subject to

protest under the planning regulations. Implementation decisions are generally appealable to the

Office of Hearings and Appeals under 43 CFR 4.410. These decisions constitute BLM’s final

approval allowing on-the-ground actions to proceed. Further NEPA analysis is not required to

begin implementation of these decisions. Most implementation decisions are developed following

adoption of an RMP. A single land use planning/NEPA process, however, may be used to make

both RMP-level and implementation decisions, when doing so is timely and has undergone

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Resource Management Plan Decisions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 31

appropriate NEPA analysis. Activity-level decisions that are ready for implementation, in tandem

with the development of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMP, include (1) route designation in the

Monument for approved motorized and/or non-motorized public use (see Section 2.8.5, “Travel

Management (TM)” (p. 180)); (2) livestock grazing decisions in the Monument based on the

grazing compatibility analysis findings (which can be found in Appendix E, Draft Compatibility

Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)); and (3) target

shooting decisions based on findings from analysis within the SDNM (Appendix G, Sonoran

Desert National Monument Recreational Target Shooting Analysis (p. 1183)).

2.2.3. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Administrative actions are day-to-day activities conducted by BLM, which are often required

by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), but not requiring NEPA analysis

or written decision by a responsible official to be accomplished. Examples of administrative

actions include, but are not limited to: mapping, surveying, inventorying, monitoring, partnering,

developing education materials, adjusting staffing, patrolling, and scientific research and studies.

2.3. SUMMARY OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The range of management alternatives considered in this DRMP/DEIS are described in detail

in ??? of this chapter. The following section summarizes the general scope and key highlights

of each alternative.

2.3.1. NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

BLM lands within the Planning Area are currently managed under three separate

resource-management plans and several amendments. The decisions from these plans have

been extracted and are listed by year of approval. Because none of these current land use plans

encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of the current decisions are being carried forward

as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

In addition, the interim management guidance required by Proclamation for the SDNM are

being considered current management actions and those policy statements are included with the

decisions. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, consists of the current management actions

for both Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas.

2.3.2. SUMMARY OF THE LOWER SONORAN DECISION

AREA ALTERNATIVES

Land management must address resources that are unevenly distributed across a landscape. As

described in Section 2.3.3, “Summary of SDNM Alternatives” (p. ), the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area public lands are divided into six relatively large geographic regions, or blocks, dispersed

over a large region (see Map 1-3 and Table 1.3, “Land Use Planning Process” (p. 6)). Noteworthy

as management factors, the wide distribution and geographic segregation represent a considerable

variety of environments, land uses, public interests, and threats to natural and cultural resources.

Some management issues are best addressed through RMP-level decisions applied to the entire

Decision Area. Other management issues differ from place to place in character, value, and/or

social or economic interest, and thus require more place-specific management techniques found

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Administrative Actions
32 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

in implementation decisions. The RMP or implementation decisions must be sensitive to the

geographically distinct characteristics of the Decision Area. As a result, the alternatives for the

Lower Sonoran Decision Area include RMP-level decisions that would be applicable across

the entire area.

No-Action Alternative A

Selecting the No-Action Alternative for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area would continue

current management without change to land or public use or resource protection management,

and would not address issues that were unforeseen or nonexistent when the existing management

plans were prepared.

Under Alternative A:

● Wildlife waters would continue to be developed and maintained in the current manner.

● No specific priority wildlife species or cultural resource provisions or allocation would be

followed; however, management actions would be consistent with the long-term protection of

priority species and cultural resources as required by law and policy.

● No management actions would be specific to wildlife movement corridors.

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt RCA would continue to be managed by the BLM, AGFD and

USFWS as specified in cooperative agreements.

● The Coffeepot ACEC would be maintained and would be the only ACEC designation.

● No areas would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

● No Back Country Byways would be allocated.

● Four SRMA allocations would continue without management changes.

● The existing route system would be available for use. This alternative would include the least

restrictions and also the least management of motorized use and access.

● Recreational use opportunities would be unchanged from current mix and distribution.

● Opportunities for developed and motorized, as well as primitive and non-motorized, recreation

would continue.

● Ten 1-mile wide utility corridors would remain as currently designated.

● Grazing allotments would continue to be allocated as perennial, perennial-ephemeral or

ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics.

Action Alternative B

The management decisions prescribed by Alternative B would identify the greatest extent of

public land suitable for the widest potential array of uses, and emphasize opportunities for those

uses. It generally emphasizes motorized and developed recreation; opportunities to visit remote

settings and experience non-motorized, primitive recreation would be reduced from the current

condition. As a result, this alternative would require the most intensive use management, as

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 33

well as “hands-on” resource stabilization and restoration measures, as compared to the other

alternatives, in order to ensure desired outcomes would be achieved.

Under Action Alternative B:

● Cultural and heritage tourism and interpretation would be promoted in appropriate locations.

● No special cultural resource management areas (SCRMAs) would be allocated.

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area allocation would continue to be

managed by the BLM, AGFD and USFWS as specified in cooperative agreements.

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● No wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) would be allocated, and few special management actions

would be applied for wildlife corridors.

● The Coffeepot ACEC would be maintained as the only ACEC and expanded to include

additional potential wildlife habitat.

● No areas would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

● Visual and scenic resources would be managed to facilitate various public uses, including

mineral development.

● No back country byways would be allocated.

● Seven SRMAs, including recreation management zones (RMZs) with targeted recreation

objectives would be allocated to produce the most opportunity for recreational development,

particularly motorized-based, day-use community access, dispersed use, and intensive

recreational use areas would be developed.

● Routes would be designated as open year-round, open seasonally or closed year-round

to motorized vehicle use in all areas where route inventories have been completed. This

alternative would include more restrictions to motorized use then Alternative A, but would

include the most managed and best maintained motorized network.

● Ten one-mile-wide, multiuse utility corridors would be designated.

● The least amount of land-use authorization (LUA) exclusion and avoidance areas, for any

alternative, would be designated.

● Ephemeral grazing applications would continue to be considered, but perennial stocking rates

would be reduced by approximately 40 percent.

Action Alternative C

This alternative represents an attempt to balance resource protection with human use and

influence by providing opportunities for a variety of uses, while placing an emphasis on resource

protection and conservation. It proposes a mix of natural processes and “hands-on” techniques for

resource stabilization and restoration, thus reducing the need for intensive use management to

avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area Alternatives
34 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative C:

● Cultural and heritage tourism and interpretation would be promoted only when use is

compatible with resource protection.

● Two SCRMAs would be allocated to provide protection and management of cultural resources.

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area allocation would continue to be

managed by the BLM, AGFD and USFWS as specified in cooperative agreements.

● Four WHAs would be allocated to protect biological resources, and special management

prescriptions would be applied to wildlife movement corridors.

● Two ACECs would be designated. The Coffeepot Batamote ACEC in the Ajo area would

be expanded from the current Coffeepot ACEC to better align with the mountain range. The

Cuerda de Lena ACEC south of Ajo would be designated for Sonoran Pronghorn.

● Wilderness characteristics would be protected on approximately 128,100 acres.

● The scenic and visual resource in high value areas would be protected, and any facilities

developed in these areas would be built to be less noticeable, to the extent possible.

● Agua Caliente Road would be allocated as a Back Country Byway to provide sightseeing and

recreational opportunities.

● Six SRMAs with RMZs would be allocated to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities,

and increased non-motorized recreation.

● A modest reduction in motor vehicle access, compared to the current condition, would occur

by limiting selected routes in the existing system to seasonal use, and closing other routes to

reduce system redundancy or protect resources.

● Nine 1-mile-wide, multiuse utility corridors would be designated (a portion of the El

Paso Natural Gas Corridor from Ajo to the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation would

be excluded).

● Grazing allotments designated as perennial/ephemeral would be reclassified as perennial only,

with no supplemental ephemeral grazing applications considered. This alternative does not

apply to ephemeral-only allotments. Season of use adjustments on perennial allotments

would be considered.

Action Alternative D

This alternative would place the greatest emphasis on resource protection/conservation, and

opportunities to visit remote settings and experience non-motorized, primitive recreation. It

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

restoration, so the need for both intensive use management and “hands-on” resource measures

would be reduced by the greatest extent among all alternatives.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 35

Under Alternative D:

● Cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research would only be allowed when use is

compatible with resource protection.

● No SCRMAs would be allocated; they would be become ACECs.

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area allocation would continue to be

managed by the BLM, AGFD and USFWS as specified in cooperative agreements.

● There would be one WHA and four ACEC designations, containing more acres than any

other alternative.

● ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and opportunities for mineral development would

be reduced.

● Agua Caliente Road would be allocated as a back country byway to provide sightseeing and

recreational opportunities.

● Three SRMAs with RMZs would be allocated to provide a diversity of recreational

opportunities, with increased non-motorized recreation.

● The largest number of acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics, for a total of

276,500, would be proposed.

● Scenic and visual resources across the area would be managed to maintain or improve scenic

views.

● Recreational opportunities would focus on primitive and non-motorized recreation.

● Opportunities for developed and motorized-vehicle uses would be reduced, due to a smaller

number of open vehicle routes.

● Seven 1-mile-wide, multiuse utility corridors would be designated (the fewest among all

alternatives).

● All allotments currently open to grazing would become unavailable as permits expire.

Preferred Alternative E

Alternative E is the BLM’s preferred alternative for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. It

incorporates elements from each of the other alternatives, and offers a unique prescription for

managing the Decision Area while, at the same time, providing long-term protection and resource

conservation. Alternative E balances human use and influence with resource protection.

Under Alternative E:

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area Alternatives
36 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research would only be allowed when use is

compatible with resource protection.

● No SCRMAs would be allocated, they would become ACECs.

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or reconstructed, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt RCA would continue to be managed by the BLM, AGFD and

USFWS as specified in cooperative agreements.

● There would be one WHA, special management actions for protection of wildlife movement

corridors would be applied, and three ACECs would be designated.

● Wilderness characteristics would be protected on approximately 55,400 acres.

● Agua Caliente Road would be allocated as a back country byway to provide sightseeing and

recreational opportunities.

● Six SRMAs with RMZs would be allocated to provide a diversity of recreational opportunities.

Some would be allocated to provide motorized recreational opportunities, while others would

provide a mix of recreation or undeveloped, self-directed recreational opportunities.

● Scenic and visual resources would be managed to maintain visual values in some areas, while

accommodating appropriate development in higher use areas.

● A moderate reduction in motor vehicle access would occur as a result of route closures and

seasonal limitations.

● Eight one-mile-wide multiuse, utility corridors would be designated (a portion of the El

Paso Natural Gas Corridor from Ajo to the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation would

be excluded).

● Grazing allotments would be allocated as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as

appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics. Season of use adjustments on perennial

allotments would be considered.

2.3.3. SUMMARY OF SDNM ALTERNATIVES

2.3.3.1. No-Action Alternative A

Selection of the No-Action Alternative for the Monument would continue current management

under the existing LUPs, except as changed by Presidential Proclamation 7397, which established

it and specified certain management provisions. This continues current public use and resource

protection/conservation prescriptions without change. It neither sets desired outcomes for

resource management or most uses, nor addresses new issues unforeseen or nonexistent when

the current management plans were prepared.

Under Alternative A:

● Livestock grazing permits south of Interstate 8 (I–8) are terminated. Livestock grazing north

of I–8 would continue if determined to be compatible with protecting Monument resources.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of SDNM Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 37

● Motorized or mechanical vehicle use, off road, would be prohibited, except for emergency or

authorized purposes.

● The Monument is withdrawn from sale, new mining claims, mineral or geothermal leasing

or other forms of appropriation.

● The Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC would be maintained, even though provisions of the

Proclamation satisfy the ACEC’s objectives

● Three 1-mile-wide, utility corridors would be maintained.

2.3.3.2. Action Alternative B

The management decisions in Alternative B generally identify the areas of the Monument that

would be most suitable for the widest potential uses, and emphasize opportunities for those uses.

It sets desired outcomes and allocations for resources discussed in the Proclamation, including

natural, cultural, and visual, while providing appropriate human use/influence and an array

of visitor experiences and opportunities. It focuses on “hands-on” techniques for ecosystem

restoration, resource management, and scientific research, and likely requires more intensive use

management to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.

Under Alternative B:

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● No WHAs would be allocated, but management prescriptions would be applied to protect

Monument objects.

● Cultural and heritage tourism and interpretation would be promoted in appropriate locations,

as long as resources and Monument objects are protected.

● No areas would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

● Grazing allotments north of I–8 would be allocated as perennial grazing with an approximate

40 percent reduction in AUMs. Applications for ephemeral grazing would be considered.

Monument objects found to be incompatible with livestock grazing would be fenced of to

prevent impacts from livestock grazing.

● The entire Monument would be allocated as an SRMA with two RMZs to provide appropriate

developed and non-developed recreational opportunities, as long as resources and Monument

objects are protected.

● The route system would be slightly reduced, but motorized opportunities would continue to be

available along with non-motorized recreation being provided.

● Three one-mile-wide, multiuse utility corridors would be maintained.

2.3.3.3. Action Alternative C

The management decisions in this alternative generally represent an attempt to balance resource

protection and human use and influence. As in Alternative B, it sets desired outcomes and

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of SDNM Alternatives
38 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

allocations for the resources discussed in the Monument’s proclamation, including natural,

cultural, and visual. It proposes a moderate amount of open roads and trails and a mix of

recreational opportunities. It proposes a mix of natural processes and “hands-on” techniques for

ecosystem restoration, resource management, and scientific research, and would likely reduce the

need for intensive use management to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects.

Under Alternative C:

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● No WHAs would be allocated, but management prescriptions would be applied to protect

Monument objects.

● Cultural and heritage tourism and interpretation would be allowed, when such use is

compatible with resource protection and Monument objects. A priority would be placed on

scientific research.

● The Lower Gila Historic Trail SCRMA would be allocated to protect a number of historic

trails.

● Certain areas, primarily in the Sand Tank Mountains, would be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics for a total of 112,200 acres.

● Grazing allotments north of I-8 would be allocated as perennial grazing only, with no

ephemeral grazing. Monument objects found to be incompatible with livestock grazing would

be fenced off to prevent impacts from livestock grazing.

● One SRMA with two RMZs would be allocated to provide appropriate developed and

non-developed recreational opportunities, as long as resources and Monument objects are

protected.

● A diversity of recreational opportunities would be provided, with increased non-motorized

recreation. Certain uses, such as recreational target shooting and wood collecting for

campfires, would be limited, compared to current conditions.

● A modest reduction in motor vehicle access, compared to current conditions, would occur by

limiting selected routes in the existing system to seasonal use and, closing other routes, to

reduce system redundancy or protect resources.

● Two half-mile wide, multiuse utility corridors (where only underground utilities would be

allowed) would be allocated.

● Highway 238 would be allocated as a Scenic Byway.

2.3.3.4. Action Alternative D

Alternative D places the greatest emphasis on minimal human use/influence and maintenance

of primitive landscapes. It focuses on natural processes and other unobtrusive methods for

ecosystem restoration, resource management, and scientific research, while emphasizing resource

protection/conservation. As in the other alternatives, it sets desired outcomes and allocations

for Monument resources discussed in the Proclamation, including natural, cultural, and visual,

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of SDNM Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 39

while allowing a lower level of human use. The need for both intensive use management and

“hands-on” resource stabilization and restoration measures would be reduced by the greatest

degree under Alternative D.

Under Alternative D:

● Existing wildlife waters would be managed or redeveloped, and new ones would be built

to sustain or enhance wildlife populations.

● Passive restoration would be used, and management implemented through limiting human

access and development.

● No WHAs would be allocated, but management prescriptions would be applied to protect

Monument objects.

● Cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research would be allowed only when such use is

compatible with resource protection.

● The largest number of acres (153,000) would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

● Allotments currently open to grazing would become unavailable as permits expire.

● One SRMA with one RMZ would be allocated to provide appropriate developed and

non-developed recreational opportunities.

● Recreational opportunities would focus on primitive and non-motorized recreation. Certain

uses, such as recreational shooting, paintball, and wood collection for campfires, would

not be allowed.

● All-terrain vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles weighing less than 1,800 pounds would be

prohibited on the Monument. A smaller number of vehicle routes would remain open for

public use.

● No multiuse utility corridors would be designated and new LUAs would not be allowed.

● Highway 238 and Interstate 8 would be allocated as Scenic Byways.

2.3.3.5. Preferred Alternative E

Alternative E is BLM’s preferred alternative for the SDNM Decision Area. This incorporates

elements from each of the other alternatives, offering a unique prescription for managing public

use of the Monument while, at the same time, providing long-term protection and conservation

of resources. It balances human use and influence with resource protection. The need for both

intensive use management and “hands-on” resource stabilization and restoration measures would

be reduced by an intermediate degree.

Under Alternative E:

● New wildlife waters would be built when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources.

● Passive restoration would be used, and management implemented through limiting human

access and development.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Summary of SDNM Alternatives
40 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● No WHAs would be allocated, but management prescriptions would be applied to protect

Monument objects.

● Cultural and heritage tourism and interpretation, as well as scientific research, would be

allowed when use is compatible with resource protection.

● The Lower Gila Historic Trail SCRMA would be allocated to protect a number of historic

trails.

● Certain areas in the Sand Tank Mountains area would be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics for a total of 110,900 acres.

● Grazing allotments north of I–8 would be allocated as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or

ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics. Monument objects found

to be incompatible with livestock grazing would be fenced off to prevent impacts from

livestock grazing. Additionally, the portion of Conley Allotment within SDNM boundaries

would become unavailable for livestock use. Grazing use across the Monument would be

adjusted as needed, in accordance with grazing regulations, and in response to the grazing

determinations required by the Proclamation.

● One SRMA with two RMZs would be allocated to provide appropriate developed and

non-developed recreational opportunities.

● A diversity of recreational opportunities would be provided, with increased non-motorized

recreation. Certain uses, such as recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting

for campfires likely to cause resource damage, would not be allowed.

● A modest reduction in motor vehicle access similar to Alternative C would occur by limiting

selected routes in the existing system to seasonal use and closing other routes to reduce

system redundancy or protect resources and Monument objects.

● No multiuse utility corridors would be designated and new LUAs would not be allowed.

● Highway 238 and I–8 would be allocated as scenic byways.

2.4. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT FURTHER

ANALYZED

This section briefly describes alternatives considered but not incorporated into an alternative

for further analysis in this DEIS. The management actions considered were recommended by

members of the public either during scoping or in the alternatives’ development workshops, or by

resource specialists. The management actions are described below, along with the rational for

excluding them from further consideration.

2.4.1. Public Safety

There was a recommendation to prohibit the carrying of weapons. By law, U.S. citizens may

carry weapons on or through public lands for a number of legitimate purposes including, but

not necessarily limited to, hunting and self-protection. Alternatives for managing recreational

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternatives Considered but not Further Analyzed August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 41

target shooting activities are being considered in this Draft RMP for public safety and resource

protection purposes, but a prohibition against the possession of firearms is not being pursued.

2.4.2. Travel Management

Driving in Washes

A proposal was submitted that driving in washes be allowed in all washes large enough to

accommodate a four wheel-drive vehicle as a long-standing, traditional use. This alternative was

not carried forward into an action alternative because allowing vehicular travel in washes not

specifically designated as a BLM asset, such as a primitive road, would force drivers to determine

whether or not the wash was open for travel. Such ambiguity could lead to situations of unlawful

driving and resource damage. The travel route inventory conducted by the BLM since 2000

includes routes in washes.

In addition, authorizing unlimited driving in washes, at the driver’s discretion, would essentially

open hundreds of miles of wash system to ATVs or four-wheel drives, as this action would

include currently traveled washes as well as untraveled washes. This type of travel is inconsistent

with Presidential Proclamation 7397, which expressly prohibits, with the exception of emergency

or authorized administrative use, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use “off road” in the

Monument. Furthermore, washes throughout the Lower Sonoran Planning Area contribute

substantially to sustaining healthy, diverse, and productive ecosystems and cultural landscapes.

Due to potentially adverse resource impacts on wildlife habitat, soils, and vegetation, unlimited

driving in washes is inconsistent with the resource protection and management goals established

for both the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas. Vehicle travel in certain washes would

be considered during the route evaluation process for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area as part of

the comprehensive travel management plans.

2.4.3. Land Tenure

Land Disposal

The recommendation was to identify Federal lands bordering the Gila River Indian Reservation

in the Estrella Mountains for disposal. While there are lands that border the Reservation

analyzed in detail for disposal among the alternatives, those lands situated in the Sierra Estrella

Wilderness and within the Juan Bautista National Trail boundaries cannot be disposed of. They

are congressionally protected and designated under the Wilderness Act of 1964 and National

Trails System Act of 1968.

2.4.4. Livestock Grazing

For livestock grazing allotments within the Lower Sonoran Decision Area, an alternative was

considered regarding the potential conversion of all, or some, perennial and perennial/ephemeral

livestock grazing allotments to strictly ephemeral use only. This alternative was not evaluated

further as these decisions would be determined on an individual allotment basis based on

monitoring findings and through a land health evaluation process which were not conducted for

this plan.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management
42 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.5. MANAGEMENT COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

2.5.1. EXISTING MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND

DECISIONS TO BE CARRIED FORWARD

Management actions and decisions that apply to all alternatives include those related to the

Arizona Land Health Standards and actions and decisions from previous RMPs or amendments

that are determined to be valid and are carried forward under the revised plan. However, the

public lands within this Planning Area are currently managed under three separate RMPs

and several amendments (refer to Map 1-2 for the geographic areas that each of these plans

encompass). Therefore, many of the existing decisions only cover portions of the Planning

Area, not the entire Planning Area.

Existing management decisions come from the following RMPs or RMP Amendments that

overlay the Planning Area (in chronological order):

● Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (MFP) (1983)

● Phoenix Resource Management Plan (RMP) (1989)

● Lower Gila South RMP (1988)

● Lower Gila South RMP (Goldwater Amendment) (1990)

● Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997)

● Statewide Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality (2003)

● Cameron Allotment Amendment (2004)

● Amendment to the Lower Gila North MFP and Lower Gila South RMP (2005)

In addition to the LUPs above, several programmatic environmental impact statements (EISs) are

also adopted and incorporated into this plan where applicable. These are the following:

● Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic

EIS (2007) and Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic

Environmental Report (2007)

● Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy Corridors on Federal

Land in the 11 Western States (2009)

2.5.2. Wilderness

The Planning Area includes six Wilderness Areas designated by the Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990. These areas total 249,450 acres: 91,750 acres in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

and 157,700 acres in the SDNM Decision Area and are identified in Table 2.1, “Wilderness Areas

of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas” (p. 43).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Management Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 43

Table 2.1. Wilderness Areas of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas

Wilderness Size (Acres)

Lower Sonoran

Sierra Estrella 14,400

Signal Mountain 13,350

Woolsey Peak 64,000

SDNM

North Maricopa Mountains 63,200

South Maricopa Mountains 60,100

Table Top 34,400

Total 249,450

BLM management policy directs that each BLM wilderness area have a management plan (BLM

Manual 8560). Management guidance is provided under the Maricopa Complex Wilderness

Management Plan (BLM 1996; for the North Maricopa Mountains, Sierra Estrella, South

Maricopa Mountains, and Table Top Wildernesses) and the Woolsey Peak Wilderness and Signal

Mountain Wilderness Management Plan (BLM 2003) and there are no proposals in this RMP

changing any decisions contained in these management plans.

As stated in Chapter 1, Purpose & Need for the RMP (p. 1), only Congress has the authority to

designate wilderness and wilderness study areas so no new areas will be proposed in this plan.

However lands with wilderness characteristics can be managed by the BLM to protect those

characteristics and are discussed throughout the chapters within this document.

2.5.3. ARIZONA LAND HEALTH STANDARDS

The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

(Standards and Guidelines, or S&Gs) were developed, pursuant to 43 CFR 4180, through a

collaborative process involving BLM staff and the Arizona BLM Resource Advisory Council,

and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in April 1997. The Standards and Guidelines

have been developed to identify the characteristics of healthy ecosystems on public lands and

the management actions that promote them.

When approved, the S&Gs became Arizona BLM policy, guiding the planning for and

management of BLM public lands. Arizona Standards and Guidelines, therefore, have been

incorporated into this DRMP/EIS. The Standards for Rangeland Health describe the conditions

necessary to encourage proper functioning of ecological processes, and are adopted as Land

Health Standards. In managing and implementing all resource programs, the BLM must consider

the Land Health Standards and they are identified below.

The Guidelines for Grazing Administration are a series of management practices used to ensure

that grazing activities meet the Standards. These Guidelines are incorporated into the Draft

RMP/EIS in Section 2.8.2, “Livestock Grazing (GR)” (p. 137) and may be found in Appendix L,

Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253).

Listed below are the standards that describe the conditions needed to encourage proper

functioning of ecological processes.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Arizona Land Health Standards
44 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.5.3.1. 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. When soils and ecological sites

function properly, rates of soil loss and infiltration are consistent with the site's potential.

Ground cover in the form of plants, litter, or rock is present in pattern, kind, and amount sufficient

to prevent accelerated erosion for the ecological site; or ground cover is increasing as determined

by monitoring over an established period of time.

Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal or diminishing for the ecological site as determined by

monitoring over an established period of time.

As indicated by:

● 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

2.5.3.2. Standard Two: Riparian-Wetland Sites

Riparian-wetland areas are in proper 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.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Arizona Land Health Standards August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 45

Riparian-wetland functioning condition assessments are based on examination of hydrologic,

vegetation, soil and erosion-deposition factors. The 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 Riparian-Wetland Areas

(BLM 1994c).

As indicated by:

● 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.

2.5.3.3. 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 Desired Plant Community (DCP)

objectives. Plant community objectives are determined with consideration for all multiple uses.

Objectives also address native species and the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA);

FLPMA; Endangered Species Act (ESA); Clean Water Act (CWA); and other laws, regulations,

and policies.

Additionally, 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

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Arizona Land Health Standards
46 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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:

● 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

2.6. ALTERNATIVES

Detailed alternatives’ descriptions for the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas are

presented by program area and include:

● A brief introduction about the program area.

● Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A), split between five of the existing LUPs.

● Alternative Allocation Tables (if the program area has any land use allocations).

● Action Alternative (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) Management Action Tables.

Within the Action Alternative Management Action Tables, abbreviations are used to note which

Decision Area and alternative applies to an individual action. Abbreviations are also used for the

program areas themselves. Program area abbreviations appear before each decision number. The

abbreviations used in this chapter are outlined below in Table 2.2, “ Program Area Categories

and Abbreviations” (p. 46).

Table 2.2. Program Area Categories and Abbreviations

Planning Decision Areas

Lower Sonoran LS

Sonoran Desert National Monument SDNM

Resource Program Areas

Air Quality AQ

Cave Resources CR

Cultural and Heritage Resources CH

Paleontological Resources PL

Priority Wildlife and Habitat Management PW

Soil Resources SR

Vegetation VG

Visual Resources VR

Water Resources WR

Wild Horse & Burro Management HB

Wilderness Characteristics WC

Wildland Fire Management WF

Resource Use Program Areas

Lands and Realty LR

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 47

Livestock Grazing GR

Minerals Management MM

Recreation Management RM

Travel Management TM

Special Designations

Special Designations SD

Social and Economic Concerns

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety PS

2.6.1. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES & BEST

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Review of the alternatives must always consider that, despite the goals, objectives, and

management actions prescribed, the BLM functions using a set of standard operating procedures

(SOP) and best management practices (BMP) that guide day-to-day operations and business

practices. Every alternative should be reviewed within the context of the way the BLM conducts

business. The SOPs and BMPs are the combined product of procedures developed to comply

with laws, regulations, policies, and other guidance and are often institutionalized in manuals and

handbooks. The SOPs and BMPs are described in detail (although not all inclusive) by program

in Appendix H, Best Management Practices & Standard Operating Procedures (p. 1211).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Standard Operating Procedures & Best

Management Practices
48 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7. RESOURCES

2.7.1. AIR QUALITY

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has delegated rulemaking pertaining to air quality

and achieving attainment of air quality standards to states, which further delegate authority to

counties through state implementation plans. Activities on BLM lands contribute a very small

share of target pollutants in central Arizona. However, within air pollution nonattainment areas in

the vicinity of Phoenix, rules made by Maricopa County apply to BLM lands. BLM activities that

emit target pollutants in nonattainment areas need to be managed so that they do not contribute

to standards violations. The primary target pollutant emitted by activities on BLM lands is

particulate matter up to 10 microns (PM10). The goals, objectives, and management actions below

are intended to assure that activities on BLM land comply with the appropriate rules.

2.7.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Air

Quality.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan — Goldwater Amendment

(1990)

[Applies to the three relinquished Sentinel Plain, Sand Tank Mountains, and Ajo Airport parcels]:

● Control excessive fugitive dust at Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-permitted construction

sites and recreation activity areas (WS-12).

● Monitor air quality trends (WS-13).

2.7.1.2. Action Alternatives for Air Quality (AQ)

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and improve the quality of air resources associated with authorized uses and

activities on public lands.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Maintain existing air quality and air quality-related values (e.g., visibility) by ensuring that authorized

uses on public lands comply with and support Federal, State, and local laws and regulations for protecting air quality.

LS SDNM B C D E AQ-1.1.1: State and local agencies and adjacent land managers would be

consulted to address emissions that affect public lands.

LS SDNM B C D E AQ-1.1.2: Appropriate management techniques and practices would be

applied to all authorized surface-disturbing projects and activities as needed

to ensure compliance with standards.

Objective 1.2: Apply mitigation measures for uses and activities within and near adjoining communities, wilderness

areas, and large particulate-matter (PM)10 (i.e., dust) non-attainment and maintenance areas, especially as they

pertain to unpaved roads that traverse public lands.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 49

Goal 1: Protect, maintain, and improve the quality of air resources associated with authorized uses and

activities on public lands.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM B C D E AQ-1.2.1: Excessive fugitive-dust generation from unpaved roads,

construction sites, recreation activity areas, and other areas would

be managed to ensure emissions do not exceed air-quality standards,

particularly those more rigid requirements in non-attainment areas.

LS SDNM B C D E AQ-1.2.2: Fugitive-dust emissions from unpaved roads would be mitigated

through appropriate control methods, including, but not limited to:

● Lowering speed limits by creating obstacles such as speed bumps;

● Using fugitive-dust control measures such as dust. suppressants, gravel,

or pavement;

● Installing cattle guards where unpaved roads meet paved roads;

● Reducing vehicle-use intensity or duration, reducing route density, or

re-routing travel routes to more stable soils;

● Limiting the vehicle type on roads or in areas that are susceptible to

excessive dust due to unstable soils;

● Closing high-use areas during high-pollution days;

● Closing areas that frequently exceed PM10 standards to non-compliant

recreation and other projects until mitigation measures are implemented.

● Implementing temporary, seasonal, or permanent route closures when

other methods are unsuccessful at controlling fugitive dust that exceeds

regulatory limits.

Administrative Actions

● Participate in the Interagency Smoke Program and other programs related to air quality.

● Participate and comment on proposed projects identified as requiring Prevention of Significant

Deterioration/New Source Review permits for their effects on air quality and affected resources

within 100 kilometers of wilderness areas. Request that location-specific pre-application

monitoring be conducted to support the permit review process when appropriate.

● Review projects requiring non-major permits within 10 km of wilderness areas to determine

their effects on air quality and affected resources, and provide comments to the appropriate

regulatory agency.

● Participate in the public workshops and provide comments on the Maricopa County or other

proposed air quality rule changes.

● Work with adjoining land managers and users to mitigate air quality effects on public lands.

● Coordinate with county or municipal authorities to encourage control of fugitive dust

emissions from unpaved roads that affect attainment of air quality standards

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Air Quality
50 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Work with Federal, state, and local agencies to monitor air quality on public lands, particularly

in wilderness and other special areas. Air-quality monitoring should include visibility, ozone,

acid deposition or other relevant air-quality indicators.

● Work with Federal, state, and local agencies to gather meteorological data, including installing

meteorological stations on the public lands, as needed and appropriate.

● Encourage research of air quality-related issues.

● Address air-quality impacts when planning and executing prescribed burns to comply with

Federal and state air quality standards and adhere to Article 15 of the Arizona Administrative

Code and State Implementation Plan provisions.

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

● Review projects requiring non-major permits within 10 km of the SDNM to determine

their effects on air quality and affected resources and provide comments to the appropriate

regulatory agency.

● Work with adjoining land managers and users and county or municipal authorities to mitigate

air quality effects on the SDNM. Make control of fugitive dust emissions from unpaved

roads, construction sites, or other activity areas within 10 kilometers of SDNM a priority of

this effort.

● Coordinate with county or municipal authorities to encourage control of fugitive dust

emissions from unpaved roads that affect attainment of air quality standards in the SDNM.

● Increase public awareness and appreciation of air-quality resources and visibility through

interpretative displays as part of the public outreach program and visitor facilities planning

for SDNM.

● Work with Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor air quality in the SDNM. Air-quality

monitoring should include visibility, ozone, acid deposition, or other relevant air quality

indicators.

● Promote the study of air quality conditions in the SDNM, including the effects of ozone, acid

deposition and other related pollutants on plants and the supporting ecosystems. Cooperate

and promote such activity with academic institutions and other interested parties.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Air Quality August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 51

2.7.2. CAVE RESOURCES

Although no caves have been identified in the Decision Area, there may be undocumented caves

located in geologically suitable rock units. Any newly discovered caves would be evaluated for

scientific, educational, biological, and recreational value.

The Planning Area contains Paleozoic sedimentary deposits and Tertiary volcanic rocks that

are known to contain caves elsewhere in Arizona. While Paleozoic limestone occurs in the

Sand Tank Mountains, no caves or karst resources are known to exist. The Sentinel Plain area

contains two lava tubes. Small rock overhangs and shallow openings are present in some rock

units of the lava tubes; however, by definition these do not qualify as caves. The definition of a

cave requires that its depth exceed its width.

BLM Manual 8380, Cave and Karst Resources Management, provides guidance and direction for

the management of cave and karst resources on BLM-administered lands, including aquifers and

their surface water and groundwater-drainage areas.

2.7.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) For

Cave Resources

No existing management decisions exist for caves and cave resources.

2.7.2.2. Action Alternatives for Cave Resources Management (CR)

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Protect and conserve caves and karst resources as they are discovered on the public lands.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage caves and karst resources to maintain or enhance their physical integrity and scientific

interest.

LS SDNM B C D E CR-1.1.1: Evaluate and inventory caves and karst resources, as they are

discovered, to determine if the cave contains significant cultural, scientific,

biological, geological, hydrological, educational, or recreational values.

LS SDNM B C D E CR-1.1.2: Protect and manage significant caves and karst resources for

cultural, scientific, biological, geological, hydrological, educational, and

recreational values.

LS SDNM B C D E CR-1.1.3: Public access to all caves within this Decision Area will be by

permit only unless public entry is signed as open. Federal, State and local

government employees operating within the scope of their authorizations

would be exempt from permit issuance.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cave Resources
52 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.3. CULTURAL & HERITAGE RESOURCES

Cultural and heritage resources are the physical and traditional remnants of thousands of years

of human occupation and use of the land and its resources. Cultural resource sites date to both

prehistoric and historic time periods, up to the mid-twentieth century. Sites may contain tools

or other artifacts; features, such as rock art or structural remains; and other items, such as

charcoal, bone, and plant remains. Sites vary in size and occur in a variety of locations and

environmental zones. Individual sites may even exhibit evidence of use and occupations dating

to various periods. The BLM strives to protect the informational, heritage, and interpretive

values of archaeological and heritage sites. Cultural resources also include places of traditional

importance to Native Americans.

Cultural and heritage sites are recognized as fragile and irreplaceable resources with potential

public and scientific uses. Allocation to one of five use categories is prescribed in BLM Manual

8100 can include:

● Scientific use,

● Conservation for future use,

● Traditional use,

● Public use, or

● Experimental use.

Some sites may be allocated to two (or more) categories simultaneously. Some categories are

mutually exclusive. In order to manage a diversity of cultural sites, allocations to these categories

are necessary. Re-allocation is possible based on changing management and physical scenarios

and does not require a resource management plan amendment (see Appendix I, Cultural Use

Allocations (p. 1231) for more information on site allocations).

Management of sites on a regional or landscape level can be achieved by allocating an area as

a Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA). This is an area containing cultural

resources (archaeological sites, historic sites or places of traditional cultural importance) that

are particularly important for public use, scientific use, traditional use or other uses as defined

in BLM Manual 8110.4. Management prescriptions for these areas should reflect and support

the primary values for which the areas are allocated. For example, management prescriptions

for a SCRMA allocated primarily for public use should focus on developing and interpreting

sites for public visitation, including heritage tourism. Management prescriptions for a special

area allocated primarily for scientific use should focus on protecting sites for study, supporting

field schools and other research efforts. Management prescriptions for a special area allocated

primarily for traditional use should seek to accommodate the traditional cultural practices of

Indian tribes or other cultural groups that ascribe religious or other heritage values to the area.

Management prescriptions for a special area allocated primarily to protect scarce sites of singular

importance that should not be subjected to invasive studies or other uses that would threaten their

present condition should focus on conserving sites for the future. Management prescriptions for

a single SCRMA can focus on more than one type of use, just as a single cultural property can

be allocated to more than one of the use categories described in Manual 8110.4. For example, a

special area might contain a set of cultural properties that, linked together and interpreted as a

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 53

group, would make a good auto tour route for heritage tourism. At the same time, the area might

contain several cultural properties of unusual historic importance that should be segregated from

land or resources uses that might impair their present condition or setting. While both kinds of

properties should receive management emphasis, they can be subsumed within a single land use

allocation with management prescriptions tailored to support public visitation of the sites along

the auto tour route, and protection for the sites that warrant segregation.

The primary purpose of this land use allocation is to differentiate some portions of a Planning

Area from others in terms of cultural resource values. The allocation can denote priority for

the expenditure of time and funds or the need for special protection to achieve management

objectives. However, highlighting a geographic area for its special cultural resource values

does not diminish the importance of cultural resources in other areas. Cultural resources on

lands not included within special areas still need to be managed for the values they contain and

opportunities they afford.

The regulatory framework under which cultural and heritage resources are managed include a list

of laws, regulations, and Executive Orders. The most important laws are the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), National Trails

System Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), Antiquities Act of 1906, Native

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA),

Historic Sites Act of 1935, Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 as amended by the Archaeological and

Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.

Sonoran Desert National Monument

The purpose of the SDNM designation according to Presidential Proclamation 7397 is to protect

the “objects” of the Monument. Some cultural and historic objects were listed individually and

some were inferred. The objects include the natural historic landscape settings of a 23-mile

corridor segment of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza NHT) corridor, and

the Butterfield Overland Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trail located within the same

23-mile corridor. The other named objects include rock art, lithic quarries, historic and prehistoric

structures, prehistoric routes, objects of historic or scientific interest, significant archaeological

and historic sites, large prehistoric villages, permanent habitation sites, protohistoric villages,

Vekol Wash and other prehistoric travel and trade corridors.

The cultural and heritage resources located on the Monument are a far more diverse collection

than this list of object names. Less than three percent of the Monument has been inventoried.

As the inventory grows, a greater understanding of these resources and their relationship with

each other will be discovered and documented. Protection of these resources as Monument

objects will ensure their survival into the future.

2.7.3.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternatives A (No Action) For

Cultural & Heritage Resources

The following decisions are extracted from the existing land use plans and amendments and

are listed in chronological order. Because none of these current land use plans encompass the

entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions are being carried forward as common to all

alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources
54 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983)

● Allocate cultural resources identified through inventory for scientific uses. (CL-01 and 02).

● Reduce or eliminate indirect impacts of land uses on cultural resources as identified through

study plots. (CL-03).

● Conserve a representative sample of site types in the Planning Area for future use (CL-04).

● Provide immediate and long-term in-place preservation and protection of selected cultural

resources that are threatened or deteriorating (CL-05).

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment —

1990)

(Applicable to the three relinquished BGR parcels)

● Provide special protection for significant cultural sites that are being impacted or threatened

by the public. For sites being impacted or threatened by the military, a different process will

be followed. The BLM will be available to the military at all times as a consultant. (CL-3).

● Minimize impacts on cultural resources by avoiding cultural property locations whenever

feasible and using previously disturbed areas as the preferred locations for ground-disturbing

activities when practical. (CL-4).

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (1997)

● S&G Guideline 3-7: Management practices to achieve desired plant communities will

consider protection and conservation of known cultural resources, including historical sites,

and prehistoric sites, and plants of significance to Native American peoples (CL-9).

2.7.3.2. Action Alternatives for Cultural & Heritage Resources (CL)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources and Monument Objects.

Ensure they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

● Goal 2: Reduce threats, reduce or prevent damage, and resolve potential conflicts from

naturally occurring or unauthorized human-caused damage or deteriorations.

● Goal 3: Manage assemblages of sites within the Decision Areas as cultural landscapes.

Land Use Allocation Summary Tables

Table 2.3. Proposed Site Use Allocations by Alternative

Alternatives (BLM acres)

Allocation by Decision Area

A B C D E

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 55

Lower Sonoran

Painted Rock Petroglyph Site – Public and Scientific

Use

200 200 200 200

Butterfield West – Public and Scientific Use 10 10 10

Sundad – Public and Scientific Use 73 73 73

Butterfield West – Scientific Use 10

Sundad – Scientific Use 73

SDNM

Bighorn Station – Public and Scientific Use <5 <5 <5

Christmas Camp – Public and Scientific Use <5 <5 <5

Happy Camp (Desert Station) – Public and Scientific

Use

<5 <5 <5

Selected segments of Butterfield Overland Stage Route

(Butterfield Pass) – Public and Scientific Use

3,600 3,600 3,600

Bighorn Station – Scientific Use <5

Segments of Butterfield Overland Stage Route –

Conservation for Public Use

3,600

Christmas Camp – Scientific Use <5

Happy Camp (Desert Station) – Scientific Use <5

Table 2.4. Proposed Cultural and Historic Resources Land Use Allocations (SCRMAs)

Alternatives (BLM acres)

Allocation by Decision Area

A B C D E

Lower Sonoran

Saddle Mountain SCRMA 48,500 ACEC ACEC

Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails

SCRMA

79,100 ACEC ACEC

SDNM

Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMA 16,200 16,200

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources and Monument Objects. Ensure they are

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Allocate known and evaluated cultural resource sites to one of five use categories: (1) scientific use,

(2) conservation for future use, (3) traditional use, (4) public use or (5) experimental use, or classify as “discharged

from management.” Newly discovered and recorded sites would be evaluated and allocated within one year. (Use

categories and criteria to determine categories are described in Appendix I, Cultural Use Allocations (p. 1231)).

Site Use Allocations

LS B C D E CL-1.1.1: Painted Rock Petroglyph Site would remain a public and scientific

use site for heritage tourism and interpretation purposes. The site would

continue to be managed for interpretation and education uses according to the

existing project and business plans (Maps 2-1b, 2–1c, 2–1d and 2–1e.)

LS B C D E CL-1.1.2: Retain public lands and acquire available state and private lands

and/or easements to assure long term use, protection and access to important

cultural sites that occupy a particular and definitive role in the cultural

landscape or are of particular importance to local Native American tribes.

Emphasize lands located within allocated use site categories and SCRMAs.

LS B C D E CL-1.1.3: All cultural sites allocated to the public use category as identified

in Appendix I, Cultural Use Allocations (p. 1231) would be closed to

locatable mineral exploration and development, and mineral material disposals

(saleables). Public lands would be recommended for withdrawal.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources
56 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources and Monument Objects. Ensure they are

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C D E CL-1.1.4: Public use sites would remain open to all leasable minerals, but any

lease or energy LUA would contain a no surface occupancy stipulation.

LS B C D E CL-1.1.5: Public use sites would be exclusion areas for utility scale energy

development and multiuse corridor LUAs. They would be avoidance areas

for minor linear and nonlinear LUAs and mitigated to be consistent with

management objectives.

LS SDNM B C E CL-1.1.6: Sundad, Butterfield West (selected segment of the Butterfield

Overland Stage Route west of the Painted Rock Site), Anza-Butterfield

Interpretive Trail (a high potential segment of the Juan Bautista de Anza

NHT and Butterfield Overland Stage Route within the SDNM), Happy

Camp, Christmas Camp and Bighorn Station would be allocated as public

and scientific use sites.

Management prescriptions for public use sites would follow those set

forth in the applicable special designation sections of the RMP when more

restrictive. Inventory, recordation, documentation, and preparation of all sites

for increased public visitation must be accomplished prior to implementing

interpretive developments. Sundad would only be developed if critical

safety issues are addressed. Big Horn Station would only be developed if

stabilization measures are taken, critical safety issues are addressed and legal

access is obtained. (Maps 2-1b, 2–1c and 2–1e.)

LS SDNM D CL-1.1.7: Sundad, Butterfield, Anza-Butterfield Interpretive, Happy Camp,

Christmas Camp and Bighorn Station sites would be allocated as scientific use

sites only. Sites would not be used for tourism or interpretive development

(Map 2-1d). Management prescriptions for these areas would follow those

set forth in the applicable special designation sections of the RMP where

more restrictive.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-1.1.8: Motorized vehicle use would be allowed on the Anza-Butterfield

Interpretive Trail high potential segment providing Monument Objects are

protected.

SDNM D CL-1.1.9: The Anza-Butterfield Interpretive Trail high potential segment

would be limited to non-motorized uses.

SDNM B C E CL-1.1.10: Camping within 100 feet of centerline along the Anza-Butterfield

Interpretive Trail high potential segment would be limited to designated

campsites as determined in activity level planning.

SDNM D CL-1.1.11: No camping (motorized or non-motorized) would be allowed

along the Anza-Butterfield Interpretive Trail high potential segment.

Objective 1.2: Encourage appropriate scientific use of cultural resources.

LS SDNM B C E CL-1.2.1 Provide opportunities for scientific research and inventory at

selected sites, including excavation by qualified researchers.

LS SDNM D CL-1.2.2 Opportunities would be provided for scientific research and

inventory at selected sites by qualified researchers if designed to have a minor

or negligible impact to cultural resources.

Objective 1.3: Allocate cultural and historical features as Special Cultural Resource Management Areas (SCRMAs)

to protect the features, visual settings and enhance visitor experience.

Common To All SCRMAs

LS SDNM C CL-1.3.1: The Saddle Mountain, the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails,

and the Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMAs would be designated on

selected public lands as presented in Table 2.4, “Proposed Cultural and

Historic Resources Land Use Allocations (SCRMAs)” (p. 55) and as shown

on Map 2-1c. (The Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMA is the only

SCRMA designated in Alternative E).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 57

Goal 1: Identify, preserve, and protect important cultural resources and Monument Objects. Ensure they are

available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM C CL-1.3.2: Motorized vehicle routes would be closed, limited or mitigated as

needed to protect the cultural resources during the route designation process

or when conflicts with cultural resources are identified.

LS SDNM C CL-1.3.3: Heritage tourism would be allowed only if compatible with

protection measures as described in BLM Manual 8140.

LS SDNM C CL-1.3.4: Inventory and evaluations on cultural resources in SCRMAs would

be increased and emphasized.

LS SDNM C CL-1.3.5: Sites allocated to Public Use may be developed for interpretation

and environmental education.

LS C CL-1.3.6 The Saddle Mountain and portions of the Lower Gila River and

Historic Trails SCRMAs located outside the SDNM would be open to

locatable minerals but closed to mineral material disposals (saleables).

LS C CL-1.3.7: All LUAs would be avoided, mitigated, and otherwise managed,

within the Saddle Mountain and portions of the Lower Gila Terraces and

Historic Trails SCRMA located outside the SDNM to be consistent with

management objectives.

The Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails SCRMA

LS C CL-1.3.8: Portions of the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails SCRMA

located outside the SDNM would remain open to all leasable minerals but any

mining lease, would contain a No Surface Occupancy stipulation.

LS C CL-1.3.9: Treatments of invasive species would be allowed within the

SCRMAs if they can be designed to have a minor or negligible impact to

cultural resources.

LS C CL-1.3.10: Vegetation would be rehabilitated and restored in priority areas

consistent with cultural landscape, viewshed and cultural resource integrity.

Goal 2: Reduce threats, reduce or prevent damage, and resolve potential conflicts from naturally occurring or

unauthorized human-caused damage or deterioration.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Impacts by erosion, natural processes, or those due to vandalism visitation, vehicle traffic or other

unauthorized human activity would be reduced.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.1 Potential conflicts from other resource uses would be minimized,

reduced or unauthorized by complying with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, and using mitigation or avoidance strategies as

prescribed by law, regulation and the BLM Cultural Resources 8100 Manual.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.2: Sites suffering damage or deterioration resulting from natural or

human causes would be restored, stabilized, or mitigated.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.3 Sites and Monument objects would be protected from degradation

due to erosion and other natural processes by using a wide variety of techniques

and tools, such as wash bank stabilization, rip rap and vegetation restoration.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.4 Sites and Monument Objects damaged by vandalism, excessive

visitation, vehicle traffic, or other causes, would be protected and stabilized by

implementing protection measures as described in BLM Manual 8140.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources
58 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 2: Reduce threats, reduce or prevent damage, and resolve potential conflicts from naturally occurring or

unauthorized human-caused damage or deterioration.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.5: Special recreation permit holders would be required to provide

archaeological site etiquette and resource conservation information to all

participants, employees and volunteers associated with permitted activities.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-2.1.6: The number of visitors at cultural or historic sites would be limited

to 25 people at the site, at any one time, to emphasize resource protection.

Some sites may require further limitations to protect the resource. Casual use

or group limits for SRPs may be higher on a case-by-case basis if determined to

be acceptable in site specific evaluations and the activity/action can be designed

to have a minor or negligible impact to cultural resources.

Goal 3: Manage assemblages of sites within the Decision Areas as cultural landscapes.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Distinct cultural landscapes would be described and mapped as defined by human use of the

environment to protect the physical integrity, enhance visitor experience, and maintain or enhance visual settings.

Cultural landscapes are a new and holistic land use concept that attempts to understand human interaction with

each other and their environment through time on a landscape scale.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-3.3.1: The age, function and interrelationship of sites attributed to historic

indigenous populations in different environmental settings would be identified

when possible.

LS SDNM B C D E CL-3.3.2: Cumulative impacts to the cultural landscape as well as impacts to

individual sites would be analyzed as part of the project assessment when

projects are proposed.

Administrative Actions

SHPO/NHPA.

● Continue to regularly communicate with the State Historic Preservation Office to share

information and obtain technical advice on issues relating to compliance with Sections 106

and 110 of the NHPA, in accordance with the Arizona State Protocol.

● Focus proactive (Section 110) inventories on areas defined as Special Cultural Resource

Management Areas, ACECs, and areas along historic trail routes.

Tribal Consultation and Concerns.

● Continue to consult with the Gila River Indian Community, the Ak-Chin Indian Community,

the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Tohono O’odham Nation, the Hopi

Tribe, the Yavapai Prescott Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma – Quechan Tribe, and other interested

Indian tribes to identify places of traditional importance and associated access needs. Develop

measures for management and protection of such places that may be identified by tribes

during the life of the approved RMP.

● Identify sacred areas in consultation with Indian tribes and, where practicable, limit land uses

to those that do not conflict with ascribed values.

● Honor tribal requests to protect the confidentiality of sensitive information to the extent

permitted by law.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 59

● Provide opportunities for participation by Indian tribes in research and interpretation.

● Specific management prescriptions for sites allocated to the Traditional Use category will be

developed in consultation with the Indian tribes to which they are culturally important.

● Restrict public information about the locations of sites that are not allocated to public use

as allowed by law and regulation.

Research Opportunities.

● Complete documentary research and oral histories to gain a better understanding of cultural

resources from homesteading, mining, ranching, and other historical period activities.

● Establish collaborative research partnerships with academic institutions, tribes, professional

and nonprofit organizations, vocational organizations, and other entities for an orderly process

of cultural research, recordation, and education.

● Work with researchers, tribes, interested members of the public, contractors, local

communities, and published materials to define specific cultural landscapes. Work with tribal

groups and individuals to define temporal, functional, and inter-relationships of sites within

certain landscape settings.

● Provide opportunities for training and participation in site documentation, research, protection,

and education projects by tribal members, students, and volunteers. Ensure adequate

professional oversight of work conducted by tribal members, students, and volunteers.

Interpretation and Education.

● Map and document sites before interpretive development for public use, as needed, to preserve

archeological data, plan for interpretive data, and provide a baseline condition assessment for

monitoring changes resulting from visitor use.

● Complete interpretive plans for public use sites selected for interpretive development.

● Develop interpretive materials and facilities for selected sites. Provide educational

opportunities to the public, including resource protection and appreciation, education, and

stewardship

● Continue to participate in Arizona Archaeology Awareness Month events and other

educational outreach programs to highlight the values of cultural heritage resources and

the need to protect these resources.

● Provide opportunities for tribal and interested public participation in interpretation.

Monitoring.

● Continue to work with and support the Arizona Site Steward Program.

● Develop a monitoring scheme to evaluate the condition of cultural resources.

● Implement procedures for systematic monitoring of all sites developed or authorized for

public visitation.

Planning.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources
60 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● The BLM will develop Cultural Resource Project Plans for protection or interpretation projects

that require precise descriptions of implementation procedures, workforce, scheduling,

equipment, and supplies. Project planning will be implemented following guidance in BLM’s

Manual 8130, Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources.

Special Programs/Cultural Landscapes.

● Work with researchers, tribes, concerned members of the public, contractors, local

communities, and other stakeholders to make use of previously published materials to define

certain cultural landscapes.

● Develop a strategy to identify, assess, and monitor the view sheds along the historic trail

corridor and other important cultural landscapes on the SDNM and within ACECs. Use

Geographical Information System (GIS) technology to create view shed studies and collect

information for the monitoring program.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 61

2.7.4. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (PL)

Paleontological resources constitute a fragile and non-renewable scientific record of the history of

life on Earth. Once damaged, destroyed, or improperly collected, their scientific and educational

value may be lost forever. In addition to their scientific, educational, and recreational values,

paleontological resources can be used to understand the relationships between the biological and

geological components of ecosystems over long periods of time. The BLM strives to manage

paleontological resources for their scientific, educational, and recreational values, and to mitigate

adverse impacts to them. On the SDNM, paleontological resources are considered objects of

the Monument, implied by the statement “other objects of historic or scientific interest that are

situated upon the ... National Monuments.” (Proclamation 7397).

Historic trends have shown that very few geologic units in the Planning Area contain

paleontological material. This is due primarily to the lack of sedimentary formations in this part

of Arizona. It should be noted, however, that very little of the Planning Area was inventoried for

paleontological remains or the geologic units that tend to carry them.

The Paleontology Program Manual and Handbook, BLM Manual 8270 and H-8270-1, provide

guidelines for implementing the Paleontological Resource Management Program.

2.7.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Paleontological Resources

SDNM Current Management Guidance (2002):

The collection of any objects, including vegetation, paleontological resources, or rock specimens,

should not be permitted, except where intended for legitimate scientific uses for which

documentation is provided to the satisfaction of the responsible management official. Scientific,

archaeological, and historical investigations that increase our understanding of the Monument’s

resources are important, but surface disturbance should be avoided.

2.7.4.2. Action Alternatives for Paleontological Resources (PL)

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Protect and manage vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils discovered

on public lands for scientific, educational, or recreational values as they are discovered.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage paleontological resources to maintain or enhance their physical integrity and

scientific interest while avoiding all surface-disturbing activities that would damage significant or noteworthy

occurrences of paleontological materials.

LS B C D E PL-1.1.1: Collection of all vertebrate fossils would be prohibited without

written authorization from a BLM authorized officer in accordance with BLM

Handbook H-8270-1. Invertebrate or plant fossils would be restricted on a

case-by-case basis if they are determined to be noteworthy, of legitimate

scientific or educational use, or if the resource cannot be protected on site.

SDNM B C D E PL-1.1.2: Collection of paleontological resources for personal use would be

prohibited except where intended for legitimate scientific uses and for which

written authorization is obtained from the BLM authorized officer.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Paleontological Resources (PL)
62 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Protect and manage vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils discovered

on public lands for scientific, educational, or recreational values as they are discovered.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage paleontological resources to maintain or enhance their physical integrity and

scientific interest while avoiding all surface-disturbing activities that would damage significant or noteworthy

occurrences of paleontological materials.

LS SDNM B C D E PL-1.1.3: Standard discovery stipulations would be included in any permit

approval that is likely to affect significant paleontological resources.

Stipulations would require the user or operator to:

● Suspend operations immediately upon discovery of paleontological

resources that would disturb them,

● Contact the authorized officer as soon as reasonably possible,

● Bear the cost of required mitigation.

LS SDNM B C D E PL-1.1.4: Upon notification of discovery by a permit user or operator, the

BLM would:

● Evaluate the discovery and inform the user/operator within 5 days,

● Allow resumption of use/operations only after completion of mitigation.

Administrative Actions

● Geologic units would be assigned and entered into the Potential Fossil Yield Classification

(PFYC) System (per Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009) using geological maps and

professional consideration. A separate class ranking would be assigned to each recognized

geologic formation or member present at the surface in accordance with the guidelines

provided in the IM.

● All assigned units entered into the PFYC System would be integrated onto a Geographical

Information System (GIS)-based geologic map.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Paleontological Resources (PL) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 63

2.7.5. PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES & HABITAT (PS)

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) requires the BLM to designate priority

species and habitats, in addition to special status species, for fish or wildlife species recognized as

significant for at least one factor such as density, diversity, size, public interest, remnant character,

or age. Because priority wildlife species includes special status species, as well as the majority of

other wildlife species in the Planning Area, this section also covers special status species in order

to display in a single section all actions and desired outcomes for wildlife species.

The primary categories of priority species are listed below. For the complete list of priority

wildlife species see Appendix J, Wildlife & Plant Priority Species (p. 1235).

● Special status species, including species listed as threatened or endangered, or those proposed

for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and BLM sensitive species (BLM

Manual 6840);

● Bats;

● Migratory birds, including birds of conservation concern;

● Raptors;

● Game species;

● Species for which there is a signed conservation agreement or strategy.

The BLM focuses most of its wildlife management efforts on priority species habitat. The general

assumption is that if the habitat requirements for priority species are met, the habitat for most

other wildlife species also is met. The BLM manages priority species in accordance with a

variety of laws, regulations, policies, plans, manuals, and agreements. Priority species include

fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and management guidelines to ensure

their perpetuation. Moreover, priority wildlife species includes State endangered, threatened,

sensitive, and candidate species; animal aggregations considered vulnerable; and those species of

recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. The major sources of guidance

the BLM uses to manage priority species are the Endangered Species Act of 1973; Migratory Bird

Treaty Act of 1918; Executive Order 13186 (2001); Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1940; FLPMA

of 1976; BLM Manual 174, Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish,

Wildlife and Plants; BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species Management (2008), Desert

Tortoise Rangewide Plan (1990); and various Instructional Memoranda. See Chapter 3, Affected

Environment (p. 251) and Appendix B, Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003) for

a comprehensive list and descriptions.

Priority habitats are defined as fish and wildlife habitats requiring protective measures or

management guidelines to ensure habitat availability. Priority habitats are limited in range and

size; provide necessary components for threatened, endangered and special status species; connect

two or more priority habitat areas; or are especially sensitive to disturbance and degradation.

Priority habitats are large areas that encompass wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) and wildlife

movement corridors. Connection between these habitat patches is important to provide wildlife

the ability to move along elevation gradients and between habitat areas. As climate conditions

change, wildlife must be able to adapt by expanding or contracting according to the needs of their

lifecycles. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain corridors of undisturbed vegetation that connect

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
64 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

to other undisturbed habitat areas. Human population growth that results in the development

of subdivisions, highways, and other infrastructure creates barriers to wildlife movement. In

order to provide for wildlife movement, the BLM, in coordination with Arizona Game and Fish

Department (AGFD), developed movement corridors where surface-disturbing activities must

mitigate damage to habitat and maintain connectivity to other undisturbed areas. In this plan,

WHAs are proposed in the various alternatives, and numerous wildlife movement corridors are

identified in all action alternatives for the Lower Sonoran Field Office Decision Area.

Arizona's wildlife is one of its most precious resources. To protect wildlife and wildlife habitat,

we have proposed allocations of WHAs with an emphasis on habitat management for priority

species. This designation contains management prescriptions that are designed to enhance and

protect wildlife habitats within the WHA. Also incorporated are wildlife movement corridors.

These corridors are not an allocation; however, they would be managed to enhance opportunities

for wildlife to traverse from one area to another with relative ease and security. Therefore, there is

overlap in the designation of the WHAs and a number of the corridors. These overlaps facilitate

management actions in both areas to ensure habitat availability for wildlife species, passage ways

for wildlife species, and their continued persistence. WHAs and wildlife corridors are defined

as follows:

Wildlife Habitat Area: A wildlife habitat area (WHA) is an area that offers feeding, roosting,

breeding, nesting, and refuge areas for a variety of wildlife species native to an area. The WHAs

proposed in the Planning Area are large areas with a multitude of different habitats and uses within

their boundaries. Public lands compose the vast majority of each WHA, but they also may contain

State and private land. The proposed WHA include recommendations to protect and enhance their

areas for all wildlife species and would target priority species for management purposes while

facilitating multiple uses. The proposed WHA consider both the quality and quantity of habitat

when determining whether they will support local populations of wildlife.

Wildlife Movement Corridors: A wildlife movement corridor (WMC) is a continuous natural

pathway that allows native wildlife species to move between habitats in relative security over

short or great distances. The goal of identifying wildlife movement corridors is to maintain a

belt of native vegetation between various habitats that is as nearly contiguous as possible while

facilitating multiple uses. Corridors work best when they are composed of land that is sparsely

developed and unfragmented. The land through which wildlife must pass when traveling between

these habitats may, at times, consist of lands in private, State and public ownership. Corridors

can and do encompass public roads, rights-of-way, trails, farmlands, OHV areas, and urban

areas. Corridors with appropriate management actions facilitate movements of wildlife and aid

in maintaining genetic diversity. Genetic diversity plays a very important role in the survival

and adaptability of a species. Corridors also facilitate the ability for wildlife to expand and

contract based on habitat availability and population cycles, allowing wildlife to travel from

sub-par habitat types during drought, for example, to more suitable and sustainable habitat types.

Adaptive management and best management practices would be used in WHAs and corridors to

allow for multiple uses while preserving passage areas for wildlife. Numerous areas have been

identified as movement corridors for wildlife and vary in size and shape depending on alternatives.

These areas contain characteristics necessary for wildlife to traverse their natural range securely

and with relative ease. These corridors encompass topography ranging from mountainous terrain

to desert flats and washes. While wildlife do not notice or use lines on a map, we as habitat

managers must in some fashion delineate areas for management prescriptions. Therefore, the

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 65

areas delineated include prescriptions for habitat management, and protections are provided to

assist wildlife in their quest to survive.

2.7.5.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Please note that the majority of the decisions regarding the management of wildlife and desert

tortoise were standard operating procedures or administrative actions and may be found in

Appendix B, Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003) or at the end of this section.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

● Provide wildlife safe access to year-round water at 150 livestock waters on public lands by

1987 and cooperate with allottees to develop similar considerations on private lands. (WL-1.1)

● Develop small and upland game waters in 11 areas by FY-87. (WL-1.2)

● Avoid subdividing bighorn sheep lambing areas with fencing and monitor livestock use of

these key areas. Negotiate with range users to alleviate competition where documented. This

will be done by change in season of use or by instituting a grazing system to rest lambing

areas during critical lambing season (January through May). (WL-2.4)

● Decrease cattle densities in bighorn habitat to relieve competition between bighorn sheep

and livestock for space, water, and browse. Graze domestic sheep as far from bighorn

habitat as possible to decrease bighorn disease vectors. Management will begin by

1990. Implementation of this recommendation will be met through range management

in the following allotments: Aguila (intensive), Ohaco, and Calhoun (non-intensive).

Implementation of this recommendation will be met through habitat management plans for

the remaining allotments or as a result of planning for Lower Gila South (Crowder Cattle

Company-portion lying within LGN; K-Lazy-B-portions lying within LGN; Carter-Herrera;

Muse portion lying within LGN; Clem-portion lying within LGN; and Orosco). Domestic

sheep will graze as far from bighorn habitat as practicable. (WL-2.8)

● Cooperate with Arizona Game and Fish to acquire water rights to maintain or enhance spring

habitats and riparian habitats in the planning unit. Specific sites will be determined in the

Habitat Management Plan to achieve the goals stated in the plan. (WL-4.4)

● Within distribution of desert and Arizona night lizards (10,000 acres) and Sonoran Mountain

king-snake (1,200 acres), utilize 43 CFR 3809 (Surface Mining Regulations) to minimize

habitat disturbance during new road construction. Specify closing new roads as a provision in

new mining plans of operation, when and where necessary, to prevent recreation disturbance

to night lizard and king-snake habitat. (WL-5.2)

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
66 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Maintain and improve habitat and viable wildlife populations. (VM-01)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● As a general practice, new roads will not be bladed for use in fence construction. Vehicles will

travel overland or fences will be built by hand. (Not numbered)

● Before installing facilities, the BLM will conduct a site evaluation for State-protected animals

and will develop mitigation to protect these species and their habitats. Such mitigation might

include project relocation, redesign, or abandonment. (Not numbered)

● The BLM will continue to place wildlife escape ramps in water troughs and construct or

maintain new wildlife waters in coordination with State and other Federal agencies. (Not

numbered)

● Fences proposed in big game habitat will be designed to reduce adverse impacts to big game

movement. Specifications in BLM Manual 1737 and in local BLM directives will be used. The

BLM will consult with the AGFD on the design and location of new fences. (Not numbered)

● Where existing fences in big game habitat do not meet BLM specifications, they will be

modified, according to BLM Manual 1737, when they are scheduled for replacement or

major maintenance. (Not numbered)

● New livestock waters to be located within two miles of crucial tortoise habitat and/or crucial

desert bighorn sheep habitat will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis to determine potential

impacts. Significant impacts will be mitigated with appropriate stipulations on site selection.

(Not numbered)

● All livestock waters will provide safe, usable water for wildlife. As funding and opportunities

permit, existing facilities will be modified to make them safe wildlife use.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment (1990):

(Applies to the three relinquished Sentinel Plain, Sand Tank Mountains, and Ajo Airport parcels):

● Support continued Sonoran pronghorn monitoring and recovery efforts, including specific

recovery efforts stipulated in the EMP. (Not numbered)

● Eliminate all trespass grazing by livestock, goats and burros and construct fences where

trespass is a problem. (Not numbered)

Vegetation Treatment of Public Lands in Thirteen Western States Final EIS

(1991):

● Projects that may affect areas of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals will

be postponed or site design modified to protect the presence of these species. Section 7

Consultation (as required by the Endangered Species Act) with the appropriate office of the

USFWS will be initiated. (Not numbered)

Cameron Allotment Amendment to the Lower Gila South Resource

Management Plan (2004):

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 67

See Appendix K, Conservation Measures from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinions (p. 1239) for the measures in their entirety including administrative actions.

Lower Gila Resource Management Plan Amendment (2005):

Objectives:

● Objective 1: Not relevant

● Objective 2: Complete and maintain a continuing inventory and monitoring program for

tortoise populations and habitats to assist in making management decisions, including

habitat categorization, on public lands. The BLM’s desert tortoise inventory and monitoring

handbook will contain the standards for inventory and monitoring in Arizona.

● Objective 3: Develop and maintain a monitoring program specifically for land-use activities

that adversely affect tortoise habitats for use in analyzing and responding to the cumulative

impacts of land-use decisions on tortoise habitats.

● Objective 4: Comply fully with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, as it relates

to tortoise population and habitat management on public lands.

● Objective 5: Coordinate and cooperate with other Federal and State agencies and other publics

concerning tortoise populations and habitat management.

● Objective 6: Conduct research and studies sufficient to develop and document the knowledge

and techniques needed to ensure the viability of tortoise populations and habitats in perpetuity.

● Objective 7: Manage the public lands on a continuing basis to protect the scientific, ecological,

and environmental quality of tortoise habitats consistent with the goals and objectives of the

Rangewide Plan. This implies management, within BLM’s capability, of an adequate number

of healthy and vigorous tortoise populations of sufficient size and resilience to withstand

the most severe environmental disturbances, and with appropriate sex and age ratios and

recruitment rates to maintain viable populations in perpetuity.

● Objective 8: When the need is identified through the BLM planning system, acquire and/or

consolidate, under BLM administration, management units with high tortoise habitat values.

When public land tortoise habitat values will be affected by the issuance of a lease, permit,

right-of-way, or other land use authorization, mitigate to minimize loss of those values.

● Objective 9: Ensure that off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use in desert tortoise habitats is

consistent with the category goals, objectives, and management actions of the Rangewide

Plan and the Strategy.

● Objective 10: Ensure that livestock use is consistent with the category goals, objectives, and

management actions of the Rangewide Plan and the Strategy. This may include limiting,

precluding, or deferring livestock use as documented in activity plans or other site-specific

plans.

● Objective 11: Manage wild horses and burros in a manner consistent with the category goals,

objectives, and management actions of the Rangewide Plan and the Strategy. This may

include limiting or precluding wild horse and/or burro use.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
68 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Objective 12: Manage other wildlife on the public lands consistent with the goals, objectives,

and management actions of the Rangewide Plan and the Strategy.

● Objective 13: Cooperate as necessary with the Arizona Game and Fish Department and

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Animal Damage Control to control predators that

are taking desert tortoises. This will be considered only where predation is interfering with

attaining the goals and objectives of the Rangewide Plan or the Strategy.

● Objective 14: Manage the BLM’s energy and minerals program in a manner consistent with

the goals and objectives of the Rangewide Plan and the Strategy.

Management Decisions/Administrative Actions:

● Phoenix Field Office personnel will participate, when asked and when appropriate, in public

events such as fairs and open houses with information and displays showing the management

of public lands including desert tortoise habitat. (WL-1)

● The Phoenix Field Office will develop a public brochure on desert tortoise. (WL-2)

● Records of environmental assessments that contain stipulations pertaining to the desert

tortoise will be maintained for the express purpose of tracking compliance and effectiveness

of the stipulations. (WF-5)

● An annual summary of the environmental assessments of actions in desert tortoise habitats

will be provided to the Arizona State Office. (WF-6)

● The Phoenix Field Office will comply with Section 2 of the Endangered Species Act and BLM

policy for managing habitat of candidate species to ensure that the Sonoran population of the

desert tortoise does not become threatened or endangered through BLM actions. (WL-7)

● The Phoenix Field Office will continue to work with, share information, and support to the

extent possible the interests and work of other agencies and public entities concerning tortoise

populations and habitat management. (WL-8)

● The Phoenix Field Office will forward tortoise-related research proposals received to the

Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group. (WL-9)

● Specific and quantifiable desert tortoise management objectives for categorized habitat will

be included at the interdisciplinary planning level. (WL-10)

● Environmental decision documents for all actions occurring in desert tortoise habitat will

address and include mitigation measures sufficient to offset, to the extent possible, any loss of

tortoise habitat quantity or quality in category I, II, and III habitats. (WL-11)

● New land uses will be granted in category I, II, and III tortoise habitats only if no reasonable

alternative exists. If no alternative exists, mitigation, including compensation, will be

evaluated to meet the no net loss goal. (WL-12)

● Competitive OHV race courses are prohibited in category I desert tortoise habitat. (WL-13)

● Competitive OHV race courses will not be located in category II desert tortoise habitat unless

no reasonable alternative site exists. If no reasonable alternative site exists, impacts will be

fully mitigated. (WL-14)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 69

● Competitive OHV race courses will be evaluated in category III desert tortoise habitat and

impacts will be mitigated. (WL-15)

● Categorized desert tortoise habitat will be reviewed in relation to ongoing livestock use

on public lands in the MFP and RMP planning areas; forage needs of desert tortoise and

ecological site potential will be considered in determining and prioritizing the resolution of

conflicts. (WL-16)

● In category I and II desert tortoise habitat, only those range improvements for livestock that

do not conflict with desert tortoise habitat or populations will be allowed. (WL-17)

● New wildlife improvements will be allowed in category I and II desert tortoise habitats only if

there is no conflict with desert tortoise habitat populations or habitat. (WL-18)

● Information on predation of desert tortoises will be collected as opportunities arise. (WL-19)

● BLM actions in desert tortoise habitats will be evaluated to assure that they do not encourage

the proliferation or range expansion of predator populations. (WL-20)

● The Phoenix Field Office will use the BLM’s discretionary authorities relating to leasable and

saleable minerals to meet the desert tortoise habitat category goals and objectives. (WL-21)

● Boulder sale permits will be restricted to areas that will result in no net loss of tortoise habitat.

(WL-22)

● The Arizona Game and Fish Department, in cooperation with the Phoenix Field Office, may

use re-establishment and augmentation to assist desert bighorn sheep populations in reaching

their natural potential. (WL-23)

● Re-establishment and augmentation of desert bighorn sheep populations will be done in

areas where conflicts with other uses and resources do not occur, or where conflicts can be

resolved. (WL-24)

● Final decisions on re-establishment and augmentation proposals will be considered on

a case-by-case basis within the appropriate level of National Environmental Policy Act

documentation that addresses conflicts and meets the requirement for public participation.

(WL-25)

2.7.5.2. Action Alternatives for Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat

Management (PS)

Program Goals

The following goals have been developed to manage habitat for all wildlife with an emphasis on

priority wildlife species habitats. These goals are intended to provide diverse and healthy habitat

for the continued and future occupancy of species that are or were native to the area. Adapted

management, best management practices and mitigation will be instituted where applicable. The

associated objectives may be found in the management decisions section. The goals cover both

Decision Areas unless otherwise indicated.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
70 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Goal 1: Ensure habitat availability and diversity for priority wildliferesources within WHAs

where priority species would receive primary focus when analyzing activities and projects.

● Goal 2: Maintain, protect, and make accessible roosts and contiguous foraging habitat for

lesser long-nosed bats.

● Goal 3: Protect Sonoran pronghorn habitat and ensure that suitable habitat is available for

future occupancy.

● Goal 4: Ensure the southwest willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo habitats are

maintained and/or restored.

● Goal 5: Ensure that Yuma clapper rail habitats are maintained and/or improved.

● Goal 6: Ensure that the natural abundance and diversity of bat habitats are maintained and/or

restored.

● Goal 7: Maintain or restore habitats to support cactus ferruginous pygmy owls foraging

and nesting needs.

● Goal 8: Ensure that tortoise habitat provides sufficient forage and shelter for viable

populations.

● Goal 9: Ensure that migratory bird habitats are maintained and/or restored.

● Goal 10: Ensure that raptor habitats are maintained and/or restored.

● Goal 11: Ensure that bighorn sheep, mule deer and other game species habitats are maintained

and/or restored.

● Goal 12: Ensure wildlife movement corridors contain ample habitat to assist wildlife in

moving from one area to another in a relatively safe manner.

● Goal 13: Ensure that priority wildlife habitats are maintained and/or restored.

● Goal 14: Ensure wildlife is provided safe, usable, year-round access to water.

● Goal 15: Ensure that undesirable non-native animal species do not occur in the Decision

Areas or that their presence does not adversely affect ecological processes.

Land Use Allocations Summary

The wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) proposed for designation are presented in Table 2.5, “Wildlife

Habitat Areas by Alternative” (p. 70) below.

Table 2.5. Wildlife Habitat Areas by Alternative

Alternative (BLM Acres)

WHA

A B C D E

Lower Sonoran

Batamote Mountains 0 62,900 0

Cuerda de Lena 0 58,500 0

Gila Bend Mountains 0 255,700 255,700 255,700

Saddle Mountain 0 48,800 0

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 71

SDNM

Wildlife Habitat Areas 0

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1 (Wildlife Habitat Area Management): Ensure habitat availability and diversity for priority wildlife

resources is maintained and/or improving within WHAs, where priority species would receive primary focus

when analyzing activities and projects.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Designate WHAs to maintain and improve the continuity and productivity of habitats for

priority wildlife species to support AGFD and USFWS wildlife population objectives. Manage suitable and

occupied habitat for desert tortoise, mule deer, bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn antelope, lesser-long-nosed

bat, and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl consistent with recovery plan and species’ objectives.

Common to all WHAs for Alternatives C through E

Note: Only the Gila Bend Mountains WHA is proposed in Alternatives D and E; Refer to Section 2.9.1, “Areas of

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)” (p. 194) for actions affecting the other WHAs in D and E

LS C D E PS-1.1.1: WHAs would be designated as described by alternative as

presented in Table 2.5, “Wildlife Habitat Areas by Alternative” (p. 70).

LS C D E PS-1.1.2: All public lands would be retained, and available state trust lands

and private parcels would be acquired to maintain habitat connectivity as

funding or other opportunities permit.

LS C D E PS-1.1.3: Maintenance of utility corridors, including vegetation clearing,

would be restricted to the existing authorized LUA corridor only.

LS C D E PS-1.1.4: Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited in washes that occupy,

or are found to be occupied, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls habitat from

February 1 to September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding,

nesting, and dispersal season. All other areas would be limited to existing

or designated routes.

LS C D E PS-1.1.5: Routes that conflict with resource protection and management

could be closed, limited by seasonal restrictions, or mitigated to prevent

habitat degradation and fragmentation.

LS C D E PS-1.1.6: Through the route-designation process, route densities would

be reduced and the designation of upland routes would be emphasized.

Necessary use of access routes in washes would be allowed; however, these

access routes may contain seasonal closures.

LS C D E PS-1.1.7: All new roads or highways crossing public land would be

designed to facilitate movement of wildlife and would be mitigated to

minimize disturbance.

LS C D E PS-1.1.8: Priority habitat areas would be maintained during road

improvements (e.g., altering, upgrading, paving, and widening) and

improvements must meet desert tortoise-protection standards. Mitigation

may include at-grade wildlife crossings, wildlife under- or over passes,

wildlife-appropriate fencing, speed limits, and other appropriate actions.

LS C E PS-1.1.9: WHAs would be avoidance areas for utility-scale renewable

energy development. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource

areas or in areas already disturbed. If no other options exist, activities

must be mitigated and managed to ensure consistency with management

objectives, with an emphasis to maintain wildlife habitat and movement

connectivity within WHAss.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
72 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1 (Wildlife Habitat Area Management): Ensure habitat availability and diversity for priority wildlife

resources is maintained and/or improving within WHAs, where priority species would receive primary focus

when analyzing activities and projects.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Designate WHAs to maintain and improve the continuity and productivity of habitats for

priority wildlife species to support AGFD and USFWS wildlife population objectives. Manage suitable and

occupied habitat for desert tortoise, mule deer, bighorn sheep, Sonoran pronghorn antelope, lesser-long-nosed

bat, and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl consistent with recovery plan and species’ objectives.

LS C E PS-1.1.10: WHAs would be open for locatables, leasables and mineral

materials actions. Activities must be mitigated and managed to ensure

consistency with management objectives, with an emphasis to maintain

wildlife habitat and movement connectivity within WHAs. Valid existing

rights would be respected. Existing mineral material free use permits used

as community pits would be allowed to continue and be reissued upon

expiration.

LS C PS-1.1.11: The construction of routes would be allowed if consistent with

natural resource objectives (habitat quality and quantity based on ecological

site descriptions) and do not conflict with wildlife management objectives.

Closed roads could be converted for use as non motorized trails if consistent

with natural resource objectives.

Specific to Cuerda de Lena WHA

Note: In Alternatives D and E, the area would be managed under the proposed Cuerda de Lena ACEC. Also see

Section 2.7.5, “Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)” (p. 63) for actions related to Sonoran pronghorn.

LS C PS-1.1.12: The WHA would be closed to the public for general recreational

use during pronghorn fawning between March 15 and July 15 or as

determined annually by the Sonoran pronghorn antelope recovery team.

Minor non-linear LUAs would also be prohibited unless deemed necessary

by the authorized officer. Federal, State and local government employees

and BLM permit holders operating within the scope of their authorizations

would be exempt from the closure.

LS C PS-1.1.13: Mineral material disposals would be prohibited in washes that

are known, or found to contain, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat.

Specific to Gila Bend Mountains WHA

LS D PS-1.1.14: The WHAwould be an exclusion area for utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration.

LS D PS-1.1.15: The WHA would be closed to all locatable and leasable

minerals exploration and development (including geothermal and sodium),

and mineral material disposals. Public lands in the WHA would be

recommended for withdrawal to all forms of mineral entry.

Specific to Saddle Mountain WHA

Note: In Alternatives D and E, the area is managed under the proposed Saddle Mountain ACEC.

LS C PS-1.1.16: Facilities, including those for recreational purposes, and

construction of new roads, would be prohibited within 1⁄2 mile of known bat

roosts and cliffs or other unique habitat features used by nesting raptors.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 73

Goal 2 (Lesser Long Nosed Bat): Maintain, protect, and make accessible roosts and contiguous foraging

habitat for lesser long-nosed bats.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Protect known roosting habitat for lesser long-nosed bat on public land and maintain

contiguous foraging habitat at its current range and distribution.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.1: Mitigation could occur for facility development, including those

for recreation purposes, within 4 miles of known lesser long-nosed bat

roosts as long as the action does not impact roost sites. In the event that

mitigation is not sufficient, the development would be relocated at least 4

miles from roost sites.

LS SDNM B B D E PS-2.1.2: Activities with the potential to impact lesser long-nosed bats or

their habitats would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and impacts would

be mitigated or avoided.

LS SDNM B B D E PS-2.1.3: Medium to high density columnar cactus habitat (≥ 30

saguaro/acre) within 40 miles of known roost sites would be maintained

and/or restored.

LS SDNM B B D E PS-2.1.4: Protect long-nosed bat forage plants-saguaros and high

concentrations of agaves-from modification by treatment activities

(prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), to the greatest extent possible.

Saguaros and high concentrations of agaves would be excluded from

treatments. Agave concentrations are contiguous stands or concentrations of

more than 20 plants per acre.

Goal 3 (Sonoran Pronghorn): Protect and enhance Sonoran pronghorn habitat and ensure that suitable habitat

is available for future occupancy based on recovery goals.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Manage for no net loss of Sonoran pronghorn habitat. Protect the creosote-bursage, desert

washes (xero-riparian), and palo verde mixed cacti communities which provide nutritious forage species that

encourages fawn recruitment, provides thermal cover, enables predator avoidance, and provides for growth

and survival. Protect areas that provide for chain-fruit cholla production.

LS B C D E PS-3.1.1: Conservation measures as applied to the Sonoran pronghorn

habitat recovery area would be adopted as identified in Appendix K,

Conservation Measures from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinions (p. 1239).

LS B C D E PS-3.1.2: The pronghorn habitat area south of Ajo (see Maps 2-2a, 2–2b,

2–2c, 2–2d, and 2–2e) would be closed to the public for general recreational

use during pronghorn fawning between March 15 and July 15 or as

determined annually by the Sonoran pronghorn antelope recovery team.

Minor non-linear LUAs would also be prohibited unless deemed necessary

by the authorized officer. Federal, State and local government employees

and BLM permit holders operating within the scope of their authorizations

would be exempt from the closure.

LS B C D E PS-3.1.3: Portions of both Decision Areas would be identified as potential

reintroduction sites for an experimental/nonessential population of Sonoran

pronghorn. (See Map 3-4).

LS B C D E PS-3.1.4: Sonoran pronghorn experimental/nonessential populations would

be managed to achieve recovery goals. Mitigation could be required for

activities that may impede movements or otherwise disturb the species or

habitat.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
74 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 3 (Sonoran Pronghorn): Protect and enhance Sonoran pronghorn habitat and ensure that suitable habitat

is available for future occupancy based on recovery goals.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Manage for no net loss of Sonoran pronghorn habitat. Protect the creosote-bursage, desert

washes (xero-riparian), and palo verde mixed cacti communities which provide nutritious forage species that

encourages fawn recruitment, provides thermal cover, enables predator avoidance, and provides for growth

and survival. Protect areas that provide for chain-fruit cholla production.

Objective 3.2: Manage habitat for future populations of experimental/nonessential Sonoran pronghorn within

the SDNM.

SDNM B C D E PS-3.2.1: Sonoran pronghorn observed within the SDNM area designated

experimental/nonessential would be managed to achieve recovery goals.

Mitigation would be required for activities that could impede movements or

otherwise disturb the species or habitat.

Goal 4 (Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo): Ensure that Southwestern willow

flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo habitats are maintained and /or improving.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 4.1: Protect, maintain, and restore southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo

habitats and prevent actions that could harm individuals of the two listed species.

LS B C D E PS-4.1.1: Southwestern willow flycatcher and yellow-billed cuckoo habitats

in the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt would be maintained and/or restored in

coordination with USFWS and AGFD.

LS B C D E PS-4.1.2: Recreation activities will only be allowed outside of 1⁄2 mile

of occupied or found to be occupied habitat when birds may be present

(breeding season of April 1 – September 30).

LS B C D E PS-4.1.3: Vegetation treatment projects adjacent to occupied or found to

be occupied habitat will only be conducted when willow flycatchers are

not present (October 1 – March 31).

LS B C D E PS-4.1.4: Avoid surface disturbing activities that would result in

fragmentation or a reduction in habitat quality for both species.

Goal 5 (Yuma Clapper Rail): Ensure that Yuma clapper rail habitats are maintained and/or improving.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 5.1: Maintain and protect riparian and wetland areas with potential or occupied habitats.

LS B C D E PS-5.1.1: Yuma clapper rail habitat would be maintained and/or restored by

developing or engineering projects that would encourage native emergent

vegetation.

LS B C D E PS-5.1.2: Vegetation treatment projects in occupied, or found to be

occupied, marsh habitat would only occur between September 1 and March

15 to avoid the Yuma clapper rail breeding and molting seasons.

LS B C D E PS-5.1.3: Mechanical removal of overstory habitat (Tamarisk) would only

occur September 1 to March 15, to avoid the Yuma clapper rail breeding

and molting seasons.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 75

Goal 6 (Sonoran Desert Tortoise): Ensure that tortoise habitat provides sufficient forage and shelter for a

viable population.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 6.1: Achieve the following objectives in desert tortoise habitat, as identified by habitat category:

● 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.

● Category III - Limit tortoise habitat and population declines to the extent possible through mitigation.

● Retain natural shelter sites (boulders or caliche caves or similar features used by tortoises for sheltering) in

Category I and II desert tortoise habitats, and

● Maintain or restore a diverse mixture of forage species and adequate cover of vegetation for desert tortoise

habitat as recommended by the 1988 Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988b).

LS SDNM B C D E PS-6.1.1: Public lands currently allocated for management as Category I, II,

and III Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat, as described in , would be managed

according to the objectives listed above.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat by Category

● Category I: 24,800 (LSFO); 166,00 (SDNM)

● Category II: 355,700 (LSFO); 124,700 (SDNM)

● Category III: 65,300 (LSFO); 3,500 (SDNM)

LS SDNM B C D E PS-6.1.2: Habitat-management categories and boundaries may 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 as follows:

● Habitat areas are essential to the maintenance of large, viable

populations;

● Conflicts are resolvable;

● Populations are medium- to high-density or low-density contiguous with

medium- or high-density;

● Populations are increasing, stable, or decreasing.

The criteria for Category II tortoise habitat areas are as follows:

● 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.

The criteria for Category III tortoise habitat areas are as follows:

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
76 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 6 (Sonoran Desert Tortoise): Ensure that tortoise habitat provides sufficient forage and shelter for a

viable population.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

● Habitat areas are not essential to maintenance of viable populations;

● Most conflicts are not resolvable;

● Populations are low- to medium-density and not contiguous with

medium- or high-density;

● Populations are stable or decreasing.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-6.1.3: No net loss would occur in the quality or quantity of Category

I and II desert tortoise habitat. Mitigation for adverse impacts would be

permissible to achieve no net loss in quantity or quality of desert tortoise

habitat in accordance with the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan and other

applicable policy guidance.

LS B C D E PS-6.1.4: In Category I and II tortoise habitats, all motorized competitive

speed races would be prohibited from March 31 through October 15. All

other use requests during this time would be reviewed on a case-by-case

basis and could 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. Specific onsite

inspections for tortoise habitat would occur at the time a notice or plan

is processed. Development and uses must be compatible with wildlife

objectives.

LS B PS-6.1.5: Category I, II and III tortoise habitat would be open to all uses

and activities but actions would be mitigated in accordance with applicable

policies and guidance, and managed to ensure consistency with management

objectives with an emphasis to maintain habitat.

LS C E PS-6.1.6: Surface disturbing activities, including utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration, would be avoided in Category I and II

habitat to the extent practicable. Category III habitat would be available on

a case by case basis. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource

areas or in areas already disturbed. If no other options exist, activities must

be mitigated in accordance with the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan and

other applicable policy guidance.

LS C PS-6.1.7: Category I and II tortoise habitat would be open to mineral

material disposals on a case by case basis. Uses must be mitigated in

accordance with applicable policies and guidance, and managed to ensure

consistency with management objectives with an emphasis to maintain

habitat. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in

areas already developed or disturbed. Specific onsite inspections for tortoise

habitat would occur at the time a notice or plan is processed.

LS C PS-6.1.8: Category III tortoise habitat would be open to all non-renewable

leasable minerals actions, and mineral material disposals, on a case-by-case

basis with mitigation. Specific onsite inspections for tortoise habitat would

occur at the time a notice or plan is processed. Stipulations would be applied

to prevent habitat fragmentation, to the extent practible, between Category

I and II habitat.

LS D PS-6.1.9: Surface disturbing activities would be excluded in Category

I, II and III tortoise habitat, including utility-scale renewable energy

development and exploration. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive

resource areas or in areas already disturbed.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 77

Goal 6 (Sonoran Desert Tortoise): Ensure that tortoise habitat provides sufficient forage and shelter for a

viable population.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS D PS-6.1.10: Category I, II and III tortoise habitat would be closed to all

locatable and non-renewable leasable minerals exploration and development

(including geothermal and sodium), and mineral material disposals. Public

lands in the habitats would be recommended for withdrawalto all forms

of mineral entry.

LS E PS-6.1.11: Surface disturbing activities, including utility-scale renewable

energy leasing and exploration would be avoided in Category I and II

tortoise habitat. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas

or in areas already disturbed. If no other options exist, activities must be

mitigated in accordance with the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan and other

applicable policy guidance.

LS E PS-6.1.12: Surface disturbing activities within Category III tortoise habitat

would be authorized on a case-by-case basis. Uses must be mitigated in

accordance with applicable policies and guidance, and managed to ensure

consistency with management objectives with an emphasis to maintain

habitat. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in

areas already developed or disturbed. Specific onsite inspections for tortoise

habitat would occur at the time a notice or plan is processed.

LS E PS-6.1.13: Category I and II tortoise habitat would be open to all

non-renewable leasable minerals actions (including geothermal and sodium)

on a case by case basis. Uses must be mitigated in accordance with

applicable policies and guidance, and managed to ensure consistency with

management objectives with an emphasis to maintain habitat.

LS E PS-6.1.14: Category I and II desert tortoise habitat would be open to

mineral material disposals on a case by case basis in accordance with

applicable policies and guidance, and if managed to ensure consistency with

management objectives with an emphasis to maintain habitat.

Goal 7 (Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls): Maintain or restore habitats to support cactus ferruginous pygmy

owls.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 7.1: Protect cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls from disturbance during the breeding and nesting seasons.

Maintain or improve a complex, multi-layered vegetative structure provided by perennial plants within the range

of the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. Structure should consist of approximately 30 percent each of grasses and

forbs, shrubs, and trees as dictated by site conditions. Maintain current or improve interconnected habitat patches

of sufficient quality (diversity, density, and structure) and quantity (≥ 3 acres) to support cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls. Maintain sufficient vegetation between patches to allow for dispersal.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-7.1.1: Activities would be managed to protect, maintain, or improve

occupied, or found to be occupied, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat.

LS SDNM B C E PS-7.1.2: Surface disturbing activities would be avoided within 1⁄2 mile

of a known active cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl nest site from February

1 through July 31. All actions would be mitigated and managed to ensure

consistency with management objectives, with an emphasis to maintain

available habitat. Development planned to occur within 330 feet of any

known or found to be occupied CFPO nest site would be evaluated on a

site-specific basis, but significant modification of habitat within these areas

should be avoided year round. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive

resource areas or in areas already disturbed.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
78 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 7 (Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owls): Maintain or restore habitats to support cactus ferruginous pygmy

owls.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM C E PS-7.1.3: Motorized use within washes that are known to be occupied,

or found to be occupied cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat would be

prohibited from February 1 to July 31 to protect pygmy-owls during their

breeding, nesting, and dispersal season. Exceptions to the prohibitions

would be authorized only for personnel engaged in constructing,

maintaining, or repairing facilities; conducting research or surveys; or for

authorized law-enforcement or fire-suppression emergencies.

LS SDNM D PS-7.1.4: Surface disturbing activities would be excluded within 1⁄2 mile

of known active cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl nest site from February 1

through July 31.

LS SDNM D PS-7.1.5: Motorized use within known to be occupied, or found to be

occupied, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat would be prohibited from

February 1 to July 31 to protect pygmy-owls during their breeding, nesting,

and dispersal season. Exceptions to the prohibitions would be authorized

only for personnel engaged in constructing, maintaining, or repairing

facilities; conducting research or surveys; or for authorized law-enforcement

or fire-suppression emergencies.

Goal 8 (General Bats): Ensure that the natural abundance and diversity of bat habitats are stable or increasing.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 8.1: Protect bat roosts associated with natural caves and abandoned mine features that are

necessary to provide roosting locations for existing bat populations and opportunities for expansion.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-8.1.1: In cooperation with AGFD, the protection of important bat

roosts would be ensured and mitigation measures would be used to resolve

potential resource conflicts.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-8.1.2: New water developments would be configured to allow for safe

use by bats.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-8.1.3: Hazardous mine features occupied by bats would be remediated

by installing bat gates or, if other roosts are readily available, by backfilling.

Goal 9 (Migratory Birds): Ensure that migratory bird habitats are maintained and/or improving to meet the needs

of migratory birds in general.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 9.1: Avoid take of migratory birds (adults, nests, eggs, and chicks) to comply with the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-9.1.1: Applications for activities on public lands would evaluate the

effects of the BLM’s actions on migratory birds during the NEPA process, if

any, and identify where take reasonably attributable to agency actions may

have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing

first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. In such

situations, the BLM will implement approaches lessening such take.

LS B C D E PS-9.1.2:Burrowing owl artificial habitats would be developed to facilitate

introduction/transplant of owls in suitable locations.

Goal 10 (Raptor Habitats): Ensure that raptor habitats are maintained and/or improving to meet the needs of

raptors in general.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 79

Objective 10.1: Manage activities that could reduce raptor nest production.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-10.1.1: Authorized developments, uses, and activities within 1⁄4 mile of

known occupied raptor nests would be avoided, relocated, or seasonally

limited.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-10.1.2: Authorized developments, uses, and activities within 1⁄2 mile of

communal raptor nesting areas would be avoided.

LS B C D E PS-10.1.3: Surface disturbing activities would be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis within active eagle nest territories to comply with

BGEPAof 1940.

Goal 11 (Bighorn Sheep/Big Game): Ensure that bighorn sheep, and other big game, habitats are maintained

and/or improving.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 11.1: Provide water for bighorn sheep and protect them from communicable diseases.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-11.1.1: Additional waters may be installed in high elevations of bighorn

sheep habitat to improve habitat suitability.

LS B C D E PS-11.1.2: Domestic sheep use would be prohibited on all allotments within

9 miles of bighorn sheep habitat.

SDNM B PS-11.1.3:Domestic goats or sheep would not be permitted within nine

miles of suitable bighorn sheep habitat or within allotments that contain

suitable bighorn sheep habitat.

SDNM C D E PS-11.1.4: Domestic sheep grazing would be prohibited within the

Monument.

Goal 12 (Wildlife Movement Corridors):Ensure wildlife movement corridors contain ample habitat to assist

wildlife in moving from one area to another in a relatively safe manner.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 12.1: Manage wildlife movement corridors in a manner that would assist wildlife in safe passage

from one area to another.

Specific to Wildlife Movement Corridors (WMCs)

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.1: All new roads where average speeds may be greater than 45

miles per hour, or highways crossing public land, would be designed to

facilitate movement of wildlife to reduce mortality of wildlife from vehicle

collisions.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.2: Maintenance or expansion of existing roads would incorporate

measures to maintain or restore wildlife habitat connectivity and would

incorporate, where appropriate, wildlife underpasses or overpasses.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.3: Routes would be subject to seasonal closures if conflicts with

wildlife cannot be mitigated.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.4: New surface disturbance within 100 meters of the edge of large

washes located in the desert washes vegetative community (those depicted

on USGS 1:24,000 maps) would be mitigated as needed to protect the

integrity of washes as corridors.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.5: Road density would be limited to 3 miles of road per section or

less within the wildlife movement corridors in accordance with the Habitat

Guidelines for Mule Deer (Mule Deer Working Group 2006).

LS SDNM B C D E PS-12.1.6: Treatments of invasive plant species would be allowed.

LS B C PS-12.1.7: WMCs would be open to all locatable and leasable minerals

exploration and development (including geothermal and sodium) and

mineral material disposals with the exception of seasonal restrictions in

Sonoran pronghorn habitat for leasables and mineral material disposals

(See 1.1.13). All activities would be managed through existing regulations.

Mitigation, terms and conditions would be applied as necessary to retain or

improve habitat.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
80 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 12 (Wildlife Movement Corridors):Ensure wildlife movement corridors contain ample habitat to assist

wildlife in moving from one area to another in a relatively safe manner.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 12.1: Manage wildlife movement corridors in a manner that would assist wildlife in safe passage

from one area to another.

LS C E PS-12.1.8: Surface-disturbing activities would be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis, including large scale renewable energy developments.

Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in areas

already disturbed. If no other options are available, actions must be

mitigated and managed to ensure consistency with management objectives,

with an emphasis to maintain wildlife habitat continuity and movement

connectivity. If impacts to wildlife cannot be mitigated, the action would be

denied.

LS D PS-12.1.9: WMCs would be exclusion areas for utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration.

LS D PS-12.1.10: WMCs would be closed to all locatable and leasable minerals

exploration and development (including geothermal and sodium), and

mineral material disposals. Public lands located within the corridors would

be recommended for withdrawal.

LS E PS-12.1.11: WMCs would be open to all locatable minerals. Exploration

and development would be managed through existing regulations.

Mitigation, terms and conditions would be applied as necessary to retain or

improve habitat.

LS E PS-12.1.12: WMCs would be open to all non-renewable leasable minerals

actions, including geothermal and sodium, but would be mitigated to allow

available habitat no less than 200 meters wide as a corridor to facilitate

wildlife movement.

LS E PS-12.1.13: WMCs would be open to mineral material sales on a

case-by-case basis. Preference would be to place the surface disturbance

outside of the WMC but if an area within the WMC is unavoidable,

mitigation to improve or enhance the habitat would occur. Development and

uses must be compatible with wildlife objectives and not detrimental to

wildlife or its habitat. If impacts cannot be mitigated, the action would be

denied.

Goal 13 (Priority Species Management Guidance): Ensure that priority wildlife habitats are maintained

and/or improved.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 13.1: Ensure that habitats for priority species are maintained and/or improving to meet the needs of

wildlife in general.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-13.1.1: Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of

native priority wildlife populations (as defined in BLM Manual 1745 or

subsequent guidance) could occur in their current or historic range with

collaboration between the AGFD and USFWS.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-13.1.2: The release of rehabilitated or displaced wildlife on public

lands would be allowed, which could involve constructing artificial

habitats where appropriate, for species that are compatible with other

resource-management and use objectives.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 81

Goal 13 (Priority Species Management Guidance): Ensure that priority wildlife habitats are maintained

and/or improved.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM B C D E PS-13.1.3: Acquisitions of non-Federal lands and disposals of Federal land

that have, or potentially have, priority species or habitats would include

the potential to:

● Enhance the conservation and management of threatened, endangered

or special status species habitat, riparian habitat, desert tortoise habitat,

key big game habitat;

● Improve the overall manageability of wildlife habitat;

● Improve habitat connectivity in and around the WHA and wildlife

movement corridors.

The BLM would not transfer (dispose of) from Federal ownership the

following:

● Designated or proposed critical habitat for a listed or proposed

threatened, endangered or special status species;

● Lands supporting listed or proposed threatened or endangered species if

such transfer would be inconsistent with recovery needs and objectives

or conservation measures 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.

Retain Category I and II tortoise habitat unless it is in the general public

interest to dispose of them, and losses in habitat quality and quantity can

be mitigated.

Exceptions to the above could occur if:

● The recipient of the lands agrees to protect the species or critical habitat

under the ESA, such as disposal to a non-Federal governmental agency

or private organization;

● If conservation of the habitat would still be achieved and ensured; or

● In a land exchange if a net gain in the value of species habitat or

protection is achieved.

LS SDNM B C D E PS–13.1.4: Treatments of invasive species would be allowed to benefit

visual resources or wildlife habitat unless otherwise restricted.

Goal 14 (Wildlife Waters): Provide wildlife with safe, usable, year-round access to water.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 14.1: Increase, improve or maintain the density and distribution of wildlife waters on public lands

throughout the Planning Area to sustain and enhance wildlife populations across their range.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
82 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LS SDNM B C D E PS-14.1.1: Maintain and re-develop existing and develop additional wildlife

waters in cooperation with AGFD. Increase the density and/or restore the

distribution of wildlife waters throughout the Planning Area to sustain and

enhance native wildlife populations across their range. All existing wildlife

waters would be maintained or improved as needed to maintain the presence

of perennial water for native wildlife. New wildlife waters would be built

when needed to maintain, restore, or enhance native wildlife population

numbers or distributions.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-14.1.2: In the event that range water developments are no longer needed

for livestock use, the BLM would take over maintenance of such water

sources. If the BLM deems some water developments are not viable for

wildlife distribution some water sources would be removed in cooperation

with the AGFD.

Goal 15 (Non-Native Invasive Animal Species Guidance): Ensure that undesirable non-native animal species do

not occur in the Decision Areas or that their presence does not adversely affect ecological processes.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 15.1: Limit the distribution and abundance of invasive animal species to current levels. Reduce the

impact of invasive species on native ecosystems from current levels.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-15.1.1: Non-native, invasive animal species would not be allowed

except for biological controls for which peer-reviewed scientific literature

states that the introduced species would have no detrimental effects to any

native wildlife or plant species in the Planning Area.

Administrative Actions:

● Work in partnership with AGFD to manage wildlife and wildlife habitat to achieve AGFD’s

wildlife population goals. Cooperatively develop HMPs to meet Sikes Act requirements and

address site-specific habitat management objectives consistent with other natural resource

objectives. Wildlife management activities administered by AGFD include, but are not

limited to surveys, telemetry, transplants, water management, vegetation restoration and

enhancement, invasive species control, research, law enforcement activities, setting and

administering hunting permits, and other wildlife or habitat management projects as identified

in the Master Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Arizona Game and Fish

Commission and the BLM.

● Work in partnership with AGFD to manage wildlife and wildlife habitat to achieve AGFD’s

wildlife population goals and other activities as identified in the Master MOU between AGFD

and the BLM.

● Work with other land owners within wildlife movement corridors to maintain or improve

vegetative connectivity and prevent actions that would obstruct the movement of wildlife

through the areas.

● Emphasize maintaining and restoring ecological connectivity through land acquisition,

partnerships with local landowners, and vegetation resources. If opportunities for wildlife

movement cannot be adequately maintained, then mitigation to maintain isolated wildlife

populations will be adopted.

● Eliminate trespass grazing by cattle, sheep, goats, burros, and other non-native animals and

construct wildlife-passable fences where trespass is a problem.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 83

● Livestock waters will provide safe, usable water for wildlife, where possible. As funding and

opportunities permit, existing facilities will be modified for safe wildlife use. The above

ground height of livestock troughs and tanks will not exceed 20 inches. The BLM will install

wildlife escape ladders in each facility and provide ramps for small bird and mammal access.

Storage tanks will be configured to reduce evaporation and prevent wildlife from drowning.

Threatened and Endangered Species:

● The BLM will initiate formal Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) on all actions that may affect Federal listed threatened and endangered species or

critical habitat as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended.

● The ESA of 1973, as amended, provides for the protection of T&E and proposed T&E

species of plants and animals. Specifications of the ESA pertain to both the Lower

Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas. BLM Manual 6840 prescribes conservation measures

(outlined in Appendix K, Conservation Measures from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinions (p. 1239)) for T&E species, including conservation measures for fire management

activities and species-specific conservation measures. To a large extent, these measures have

been built in to the RMP alternatives evaluated in this DEIS.

● Monitor existing populations and inventory for additional populations of threatened and

endangered species.

Priority Wildlife Species:

● 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.

● Continue to work with and support other agencies and public entities in desert tortoise

conservation.

● Coordinate invasive animal species control and education efforts with AGFD.

● Follow management prescriptions for livestock grazing allotments in the Woolsey Peak and

Signal Mountain wilderness areas as provided in the wilderness management plans or, if

different, as described in S&G evaluations.

● Design fences to reduce adverse impacts to wildlife movement. Specifications in BLM

Manual 1741 and in local BLM directives will be used. The BLM will consult with AGFD

on the design and location of new fences. Where existing fences in wildlife habitat do not

meet BLM specifications, they will be modified according to BLM Manual 1741 when they

are scheduled for replacement or major maintenance. Special consideration will be given to

placement, type, and installation of fences in Category I and II desert tortoise habitat to

facilitate desert tortoise movement, dispersal, and protection. Before installing facilities, the

BLM will conduct a site evaluation for special status and state-protected animals and will

develop mitigation to protect these species and their habitats. Such mitigation might include

project relocation, redesign, and abandonment.

● Inventory for federally listed, proposed, and candidate species. Implement monitoring

programs on known populations of listed, proposed, and candidate, species and other special

status species (as defined in BLM Manual 6840) to document population levels and status.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS)
84 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Where monitoring finds threats to these populations, actions will be taken to protect the

species and their habitats.

● Standardize desert tortoise management throughout its habitat. Management would be

consistent with the following documents:

○ Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands: A Range wide 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)

○ Instructional Memorandum No. 94-018 Ephemeral Grazing Policy in Desert Tortoise

Habitat Supplemental Guidance for Desert Tortoise Compensation, Instruction

Memorandum No. AZ-99-008 (BLM 1999).

● Desert Tortoise Mitigation Policy, Instruction Memorandum No. AZ-2009-010 (BLM 2009)

● Establish additional desert tortoise study plot(s) or other monitoring methods, as necessary.

Read plots at 5-year intervals, or as necessary, and as funding permits.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat (PS) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 85

2.7.6. SOIL RESOURCES (SL)

Soil resources are fundamental to all other resources and resource uses. Guidance for management

of soil resources is published in BLM Manual7100. Primary authority for management includes

the Taylor Grazing Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement Act, and FLPMA, which address

use of Federal rangelands, including assessment, conservation, and improvement of soil

resources. The Clean Water Act indirectly affects soil management by controlling the release of

nonpoint-source pollution such as sedimentation caused by erosion. The BLM’s Phoenix District

Office uses surveys developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS), as well as on-site assessments, when possible, to determine soil

types and characteristics when assessing management actions.

Soil conditions are monitored and assessed through land health assessments. Impacts to soils are

analyzed during the development of EISs or EAs for projects and use authorizations. The soil

program works to reduce impacts to soil and associated vegetation resources through allocation

of uses such as transportation and grazing, and through mitigation of project impacts. The soil

program also works with other programs to implement restoration projects.

2.7.6.1. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A - No Action) Soil

Resources

The following decisions are extracted from the existing land use plans and amendments and

are listed in chronological order. Because none of these current land use plans encompass the

entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions are being carried forward as common to all

alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Install gully plugs, waterbars, and other erosion structures to prevent excessive erosion on

existing roads in Vekol Valley ACEC (WS-18).

● During construction of all rangeland developments, surface disturbance will be minimized.

After construction, disturbed surfaces will be restored to a natural condition to the extent

practicable (WS-19).

● Repair and maintain the existing watershed dike system and associated watershed fence

(WS-21).

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989)::

● Maintain and improve soil cover and productivity through erosion-prevention measures and

land treatments (WS-03).

● Salinity control measures will be incorporated into erosion-prevention strategies and

rehabilitation treatments (WS-04).

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment

(1990): :

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Soil Resources (SL)
86 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

[Applies to the three relinquished BGR parcels]

● Restrict the operation of motorized vehicles and heavy equipment to established roadways and

previously impacted areas except when the use relates to a specific permitted project (WS-8).

● Assess, as part of site appraisals for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the

vulnerability of soils to disruption and subsequent wind and water erosion (WS-9).

● Use the following techniques to minimize soil disturbance and conserve soil resources on

previously unimpacted sites:

○ Gain access to the site, where possible, by using existing roads and trails.

○ Use equipment, where possible, that creates the least amount of soil disturbance.

○ Return disturbed areas to as close to pre-disturbed conditions as possible.

○ Minimize activities where it is known that soils are unstable and subject to wind erosion.

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (1997)::

● Guideline 1-1: Management activities will maintain or promote ground cover that provides for

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate for the ecological

sites within management units. 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.

● Guideline 1-2: When grazing practices alone are not likely to restore areas of low infiltration

or permeability, land management treatments may be designed and implemented to attain

improvement.

2.7.6.2. Action Alternatives for Soil Resources (SL)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Ensure watersheds are functioning appropriately and are consistent with Land Health

Standards. Characteristics of a properly functioning watershed include channels that are

stable and in balance with the landscape; erosion and sediment deposition appropriate for

the ecological site; infiltration of surface water in soils sufficient to support desired future

conditions (DFCs) and minimize erosion from runoff; and flood frequencies, durations, and

magnitudes appropriate for the landscape.

● Goal 2: Maintain or improve sensitive soils to avoid accelerated erosion rates.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Soil Resources (SL) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 87

Goal 1 (Watershed): Ensure watersheds are functioning appropriately and are consistent with Land Health

Standards. Characteristics of a properly functioning watershed include channels that are stable and in balance

with the landscape; erosion and sediment deposition appropriate for the ecological site; infiltration of surface

water in soils sufficient to support desired future conditions (DFC) and minimize erosion from runoff; and flood

frequencies, durations, and magnitudes appropriate for the landscape.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Maintain or restore upland, channel, and riparian components of watersheds that help

stabilize or improve watershed conditions. Major indicators of watershed health include maintaining total

cover (vegetation and litter) consistent with desired future conditions, riparian areas in proper function

condition, and erosion and sedimentation rates appropriate to the ecological site.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.1:Priorities for restoration would be established for disturbed areas.

Priorities would be based the potential for soil erosion and loss, damage

to cultural or ecologically sensitive sites, and effects on water quality and

quantity.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.2:Degraded sites would be stabilized and restored to slow or stop

accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation and limit erosion to the natural

rate for the ecological site.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.3:Benefits and risks of retaining the Vekol Valley spreader dike system

would be evaluated along with benefits and risks of retaining or implementing

vehicle closures in areas with eroded or otherwise degraded roads and trails.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.4: Soil erosion at cultural and ecologically sensitive sites would be

evaluated. Soil erosion or degradation at these sites would be mitigated.

SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.5: Any management-caused soil erosion or degradation of the protected

objects of the SDNM would be mitigated and restored to the extent possible.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-1.1.6: New or redeveloped facilities not related to water management

would be constructed:

● Outside riparian areas and the 100-year floodplain of washes or water ways,

● In a manner that avoids changing natural water flow or watershed

dynamics, and consistent with other resource and public-safety goals.

● Existing facilities could be relocated or modified if they are significantly

affecting watershed or floodplain function. Where water-management

facilities are necessary, the BLM would pursue options that minimize

changes to natural water flow and watershed dynamics. Any activities in

the 100-year floodplain would be planned for compliance with any county

or Federal floodplain regulations.

Goal 2 (Soils): Maintain or improve sensitive soils to avoid accelerated erosion rates.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Actions

Objective 2.1: Disturbance of sensitive soil surfaces, including those classified as highly susceptible to wind and

water erosion and those with protective desert pavement or well-developed cryptogamic crust will be avoided. If

disturbance occurs, damage will be mitigated.

LS SDNM B C D E SL-2.1.1: Developments and ground disturbing activities would be located

away from areas of significant desert pavement, cryptogamic crust, and other

sensitive or fragile soils that are vulnerable to disruption or have high wind or

water erosion potential unless project goals cannot be met in another location.

Where facilities or projects cannot be relocated, mitigation measures would be

taken, including application of ground cover, to minimize erosion.

LS B C D E SL-2.1.2: The density of roads and trails would be reduced during route

designation within areas known to have sensitive soils. Closed roads would

be rehabilitated. Roads left open would be treated to mitigate wind and water

erosion.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Soil Resources (SL)
88 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LS SDNM B C D E SL-2.1.3: Motorized vehicle use would be limited to designated roads,

primitive roads and trails. Specific designations would occur within this plan

for the SDNM. LSFO routes would be designated within 5 years of RMP

completion. Vehicle travel in LSFO would be restricted to inventoried routes

only for the interim.

LS B C D E SL-2.1.4: Vehicle parking and camping would be limited to 100 feet from

the road centerline or designated sites in areas determined to have sensitive

soils. Designated sites in such locations would be inventoried, mapped and

signed. If monitoring results show effects that exceed limits of acceptable

change, motorized vehicles will not be allowed to pull off a designated route

100 feet either side of centerline.

SDNM B C D E SL-2.1.5: Vehicle parking and camping would be limited to 25 feet from

the road centerline or designated sites in areas determined to have sensitive

soils. Designated sites in such locations would be inventoried, mapped and

signed. If monitoring results show effects that exceed limits of acceptable

change, motorized vehicles will not be allowed to pull off a designated route

25 feet either side of centerline.

SDNM B C D E SL-2.1.6: Surface-disturbing activities – including vehicle camping, parking

and recreation-facilities – would be prohibited on undisturbed desert pavement

or well developed cryptogamic crusts.

Administrative Actions

● Update existing soils database on public lands that were formerly part of the BGR.

● Implement watershed improvement projects to increase ground cover to reduce erosion,

sediment yield, and salinity contributions.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Soil Resources (SL) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 89

2.7.7. VEGETATION RESOURCES

Management of vegetation resources (VM) on public lands requires the management of a variety

of resources, including watersheds, vegetative communities, wildlife habitat, livestock forage,

priority plant species, and noxious weeds. The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1)

requires that land-use plans identify desired future conditions (DFCs) for vegetative resources,

provide provisions for wildlife habitats and livestock forage, identify areas of ecological

importance, and protect priority plant species and habitats. The list of priority plant species may

be found at the end of Appendix J, Wildlife & Plant Priority Species (p. 1235).

The basis for managing vegetative communities and invasive or noxious weeds on public lands

can be found in the following Federal and State laws, regulations, and policy guidance:

● The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976

● Arizona Native Plant Law of 1993

● Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (S&Gs)

(BLM 1997)

● Clean Water Act of 1977

● EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands

● EO 11988 Floodplain Management

● Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 4100

● The Sikes Act of 1974, as amended (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.)

● BLM Manual 6500 – Wildlife, Fish and Plant Resources

● BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species

● BLM MS 1740 Renewable Resource Improvements and Treatments

● BLM Manual 9011 Chemical Pest Control

● BLM Manual 4180- Rangeland Health Standards EO 13112 Invasive Species Control

● Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974

● Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. App. 1)

● Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

● Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in

Seventeen Western States Final EIS (September 2007)

2.7.7.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action)

The following decisions are extracted from the existing land use plans and amendments and

are listed in chronological order. Because none of these current land use plans encompass the

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources
90 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions are being carried forward as common to all

alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Continue to issue woodcutting permits for the Lower Gila Resource Area on a case-by-case

basis.

● Developed spring storage and adjacent riparian habitat will be fenced to exclude livestock.

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Maintain and improve habitat and viable wildlife populations. (VM-01)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment (1990):

● Give priority to protecting vegetation from disturbances during land-based activities. (VM-1)

● Prohibit woodcutting and wood collection for commercial or domestic use on Barry Goldwater

Range (BGR) lands. (VM-7; also included in Section 2.8.4, “Recreation Management

(RM)” (p. 158))

● No vegetation material is to be removed, with the exception of specific cases deemed

appropriate and properly permitted. (VM-8)

● Permit campfires on BGR lands using dead and down wood. Wood cannot be collected in

ACECs and other areas specifically closed to wood collection by this RMP amendment

or subsequent activity planning. (RR-17; also included in Section 2.8.4, “Recreation

Management (RM)” (p. 158))

Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western

States Final EIS (September 2007):

Implement an integrated vegetation-treatment program for BLM-administered public lands.

The VM management priorities are as follows:

● Priority 1 – Take actions to prevent or minimize the need for vegetation control when and

where feasible considering the management objectives for the site.

● Priority 2 – Use effective nonchemical methods of vegetation control when and where feasible.

● Priority 3 – Use herbicides after considering the effectiveness of all potential methods or in

combination with other methods of control.

● Follow the Herbicide Treatment Standard Operating Procedures from Appendix B of

Vegetation Treatments using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen Western States Final

EIS (Sept. 2007).

Arizona Land Health Standards (1997):

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 91

The Arizona Land Health Standards were derived from the Arizona Standards for Rangeland

Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997) (Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (p. 1253)). All BLM activities and management practices should allow for

achievement of the Arizona Land Health Standards (See Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27), ???).

These standards describe conditions needed for healthy sustainable public land and must be

maintained by all users of the public land. In accordance with BLM policy, activities on public

land must be evaluated against indicators developed for each standard.

SDNM Current Management Guidance (2002):

● Unauthorized removal of living or dead native plant material is prohibited by the SDNM

Proclamation. (Not numbered)

● native plants as the first priority for all restoration projects. Non-intrusive, non-native plants

may be used in limited, emergency situations where they may be necessary to protect the

resources or when taking no action will further degrade the resources. This use will be allowed

if it complies with the vegetation objectives and other management goals and objectives. In

these situations, short-lived species (i.e., nurse-crop species) will be preferentially used and

will be combined with native species to facilitate the establishment of native species. (Not

numbered)

2.7.7.2. Action Alternatives for Vegetation Resources (VM)

Within the Sonoran Desert National Monument, all of the vegetative communities are considered

Monument objects as defined in Presidential Proclamation 7397. (See Table 1.3, “Land Use

Planning Process” (p. 6). Plant communities are described in some form for Objects 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,

6, and 7 of the Presidential Proclamation.) Management and protection of vegetative resources

in the Monument would also be provided under guidance from other resource management

programs. The following vegetation communities and special status plants are specific biological

objects (vegetative) that were identified in the Proclamation:

● Saguaro cactus forests (within palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community)

● Woodlands (Sonoran mid-elevation desert scrub)

● Palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community

● Acuña pineapple cactus

● Creosote bush-bursage vegetation community

● Desert washes (xero-riparian)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Ensure that the natural diversity and abundance of native vegetation occurs as

expected for landform and ecological site, and within the SDNM ensure protection of the

vegetative objects of the Monument.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources
92 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Goal 2: Ensure that populations of endangered, threatened, and special status plants are stable

or increasing and that suitable habitat is available for future establishment and maintenance

of the populations.

● Goal 3: Ensure that noxious and undesirable plant species do not occur on the landscape or, if

they occur, they make up a sufficiently small percent of the vegetative community that they

do not affect ecological processes.

● Goal 4: Protect native plants from over-collecting and other uses.

● Goal 5: Ensure that native plants occur at a natural abundance and distribution.

● Goal 6: Ensure that the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt will be a productive and functioning

riparian system supporting healthy, diverse, and abundant populations of wildlife and riparian

dependent plant species with an emphasis on migratory game birds.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1 (Ecosystems): Ensure that the natural diversity and abundance of native vegetation occurs as expected for

landform and ecological site, and within the SDNM, ensure protection of the vegetative objects of the Monument.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Maintain or restore vegetative communities to achieve desired future conditions (DFCs) as

identified below:

DFCs common to all vegetative communities:

● Vegetative communities will provide appropriate cover levels to protect soils from wind and water erosion.

This will ensure properly functioning watersheds and ecological processes in order to sustain healthy biotic

populations and communities (biological objects within the SDNM Planning Area).

● Each vegetation community will be maintained within its natural range of variation in plant composition,

structure, and cover at the landscape level. Site potentials (soil, climate, topography) establish the natural

limits on what can be produced in terms of vegetation and related resource values like forage, wildlife habitat,

and watershed characteristics.

DFCs by specific vegetative community:

The DFCs described below are general descriptions of the expected plant community makeup. Site potentials (based

on ecological sites) and the development of specific desired plant community objectives for each vegetation type

should be determined through the use of the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) ecological site

descriptions, rangeland health reference sheets, or information collected from reference or comparison areas or a

combination of the above. The ecological sites that correspond to each vegetation community are identified in ???.

The vegetative communities listed below that occur within the SDNM are identified as biological objects of the

Monument. Within the SDNM specific desired plant community objectives and site potentials were developed for

each ecological site and corresponding vegetation type (biological object) through the land health evaluation

process. These site potentials were determined through the use of a combination of the information collected

from the BGR and Area A (comparison areas), the NRCS’s ecological site descriptions, and the rangeland health

reference sheets for the ecological sites. Achievement of these desired plant community objectives would ensure

that the biological objects of the Monument are being protected.

● Creosote Bush–Bursage: (597,700 acres LS; 179,600 acres SDNM) The potential of this community is a shrub

dominated site with desert scrub species, cacti and annual forbs and grasses.

● Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti: (312,000 acres LS; 303,300 acres SDNM) This vegetative community should consist

of more diverse vegetative composition and structure than that of the creosote bush- bursage community. It

includes vegetation varying from small shrubs to large trees (such as ironwood, palo verde, and mesquite)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 93

Goal 1 (Ecosystems): Ensure that the natural diversity and abundance of native vegetation occurs as expected for

landform and ecological site, and within the SDNM, ensure protection of the vegetative objects of the Monument.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

interspersed with a variety of cacti, such as mammalaria (Mammalaria spp.), prickly pear (Opuntia spp.), cholla

(Opuntia spp.), barrel cactus (Ferocactus wislizenii), hedgehog (Echinocereus spp.), and saguaro (Carnegiea

gigantea). Where potential exists, saguaro cactus forests would support appropriate densities of saguaro,

with all age classes represented to ensure recruitment.

● Riparian: (8,800 acres LS; 0 acres SDNM) Riparian habitats should contain a diversity of native riparian

obligate trees (such as cottonwood [Populus spp.] and willow [Salix spp.]) of various age and size classes and

herbaceous plants adapted to hydric soils to restore ecological conditions and function.

● Apacherian-Chihuahuan Upland Scrub: (3,400 acres LS; 400 acres SDNM) The potential for this community

is a shrubland dominated community consisting of large desert scrub/trees including mesquites, acacias or

junipers, and cacti. Perennial grass cover is typically low.

● Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub (Woodlands): (1,800 acres LS; 2,000 acres SDNM) This vegetative

community should consist of a diverse vegetative composition and structure, similar to that of the palo

verde-mixed cacti community, but with an increase of perennial grasses, forbs and large shrub species (jojoba,

crucifixion thorn, etc.) due to the increased precipitation.

● Mogollon Chaparral: (1,400 acres LS; 100 acres SDNM) This vegetative community should consist of woody

species such as shrub live oak, mountain mahogany, desert ceanothus, and cliffrose interspersed with an

understory of perennial grasses along with small shrub and forb species.

● Desert Grassland: (0 acres LS; 1,054 acres SDNM) Manage this plant community as a tobosa (Pleuraphis

mutica)-dominated grassland while limiting the encroachment of mesquites and other shrubs.

● Desert Washes (xeroriparian): (1,658 miles in the LS; 970 miles in the SDNM*) This community should have a

multi-layered vegetative structure, as provided by perennial vegetation.

● Diverse vegetative composition and structure would include such species as foothills palo verde (Cercidium

microphyllum), blue palo verde (Cercidium floridum), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), ironwood (Olneya

tesota), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), and catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii) of

various sizes and growth forms appropriate to the ecological site.

● Ensure sufficient bank and floodplain vegetation (including along braided channel floodplains) provides for

hydrologic function of the site.

* Based on USGS 1:100,000 scale topographic quadrangles

LS SDNM B C D E VM-1.1.1: Activities would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and impacts

minimized, mitigated, or avoided to achieve land-health standards and

vegetation community DFCs, and ensure protection of the vegetative objects

of the Monument.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-1.1.2: Vegetation treatments could be conducted in order to make progress

toward achieving land-health standards. Treatments would include, but would

not be limited to, thinning, burning, seeding, transplanting, watering, seasonal

closures, and seasonal use restrictions.

Goal 2 (Special Status Plants): Ensure that populations of Priority Plants are stable or increasing and that

suitable habitat is available for future establishment and maintenance of the populations.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Identify and protect occupied and potential habitats for maintenance, restoration, or reestablishment

of Acuña pineapple cactus and other endangered, threatened, or special status plants. Maintain the diversity and

properly functioning ecological processes of natural plant communities that support rare or special status plant

species.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources
94 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LS SDNM B C D E VM-2.1.1: Authorized surface-disturbing activities within occupied Acuña

cactus habitat areas would be avoided. Currently the only known areas of

location are within the Coffeepot-Batamote and the very southern portion of

the SDNM.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-2.1.2: Authorized surface-disturbing activities within habitat areas of any

Endangered, Threatened, or Special Status Plants would be avoided to ensure

stable populations.

Goal 3 (Noxious Weeds): Ensure that noxious and undesirable plant species do not occur on the landscape

or, if they occur, they make up a sufficiently small percent of the vegetative community that they do not affect

ecological processes.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions

Objective 3.1: Control invasive species using an integrated weed-management approach including mechanical,

chemical, biological control methods, and prescribed fire where appropriate.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-3.1.1: Proposed projects would use practices that avoid the introduction

and spread of invasive species.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-3.1.2: Priority would be assigned to the control of invasive species that

have a substantial and apparent impact on native plant communities and wildlife.

When infestations are identified, they would be evaluated for their potential

threat and scheduled for removal accordingly.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-3.1.3: Monitoring for invasive species would focus on likely vectors of

invasion such as linear features (roads, canals, railroads, utility corridors, etc.),

disturbed areas (construction or development areas), and areas where water is

available or may pond (water-control structures, etc.).

LS SDNM B C D E VM-3.1.4: Certified weed-free feed would be required for all equestrian and

stock animal uses authorized under special recreation permits. The general

public would be encouraged to provide weed-free feed for their equestrian and

stock animals.

Goal 4 (Collection and Allowable Uses): Protect native plants from over-collection and other uses.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 4.1: Manage desert native vegetation for non-commercial uses in accordance with the Arizona Native

Plant Law and BLM regulations.

LS B C D E VM-4.1.1: Collection of living or dead native plant material for commercial

uses would be prohibited.

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.2: Collection of reasonable amounts of renewable native plant

byproducts including flowers, leaves, fruit, seeds, nuts, cones, and berries, and

dead and downed native vegetation for non-commercial, personal use would be

allowed when conducted in accordance with the Arizona Native Plant Law.

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.3: Collection of living or dead native vegetation and byproducts that

are Federally listed as threatened and endangered species or highly safeguarded

native plants identified in the Arizona Native Plant Law would be prohibited.

LS B C D E VM-4.1.4: Collection of saguaro cacti skeletons for personal use or campfire

burning would be prohibited in the Planning Area.

LS D

VM-4.1.5: Collection of all firewood would be prohibited at developed

recreation sites. The collection of wood for on-site campfires is also addressed

in the recreation ???.

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.6: Woodcutting would not be allowed for commercial or personal use.

It may be authorized on a case-by-case basis as needed to meet management

objectives, such as hazardous fuels reduction or native plant propagation.

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.7: The collection of other dead, down, and detached wood for

personal campfire use while camping on public lands would be allowed unless

specifically prohibited above.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 95

Goal 4 (Collection and Allowable Uses): Protect native plants from over-collection and other uses.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.8: Removal of all other vegetation material not specifically provided for

would be prohibited without written authorization. Examples of authorizations

include vegetation removal for Native American traditional uses, scientific

research, educational uses, salvage, or meeting management objectives.

Authorizations must be in accordance with the Arizona Native Plant Law.

LS B C D E

VM-4.1.9: Removal of native vegetation for personal use or commercial

landscaping may be allowed during authorized salvage operations where

vegetation is destined to be destroyed, with written authorization from the BLM

and a permit from the Arizona Department of Agriculture in accordance with the

Arizona Native Plant Law. Priority would be given to utilizing salvage plants

for restoration activities on public lands.

Objective 4.2: Protect SDNM vegetation by managing collection and uses consistent with the Monument

proclamation.

SDNM B C D E VM-4.2.1: Collecting or removing living or dead native vegetation including

plant byproducts and woodcutting for commercial and personal uses would

be prohibited within the SDNM without written authorization. Examples of

authorizations include vegetation removal for Native American traditional

uses, scientific research, educational uses, salvage, or meeting management

objectives. Authorizations must be in accordance with the Arizona Native Plant

Law.

SDNM B C D E VM-4.2.2: The collection of dead, down, and detached wood for personal

campfire use while camping on public lands would be prohibited in the passage

and front country recreation settings. The collection of wood for campfires is

also addressed in the Section 2.8.4, “Recreation Management (RM)” (p. 158).

Goal 5 (Rehabilitation): Ensure that native plants occur at a natural abundance and distribution.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 5.1: Rehabilitate native plant communities after land disturbing activities where appropriate.

Rehabilitation will be designed to achieve vegetative conditions (cover, composition, etc.) necessary to stabilize

the site.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-5.1.1: Rehabilitation practices would be used to stabilize and rehabilitate

sites impacted from new surface disturbing activities. Long-term restoration

would occur through natural processes. In most cases, lands previously

disturbed by historical uses would be allowed to recover through natural

processes. Sites that may be appropriate for rehabilitation practices include:

Recently disturbed sites that may respond quickly to rehabilitation practices,

including damage caused by wildfire, immigrant traffic, or other illegal

activities;

● Severely damaged, rapidly deteriorating, or rapidly expanding sites

● Placing adjacent resources at risk;

● Prone to invasion by non-native species;

● Heavily disturbed, such as mining sites;

● Capable of improving habitat for T&E species;

● Management priorities that require accelerated restoration to meet selected

management objectives.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources
96 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LS SDNM B C D E VM-5.1.2: Native plants would be used as the first priority for all rehabilitation

projects. Non-intrusive, non-native plants may be used in limited urgent

situations where it may be necessary to protect the resources or when taking

no action would further degrade the resources. In these situations, short-lived

species (i.e. nurse crop species) would be preferentially used and would be

combined with native species to facilitate the establishment of native species.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-5.1.3: Rehabilitation and reclamation plans that describe the site restoration

goals, considering the starting condition of the site, and restoration methods

would be required for all surface disturbing activities commensurate with the

amount of surface disturbance.

LS SDNM B C D E VM-5.1.4: Preliminary success criteria for a site would be when soil conditions

are stabilized and approximately 50 percent or more of the desired vegetation

conditions are met based on reference sites or vegetation-community DFCs.

Vegetation would be considered established when it has survived (without

assistance, e.g., watering) for two consecutive years.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 97

2.7.8. VISUAL RESOURCES (VR)

Outstanding scenic landscapes administered by the BLM provide a place to escape and enjoy

the beauty of nature. They also are used for a multitude of other activities, including recreation,

mining, grazing, and road development. Many of these activities have the potential to disturb

the landscape and impact scenic values. Visual resource management (VRM) is a system for

minimizing the visual impacts of surface-disturbing activities and maintaining scenic values for

the future.

Federal laws requiring the protection of visual resources include the following stipulations:

● Public lands will be managed in a manner which protects the quality of the scenic (visual)

values of these lands (43 U.S.C. 1701, Section 102 (a) (8)).

● Esthetically pleasing surroundings would be assured for all Americans (43 U.S.C. 4321,

Section 101 (b)).

The BLM Visual Resource Program manages landscapes based on visual indicators defined in the

Visual Resource Inventory Handbook H-8410-1. The handbook is used for guidance in activities

related to management of visual resources.

According to the Visual Resource Inventory Handbook H-8410-1 the objectives of VRM

management classes as:

● Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This

class provides for natural ecological changes; however, 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.

● Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be

seen but should not attract attention from the casual observer.

● Class III: The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape.

The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities

may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer.

● Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the

characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view

and be the major focus of viewer attention.

The construction of campgrounds, energy and mineral development, vegetation treatments,

and rights of way all will be evaluated for design to ensure consistency with the VRM classes.

All permitted actions on public land are evaluated to minimize impacts on visual contrast with

the landscape, including impacts on the night sky. VRM classes acknowledge existing visual

contrasts, and more restrictive requirements would not be retroactively applied to existing projects.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Visual Resources (VR)
98 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.8.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Visual Resources

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

● Recognize areas proposed as Class II visual resource management areas as being an area

where a contrast may be seen but should not attract attention. Manage visual resources using

existing utility corridors (see the Lands and Realty for further detail on decisions regarding

existing utility corridors) (RR-01).

● Recognize areas proposed as Class III visual resource management areas as those in which

contrasts may be evident and begin to attract attention. Manage visual resources using

existing utility corridors (RR-02).

● Recognize areas proposed as Class IV visual resource management areas as those in which

a contrast may attract attention and be a dominant feature in the landscape. Manage visual

resources by using existing utility corridors (RR-03).

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment (1990):

(Applies to the three relinquished Sentinel Plain, Sand Tank Mountains, and Ajo Airport parcels)

● Protect mountain vistas from visual intrusion by developing, during site or project specific

activity planning, visual resource-management prescriptions needed to maintain appropriate

visual resource management objectives (not numbered).

● Protect the visual resource quality on lands adjacent to the highways (Interstate 8 and State

Route 85) by establishing portions of these roads as Scenic Byways in cooperation with

Arizona Department of Transportation, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Marine Corps;

and 2) using the visual resource-management process during activity planning to maintain

appropriate visual resource-management objectives established for these byways.

Lower Gila Resource Management Amendment (2005):

● Management of recreation opportunities and developments will be evaluated using two

inventory and management tools called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Visual

Resource Management (RR-1).

● Existing visual resource inventory classes of the RMP will be adopted as management

classes (RR-3).

● All MFP visual resource management classes will be brought forward (RR-4).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Visual Resources (VR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 99

● Visual resource-management classes will be reviewed and refined during future

interdisciplinary planning (RR-5).

● All unclassified lands of the MFP and RMP Planning Areas are established as Visual

Resource Management Class I and II areas, subject to review and refinement during future

interdisciplinary planning (RR-8).

2.7.8.2. Action Alternatives for Visual Resources (VR)

Goals and Objectives

● Goal 1: Manage public lands that would maintain scenic quality, maintain natural landscapes,

undisturbed views, and other high-quality visual resources;

● Goal 2: Maintain night sky condition;

● Goal 3: The natural splendor for which the SDNM was designated shall be maintained

Land Use Allocations Summary

The proposed VRM classes by alternative are presented in Table 2.6, “VRM Classes by

Alternative” (p. 99) below.

Table 2.6. VRM Classes by Alternative

Alternative (BLM Acres)

VRM Class

A (No Action) B C D E (Preferred)

The following VRM classes would be allocated for each alternative to support management objectives for the

various resources, such as designated wilderness, areas with wilderness characteristics, NHT segments, ACECs,

WHAs and back country recreation settings.

Lower Sonoran

Class I 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800

Class II 116,300 64,900 387,800 622,400 71,900

Class III 279,600 551,900 385,600 192,000 548,400

Class IV 442,500 221,600 65,000 24,000 218,100

SDNM

Class I 158,700 158,700 158,700 457,900 158,700

Class II 91,600 219,000 267,300 28,500 246,500

Class III 116,400 108,700 60,400 None 81,200

Class IV 119,700 0 0 0 0

2.7.8.3. Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Manage public lands that would maintain scenic quality, maintain natural landscapes, undisturbed

views, and other high-quality visual resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Visual resources would be managed according to the class objectives set in the Visual Resource

Inventory Handbook H-8410-1 and BLM Guidelines for a Quality Built Environment.

LS SDNM B C D E VR-1.1.1: Designated wilderness areas would be allocated as VRM class I.

LS B C D E VR-1.1.2: All other public lands within the Lower Sonoran would be allocated

to the VRM Classes as depicted by alternative in .

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Visual Resources (VR)
100 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Manage public lands that would maintain scenic quality, maintain natural landscapes, undisturbed

views, and other high-quality visual resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS SDNM B C D E VR-1.1.3: All surface disturbing projects or activities, regardless of size or

potential impact, would incorporate visual design considerations consistent

with the Visual Resource Contrast Rating Manual H-8431-1 to meet VRM

class objectives for the area. Even activities in VRM class IV will consider

designs that help reduce visual contrast between proposed e project and

landscape settings (color, texture, line and form).

Measures to mitigate potential visual impacts could include the use of natural

materials, screening, painting, project design, location sighting, or restoration.

LS SDNM B C D E VR-1.1.4: Restoration projects would ensure that visual impacts are

minimized in the short term (5 years) and that VRM objectives in the project

area are met in the long term (life of the project) when such projects are a)

considered essential for public safety, achieving DFCs, or reducing hazardous

fuels buildups and b) expected to be visually prominent.

LS SDNM B C D E VR-1.1.5: The viewshed of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, Painted Rock,

Agua Caliente and Ajo Scenic Loop roads, Highway 238 and Interstate 8 will

be managed in a manner that exceeds or maintains the VRM objectives. VRM

and scenic management prescriptions would be applied for their preservation

and enhancement. The viewshed Anza NHT will be managed to maintain

the historic landscape setting.

Goal 2: Maintain current night sky conditions.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Manage activities and projects on public lands that would contribute light or air pollution to maintain

or improve dark, clear skies for stargazing and nighttime military training.

LS SDNM B C D E VR-2.1.1: Permanent outdoor lighting would not be allowed in VRM Class

I areas.

LS SDNM B VR-2.1.2: The use of dark-sky-friendly technology would be emphasized

when placing facilities on public lands. Measures may include, but not be

limited to: directing all light downward, using shielded lights, using only the

minimum illumination necessary, using lamp types such as sodium lamps (less

prone to atmospheric scattering), using circuit timers, using motion sensors,

or using flight proximity detectors.

LS SDNM C D E VR-2.1.3: Development on public lands would be required to use

dark-sky-friendly technologies in VRM classes I through IV and in the Sentinel

Plain area to provide opportunities for stargazers and amateur astronomers and

to maintain conditions favorable to nighttime military operations.

Goal 3: The natural splendor for which the SDNM was designated shall be maintained.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Visual resources of the SDNM would be managed to preserve or to retain the existing character

of the landscape. The visual character of management activities will be managed according to the objectives

described above and in VRM Handbook H-8410-1.

SDNM B C D E VR-3.1.1: Public lands within the Monument would be allocated to the VRM

Classes as depicted by alternative in to ensure visual landscapes as described

in the Monument proclamation are protected.

Administrative Actions

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Visual Resources (VR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 101

● All surface-disturbing projects or activities, regardless of size or potential impact, will

incorporate visual design considerations consistent with the Visual Resource Contrast Rating

Manual H-8431-1 to meet VRM class objectives for the area.

● Participate in regional planning initiatives and comment on proposals for development on

adjacent non-Federal lands to encourage future development to be compatible with VRM

designations and protection of dark night skies on public lands.

● Develop user facilities (trailheads, non-motorized trails, campgrounds, roads, utilities,

interpretive areas, etc.) to take advantage of views of scenic and historic landscapes in such a

way that visual quality is protected.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Visual Resources (VR)
102 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.9. WATER RESOURCES (WR)

Surface-water resources in the Planning Area are limited to the perennial flow of the Gila River

and treated effluent discharges into the Gila basin. Surface flow often ends near Highway 85,

although flow may continue as far as Painted Rock Reservoir during periods of high precipitation.

This section of the river has impaired water quality. An Arizona Department of Water Quality

(AZDEQ) plan for improving water quality is scheduled to be completed in 2011. The BLM will

be the designated management agency carrying out this plan, and the agency will participate along

with other landowners and managers with land that drains into this segment of the Gila River.

Currently, the agency’s primary management actions on the river consist of fuels and habitat

management associated with tamarisk-dominated riparian areas.

Water use in the Planning Area must fulfill two primary responsibilities:

● Comply with laws and regulations that protect the nation’s and the State’s water resources, and

● Take all legal and resource-development steps necessary to provide a supply of water of

sufficient quality and quantity to meet BLM management needs.

Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water for every community in the Planning Area

outside metropolitan Phoenix. Arizona state law limits the use of groundwater within the Phoenix

Active Management Area (AMA), which includes the Lower Sonoran Decision Area north

of the Gila River and west of Apache Junction. According to the State’s 1980 Groundwater

Management Act, groundwater use by the BLM and other pumpers in the AMA must not

interfere with existing wells, and users must meet requirements for proving an assured supply.

Groundwater pumping outside of the AMA by the BLM or its permittees and lessees is limited to

“reasonable” amounts for a given use.

The water program administers public lands within a framework set by the following Federal

laws and regulations:

Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA): authorizes the BLM to inventory and monitor

the presence and condition of water resources on public land.

Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended: requires that all water sources meet quality standards

developed by the states with authority delegated by the EPA; charges the BLM (and other

land-management agencies) with developing and implementing best management practices for

the control of non-point source pollution; and requires a number of other actions in coordination

with other agencies, such as participating in permitting to protect wetlands, stream channels, etc.

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (1995): . These require the BLM to apply for water rights

in the name of the United States, where allowed by State law. These regulations, particularly

those associated with grazing, also require public lands to meet or make progress toward land

health standards, including meeting state water quality standards.

2.7.9.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Water

Resources (WR)

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Water Resources (WR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 103

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Maintain and enhance stream flows through activity plans in special management areas

(WS-01).

● Ensure that all waters on public land meet or exceed Federal and state water quality standards.

(WS-02)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment (1990):

[Applies to the three relinquished BGR parcels]

● Keep groundwater development and exploration to a minimum in Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACECs), other management areas, and other environmentally

sensitive areas. (WS-1).

● Limit, all field activities relating to groundwater exploration and development to designated

roadways and previously disturbed areas (WS-2).

2.7.9.2. Action Alternatives for Water Resources (WR):

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Assure physical and legal availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality to

meet the management needs of the Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument

Decision Areas.

● Goal 2: All surface water in the Planning Area will meet appropriate State water-quality

standards or will have State-approved plans for water-quality improvement.

Goal 1 (Water Availability): Assure physical and legal availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality to

meet the management needs of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: New water source developments will not adversely affect existing sources and uses. This will be

determined prior to any new development activity, including issuance of landowner’s permission to drill required by

the Arizona Department of Water Resources.

LS SDNM B C D E WR-1.1.1: All proposed new water uses and developments would be

assessed to determine whether they will adversely affect springs, streams,

tinajas, or seeps; decrease water availability at existing wells; or conflict with

other resource management goals.

LS SDNM B C D E WR-1.1.2: The only proposed water developments that would be approved

would be those with no adverse affects on or conflicts with other uses or

management objectives, and for which proponent has a demonstrated need.

LS SDNM B C E WR-1.1.3: Groundwater exploration and development would be restricted

and damage mitigated in areas with ecological or cultural resources that are

sensitive to disturbance.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Water Resources (WR)
104 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1 (Water Availability): Assure physical and legal availability of water in sufficient quantity and quality to

meet the management needs of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.2: The BLM will take necessary steps to acquire all water rights allowed by law to properly manage the

Lower Sonoran Planning Area, including the SDNM, and to protect the natural resources of Planning Area and

the objects of the SDNM. Inventory work and at least one-half of water-rights filings will be completed within 5

years of issuing this plan.

LS SDNM B C D E WR-1.2.1: Water would be inventoried and appropriate applications and

claims filed for State water rights for all water sources and beneficial uses on

public land in accordance with State law to ensure water availability to meet

management needs and protect ecological functions.

SDNM B C D E WR-1.2.2: Inventory all water sources, including groundwater sources,

within the three wilderness areas of the SDNM for quantification and assertion

of Federal reserved water rights, and provide notice of these rights to ADWR.

Goal 2 (Water Quality): All surface water in the Planning Area will meet State water-quality standards or will

have state-approved plans for water-quality improvement.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Impaired water quality in stretches of the Gila River that run through the Planning Area will be

improved or corrected within 5 years; the BLM will commit to the State schedule for water-quality improvement.

LS B C D E WR-2.1.1: The BLM would implement best management practices for

grazing, mining, energy development, and other activities that have been

specifically established to protect streams from non-point source pollution.

LS B C D E WR-2.1.2: The BLM would be an active participant as the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality begins work on the Total Maximum

Daily Load for the Gila River between the Salt River and Painted Rock

Reservoir.

SDNM B C D E WR-2.1.3: No new water development that would divert water out of SDNM

would be allowed.

Administrative Actions

● Identify, evaluate, and assign priorities for restoring disturbed areas considering the potential

for soil erosion and loss, damage to cultural or ecologically sensitive sites, and effects on

water quality and quantity.

● Evaluate proposals for groundwater withdrawals on BLM-administered lands within an Active

Management Area (AMA) in coordination with the Arizona Department of Water Resources

(ADWR) and incorporate any restrictions or guidelines for the AMA.

● Work with county, state, and Federal agencies to monitor surface and groundwater quantity

and quality on public lands. Correct problems as they are identified.

● Coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) to be sure all wells

within the BGR are registered with Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR).

Inventory all water sources on BGR and enter them into the BLM water data management

system. Coordinate water rights filings for water sources with the U.S. Air Force and AGFD.

Applicable to the three relinquished BGR parcels

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Water Resources (WR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 105

● Work with county, state, and federal agencies and other partners to evaluate the quantity of

groundwater available and predict the affect of future potential water withdrawals on the

ability to provide adequate water availability for natural resource and multiple use goals

within SDNM.

● Begin a dialogue with appropriate State of Arizona policy, legal, and water resources staff on

the development of a cooperative agreement on the protection of water resources on SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Water Resources (WR)
106 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.10. WILD HORSE & BURRO MANAGEMENT (HB)

In 1971, Congress passed The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA, or “The

Act,” Public Law 92-195). It states, “It is the policy of Congress that wild free-roaming horses

and burros shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish

this they are to be considered in the area where presently found, as an integral part of the natural

system of the public lands.”

After the passage of The Act, the BLM was required to survey public lands and delineate where

wild horses and burros found habitat and forage, and designate these areas as “Herd Areas”

(HAs). These Herd Areas established boundaries of where wild horses and burros were located

at the passage of The Act. Later, Herd Management Areas (HMAs) were established within

those Herd Areas to manage healthy, self-sustaining populations of wild horses and/or burros, in

accordance with BLM land use plans (i.e. RMPs) and other decisions. Only one Herd Area, the

Painted Rock Herd Area, is located in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. No other HAs and no

HMAs have been allocated within either Decision Area. The Herd Area is shown on Map 3-15.

The Painted Rock Herd Area has been administered as a herd area with a target population of

zero wild horses and burros. This decision has been based on conflicts in the area with private

landowners, agricultural interests, wildlife, such as bighorn sheep and other resources, and a lack

of year-round water available for the wild horses and burros within the Herd Area. It is not

possible to manage a healthy, self-sustaining horse or burro herd within the boundaries of a herd

area that does not currently have a natural year-round source of water. A zero population requires

removing all wild horses and burros from the herd area.

All previous planning documents, including the Lower Gila South RMP, referred only to wild

burros in the area. However, in 1999, it was determined that horses were also present in the area in

1971 and subject to the protection by The Act. Protests and litigation of an RMP Amendment in

the late 1990s resulted in a settlement agreement regarding the Painted Rock Herd Area. The BLM

was instructed to conduct an analysis of the manageability of the Painted Rock herds and make a

decision in the new RMP based on that analysis. The Painted Rock Herd Manageability Analysis

can be found in Appendix M, Painted Rock Burro Herd Manageability Analysis (p. 1257) of this

document, and the goals and objectives found below are based on that analysis.

In 1992, the BLM Lower Gila South Field Office determined through a review of the 1974 census

and personal interviews that burros on the Barry Goldwater Range (BGR) had not used that area

in 1971 at the passage of The Act, and therefore are not wild burros, but estrays or feral animals

from the Tohono O’odham Reservation. Thus, the burros located on the BGR are not protected

under the provisions of the WFRHBA. Likewise, none of the lands relinquished by the U.S. Air

Force can be designated as a Herd Area, as defined by “The Act.” Any burros (or other livestock)

found on the BGR are considered in trespass and subject to 43 CFR 4720.2. Coordination with the

Tohono O’odham Nation and other affected agencies, such as the State Land Department, Arizona

Game and Fish Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the U.S. Border Patrol, and the military,

will continue to stress proper management of these burros within the boundaries of the reservation.

2.7.10.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action)

The following decisions are extracted from the existing land use plans and amendments and

are listed in chronological order. Because none of these current land use plans encompass the

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wild Horse & Burro Management (HB) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 107

entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions are being carried forward as common to all

alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment)

(1990):

(Applies to the three relinquished BGR parcels.)

● Inventory the burro population to determine herd size and ownership. (HB-1)

● Prepare a burro capture-and-removal plan in coordination with the U.S. Air Force, Tohono

O’odham tribe and other affected parties. (HB-2)

● Adopt captured burros through the adoption program or impound and sell, whichever is

appropriate according to the determination of their ownership. (HB-3)

Approved Amendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan

and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan and Decision (2005):

● This amendment deferred to subsequent resource management planning all decisions relating

to the management of wild horses and burros that were proposed in the Final Amendment and

Environmental Assessment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan and the

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan.

● Prepare a burro capture plan in consultation with appropriate government agencies and interest

groups. All burros would be removed from the Painted Rock Reservoir area. Details for the

burro capture program would be outlined in a herd management plan (HMP). (HB-06).

2.7.10.2. Wild Horse & Burro (HB) Action Alternatives

Goal 1: Manage the Painted Rock Herd Area in accordance with The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act

and applicable BLM regulation, policies, and guidance.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage the Painted Rock Herd Area as a Herd Area with a target population of zero wild horses

and burros.

LS B C D E HB-1.1.1: In response to the manageability analysis (Appendix M, Painted Rock

Burro Herd Manageability Analysis (p. 1257)), the Painted Rock HA will not

be managed as a HMA. Neither reproducing nor non-reproducing herds of wild

horses or burros will be permissible. Wild horses and burros will be removed

from the HA as funding is available with the target of maintaining a population

of zero. Wild horses and burros straying off the HA onto private lands will be

treated as nuisance animals and removed, in accordance with 43 CFR 4720.2.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wild Horse & Burro Management (HB)
108 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.11. WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS (WC)

In order for an area to contain wilderness characteristics, it must exhibit sufficient size,

naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude and/or outstanding opportunities for

primitive and unconfined recreation. Managing the wilderness resource is part of the BLM’s

multiple use mission. Consistent with FLPMA and other applicable authorities, the BLM will

consider the wilderness characteristics of public lands when undertaking land use planning.

Considering wilderness characteristics in the land use planning process may result in different

outcomes across the Planning Area over the life of the plan, including:

● Emphasizing other multiple uses as a priority over protecting wilderness characteristics;

● Emphasizing other multiple uses while applying management restrictions, such as

conditions of use or mitigation measures, to reduce impacts to some or all of the wilderness

characteristics;

● Emphasizing the protection of some or all of the wilderness characteristics as a priority over

other land uses.

Guidance used to inventory wilderness characteristics and consider wilderness characteristics

in the Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP comes from BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

(H-1601-1):

Identify decisions to protect or preserve wilderness characteristics (naturalness,

outstanding opportunities for solitude, and outstanding opportunities for primitive

and unconfined recreation). Include goals and objectives to protect the resource

and management actions necessary to achieve these goals and objectives. For

authorized activities, include conditions of use that would avoid or minimize impacts

to wilderness characteristics.

Inventory is a process of gathering, identifying, and documenting information about the public

lands and is not a decision to be proposed in the RMP. The existing inventory for wilderness

characteristics is extensive, focused on wilderness characteristics, well documented, and includes

years of public participation. The wilderness characteristics inventory is addressed further in

Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251).

The inventory, public scoping, and agency participation, contributed to development of a

broad range of alternatives for lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The range

of alternatives extends from no areas allocated to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternatives A and B, to Alternative D that proposes to allocate 429,500 acres as lands managed

to protect wilderness characteristics. Alternative D includes an entire citizens' proposal. The

remaining two alternatives propose portions of the Planning Area to be managed to protect

wilderness characteristics: Alternative C (240,300 acres) and Alternative E (preferred alternative,

166,300 acres).

Alternative D is based on a citizen inventory. The citizen proposal presented in Alternative D

overlaps and includes areas inventoried by BLM for Alternative C (240,300 acres), but also

includes areas that have not yet received field inventory and a determination of the presence

or absence of wilderness characteristics by the BLM. The entire citizens’ proposal, including

additional acreage inventoried by BLM, is analyzed as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics under Alternative D (429,500 acres). Based on the BLM’s knowledge of the

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 109

Planning Area, it may not necessarily be the case that all of the citizens’ proposal in Alternative D

contains wilderness characteristics as those characteristics are defined.

The preferred alternative or a new alternative in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS may be a

combination of existing alternatives or an alternative within the spectrum of alternatives already

analyzed.

The land use plan identifies a variety of measures to protect wilderness characteristics that will

be carried forward as land use plan decisions for the life of the Resource Management Plan.

Examples include establishing visual resource management (VRM) class objectives to guide

analysis, placement or decisions (approval/disapproval) of features like roads, trails or facilities;

identifying conditions of use for permitted uses; or designating lands as open, closed or limited

to off highway vehicle (OHV) use.

Description of Alternatives

The LS-SDNM planning area has a total of approximately 42,640 acres that were within three

released WSAs. Proposals for lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics are presented

under Alternatives C, D and E that include lands within these former WSAs . These areas are

identified under each alternative and their acreage is provided. Specific public input on whether

these areas are appropriate to manage to protect wilderness characteristics is requested.

Alternative C contains lands with wilderness characteristics inventoried by the BLM with 240,300

acres to be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics include Batamote Mountains East/West, Black Mountain, Face Mountain, Palo

Verde Hills, Saddle Mountain, Sand Tank Mountains East/West, Sauceda Mountains, South

Maricopa Mountains Addition, White Hills, and Yellow Medicine Butte.

Alternative D contains lands with wilderness characteristics inventoried by the BLM and lands

proposed by citizens as having wilderness characteristics. All 429,500 acres of these lands

would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative D. Lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics include Batamote Mountains East/West, Black Mountain,

Butterfield Stage Memorial, Cortez Peak, Cuerda de Lena, Face Mountain, Gila Bend Mountains,

Margie’s Peak, Oatman Mountain, Palo Verde Hills, Pozo Redondo, Saddle Mountain, Sand Tank

Mountains East/West, Sauceda Mountains, Sentinel Plain, South Maricopa Mountains Addition,

White Hills, Why, and Yellow Medicine Butte.

Alternative E contains lands with wilderness characteristics inventoried by the BLM with 166,300

acres to be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics include Batamote Mountains East/West, Saddle Mountain, Sand Tank Mountains

East/West, Sauceda Mountains, and White Hills.

The Butterfield Stage Memorial, Face Mountain, and Saddle Mountain areas were in WSAs

released by Congress in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 from the requirement of

FLPMA section 603(c) that WSAs be managed in a manner that does not impair their suitability

for preservation as wilderness.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC)
110 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.11.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A – No Action for

Wilderness Characteristics

There are no existing management decisions for wilderness characteristics

2.7.11.2. Action Alternatives for Wilderness Characteristics (WC)

Land Use Allocations Summary

Table 2.7. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative

Alternative (BLM Acres Rounded to Nearest Hundred)

Decision Area

A B C D E

Lower Sonoran 0 0 128,100 276,500 55,400

SDNM 0 0 112,200 153,000 110,900

Total 0 0 240,300 429,500 166,400

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics should retain a high degree of naturalness

where the imprint of humans on lands and resources is substantially unnoticeable. Furthermore, outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined types of recreation should be maintained or enhanced.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics will have a high degree of naturalness

and offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation by reducing impacts to

these values while considering manageability and competing resource demands.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.1: Public lands would be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics as shown in Table 2.7, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110). (See Maps 2-4c, 2–4d

and 2–4e).

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.2: Private or state in-holdings, including subsurface, would be

acquired when available from willing owners.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.3: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

managed as exclusion areas for placement of new utility scale renewable

energy developments

LS SDNM C E WC-1.1.4: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be managed as avoidance areas for minor and nonlinear LUAs with the

exception for law enforcement, public-safety or administrative purposes as

approved by the authorized officer.

LS SDNM D WC-1.1.5: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be managed as exclusion areas for minor and nonlinear LUAs with the

exception for law enforcement, public-safety or administrative purposes as

approved by the authorized officer.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 111

Goal 1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics should retain a high degree of naturalness

where the imprint of humans on lands and resources is substantially unnoticeable. Furthermore, outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined types of recreation should be maintained or enhanced.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics will have a high degree of naturalness

and offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation by reducing impacts to

these values while considering manageability and competing resource demands.

LS SDNM C E WC-1.1.6: Any potential new minor and nonlinear LUAs, and maintenance

of existing facilities, would be evaluated and allowed under the following

circumstances:

● When compatible with maintaining or enhancing wilderness

characteristics or when needed to protect, manage, or improve natural or

heritage resource conditions;

● When meeting law enforcement, agency, or public safety needs;

● When reconstruction, replacement, or major maintenance of existing

facilities, or development of new projects, is consistent with this plan's

objectives, VRM classes, and desired recreation, social, and managerial

settings;

● When the project site can be restored to its previous condition after the

project is completed.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.7: Existing facilities and projects no longer active would be

removed if practicable.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.8: Sites and locales with human-caused disturbances would be

rehabilitated if such actions protect or enhance wilderness characteristics and

natural/heritage resources, are practicable, meet management prescriptions

and SOPs, and are addressed in a restoration plan.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.9: Measurement standards would be developed and adopted for:

● Trail conditions,

● Facility conditions,

● Visitor-to-visitor encounters,

● Vegetation changes,

● Vegetation and wildlife DRCs,

● Other approved activities

LS C D E WC-1.1.10: Mineral materials sales and free-use authorizations would be

prohibited. A mining plan of operation and reclamation plan with appropriate

stipulations would be required for all surface-disturbing exploration

and development activities conducted under locatable mining laws and

regulations.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC)
112 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics should retain a high degree of naturalness

where the imprint of humans on lands and resources is substantially unnoticeable. Furthermore, outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined types of recreation should be maintained or enhanced.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics will have a high degree of naturalness

and offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation by reducing impacts to

these values while considering manageability and competing resource demands.

LS C E WC-1.1.11: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

designated and managed as limited OHV use areas. Motorized vehicle use on

roads, primitive roads, and motorized trails would be limited to designated

roads and routes established through subsequent travel management plans

and subject to the four prescriptions below. When this planning is completed,

motorized travel and non-motorized vehicles (e.g., bicycles, hang gliders,

other devices for conveyance and stock drawn carts/wagons) would be

restricted to designated roads, primitive roads and trails.

● Major arterial vehicle travel routes through wilderness character

allocation areas would remain open for motorized travel.

● Vehicle routes to range and wildlife developments would remain open to

public use under most circumstances.

● Vehicle spur roads and vehicle routes in washes would be closed to

motorized travel and vehicle use.

● Vehicle routes within wilderness character allocations would be

designated open, closed, or limited to motorized-vehicle use on a

case-by-case prescribed by subsequent travel management plans.

● Until travel management plans are completed, motorized vehicle travel

would be restricted to existing routes acknowledged by the BLM’s

current OHV route inventory.

LS D WC-1.1.12: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

designated closed OHV areas. Motorized, non-motorized and mechanized

vehicles (with the exception of game carriers) would be prohibited. Until

travel management plans are completed, vehicle travel would be restricted to

existing routes acknowledged by the BLM’s current OHV route inventory.

SDNM C E WC-1.1.13: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

designated limited OHV use areas. Motorized vehicles would be restricted

to designated and primitive roads. Use by non-motorized and mechanical

conveyances (with the exception of game carriers) would be restricted to

designated trails.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.14: Lands assessed for wilderness characteristics, but not allocated

for protection of these characteristics, would be available to contain

designated roads, primitive roads and trail assets. These assets would be

identified and managed in travel management plans as completed.

SDNM D WC-1.1.15: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

designated closed OHV areas. Motorized, non-motorized and mechanized

vehicles (with the exception of game carriers) would be prohibited.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.16: Public or commercial collection of plant and mineral materials

would be prohibited.

LS SDNM C D E WC-1.1.17: Wheeled game carriers would be allowed.

LS SDNM C E WC-1.1.18: Closed vehicle routes could be converted, where appropriate,

for use as bicycle, equestrian, and/or hiking trails.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 113

Goal 1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics should retain a high degree of naturalness

where the imprint of humans on lands and resources is substantially unnoticeable. Furthermore, outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive or unconfined types of recreation should be maintained or enhanced.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics will have a high degree of naturalness

and offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive, unconfined recreation by reducing impacts to

these values while considering manageability and competing resource demands.

LS SDNM C E WC-1.1.19: New bicycle, equestrian, and/or hiking trails would be

established when consistent with this plan's objectives; desired recreation,

social, and managerial settings; and VRM classes.

LS SDNM C E WC-1.1.20: Special recreation permits, commercial recreation and vending

operations, guided hunts, and concession leases would be allowed when

they are landscape- and wilderness-character resource-dependent activities

consistent with this plan's objectives; desired recreation, social, and

managerial settings, and VRM classes.

LS SDNM D WC-1.1.21: Closed vehicle routes would not be converted for use as bicycle,

equestrian, and/or hiking trails.

LS SDNM D WC-1.1.22: Development of new bicycle, equestrian, and/or hiking trails

would be prohibited.

LS SDNM D WC-1.1.23: Special recreation permits, including commercial, organized

group and competitive activities, vending operations and concession leases,

would be prohibited.

Administrative Actions

Projects will employ the least impacting methods for development that can be reasonably applied:

● Use design methods that cause the facility to blend into the landscape, including consideration

of site selection and use of a low profile;

● Design facilities that will require minimal maintenance;

● Use best management practices to minimize surface and vegetation disturbance during

construction;

● Decrease the visual effect of existing facilities during reconstruction, replacement, or major

maintenance;

● Establish baseline standards to protect proper levels of recreational and landscape disturbance

to protect wilderness characteristics.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wilderness Characteristics (WC)
114 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.7.12. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT (WF)

Staff at the BLM’s Lower Sonoran Field Office coordinates with other agencies to manage fire

in accordance with the nationwide BLM fire policy and the National Fire Plan. This integrates

fire and fuels management with other land and resource management activities to benefit natural

resources and implement multiple-use on BLM-administered lands within Arizona that fall

within the Planning Area. The Lower Colorado River subdivision of the Sonoran Desert is the

predominant vegetation community within the Planning Area.

This vegetation community is neither fire-adapted nor fire-dependent. Historically, fire has

never played a large role, in the development and maintenance of the ecosystem throughout the

Planning Area. However, the invasion of non-native species has created areas that are now prone

to high intensity fires with high rates of spread.

The Planning Area also contains wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas. These are places where

manmade structures and infrastructure are intermingled with wildlands. Unplanned ignitions in

WUIs could have adverse effects to the ecosystem and society unless some form of mitigation

takes place. Wildfire management includes areas where mitigation and suppression are required

to prevent direct threats to life or property. Mitigation may include mechanical, biological,

chemical, or prescribed fire to maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels, reduce the hazardous

effects of unplanned wildland fires, and to meet resource objectives.

When applying fuels treatment methods, BLM policies, procedures, and plans are to be followed

in all cases. The manual, chemical, biological, and fire-treatment methods that may be used are

described in ???. There are several treatment methods and standard operating procedures that

would be used in a vegetation treatment program. BLM policies and guidance for public land

treatments would be followed in implementing all treatment methods.

2.7.12.1. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A - No Action)

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality

Management (2003):

Manage fire and fuels according to the current policies and requirements and to meet desired

future conditions for other resource values.

Fire Management Plan, Phoenix District (2010 in press):

Assigns public lands in two Fire Management Zone categories (1 or 2) based on ecological

conditions and ecological risk, and determined by contrasting current with historical conditions

and ecological risks associated with those changes. Category 1 lands are ecologically adapted

to fire and Category 2 lands are not ecologically adapted to fire. Almost all of the lands located

within the Lower Sonoran Field Office Planning Area fall into the Category 2 classification.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wildland Fire Management (WF) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 115

2.7.12.2. Action Alternatives for Wildland Fire Management (WF))

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Ensure firefighter and public safety is the highest priority in every fire or fuels

management activity.

● Goal 2: Wildland Fuels are managed to protect WUI areas and meet resource management

objectives.

● Goal 3: Limit the extent of wildfires and the impact of fire suppression efforts on wildlife,

plant communities, as well as natural and cultural features.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Ensure firefighter and public safety is the highest priority in every fire or fuels management activity.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Set priorities among protecting residences, community infrastructure, and other manmade property

and improvements.

LS SDNM B C D E

WF-1.1.1: Management Response (MR) for unplanned ignitions will be full

suppression or modified suppression for all lands within the LFSO Planning

Area.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-1.1.2: Implement a hazardous fuels reduction program that creates

conditions conducive for safe and effective firefighting.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-1.1.3: With community partners implement the Pinal and Pima County

Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP).

LS SDNM B C D E WF-1.1.4: With community partners provide input into the development of

the Pima and Gila County CWPPs.

Goal 2: Wildland fuels are managed to protect WUI areas and to meet resource management goals.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Fuels within WUI areas are proactively managed to improve the protection of life and property.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-2.1.1: Hazardous fuels around communities at risk and utility infrastructure

(e.g. roads, power lines, and communication sites) within the WUI are reduced

using mechanical, chemical, biological, and prescribed fire treatments, where

applicable.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-2.1.2: Identify, prioritize, and implement WUI fuels treatments in the

Planning Area. Fuel treatments to reduce wildland fire risk will focus on the

WUI areas identified in the Planning Area CWPPs and those that are developed

collaboratively with Planning Area partners.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-2.1.3: In consultation with cultural resource specialists develop fuels

treatments to protect cultural resources that are susceptible to damage from

wildfire.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-2.1.4: Analyze and implement where needed, hazardous fuels reduction in

and around recreation sites to improve public and firefighter safety.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wildland Fire Management (WF)
116 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 3: Limit the extent of wildfires and the impact of fire suppression efforts on wildlife, plant communities

as well as natural and cultural features.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Reduce the frequency of human caused wildland fires and minimize the total number of acres

burned within the Planning Area.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.1.1: Management Response (MR) for unplanned ignitions will be full

suppression or modified suppression for all lands within the Planning Area.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.1.2: Identify, prioritize, and implement non-WUI fuels treatments within

the Planning Area. Prioritization will be given to fuels treatments that maintain

areas in Fire Regime Condition Class 1 or have the ability to improve areas

characterized as Fire Regime Condition Class II and III.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.1.3: Implement fuels treatments, suppression activities and prevention

activities that target reducing the size and number of human caused wildland

fires.

Objective 3.2: Fire all fire management activities (wildfire suppression, prescribed fire, and mechanical, chemical,

and biological vegetation treatments), a focus will be to maintain or improve habitat for Federally threatened,

endangered, proposed, and candidate (“Federally protected”) species.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.2.1: Identify and implement post-fire stabilization and rehabilitation

actions in burned areas to restore a functional landscape to meet the resource

management objectives.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.2.2: For fire suppression activities, a protocol for consultation has been

developed as described in Appendix K, Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions (p. 1239). This programmatic consultation

contains conservation measures and prescriptions for use during fire suppression

activities. Emergency consultation should only be needed in the futures, if

suppression actions fall outside of these prescriptions/measures.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.2.3: Use prescribed fire, chemical, mechanical, and biological treatments

in areas of the Planning Area that fall in Fire Regimes 2 and 4 to reduce shrub

and tree components.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.2.4: Hazardous fuel reduction projects will be integrated with riparian

restoration projects to reduce the frequency and the extent of fires along the Gila

River as well as improve the quality and quantity of native riparian vegetation

communities.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.2.5: Utilize fuels management treatments including prescribed fire to

manage decadent marsh vegetation improve habitat for Yuma Clapper Rail

and other species that depend upon cattail and bulrush marsh for foraging and

nesting habitat.

Objective 3.3: For all fire management activities efforts will be made to reduce the impacts on natural and

cultural resources.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.3.1: Conduct all fire management activities within the SDNM, ACECs

and along the Anza Trail in a manner that will avoid or minimize degradation

of these areas and values that have been identified in the respective legislative

designations for these areas.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.3.3: As part of an integrated vegetation resources management strategy,

install fuel breaks and complete hazardous fuels reduction activities within the

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt to protect and restore mesquite bosques and native

riparian woodlands.

LS SDNM B C D E WF-3.3.5: Ensure fire management activities in wilderness areas are compatible

with the applicable wilderness plan.

2.7.12.3. Administrative Actions

● Coordinate invasive-species management, monitoring, control, and education efforts with

the appropriate Federal, state, county, municipal, and tribal agencies and other partners.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wildland Fire Management (WF) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 117

Efforts will be coordinated through the Borderlands Cooperative Weed Management Area

and other similar groups.

● Conduct floristic surveys and monitoring for populations of sensitive, candidate threatened,

endangered, rare, or unique species. Applicable to the three relinquished BGR parcels.

● Update the existing botanical resources database and vegetation map. Applicable to the

three relinquished BGR parcels.

● Adhere to the intent of the Arizona Native Plant Law, Endangered Species Act (ESA), and all

other applicable laws and regulations to protect vegetative resources.

● Focus invasive species monitoring efforts on likely vectors of invasion, such as linear features

(roads, canals, railroads, utility corridors, etc.), disturbed areas (construction or development

areas), and areas where water is available or may pond (water control structures, etc.).

● Control of noxious weeds required by law will not be subject to a benefit-cost analysis;

however, the most economical and efficient method will be analyzed along with the safety

of the proposed kind of treatment.

● Rehabilitation procedures will follow the Phoenix District Reclamation Plan.

● (Environmental Assessments) Conduct an environmental analysis at the time of the

pretreatment survey. An interdisciplinary team will review any analysis needed on individual

projects or group of projects.

● (Cost-Benefit Analysis) Subject land treatments proposed for livestock forage improvement

to a cost-benefit analysis to ensure total benefits gained will equal or exceed the cost of the

treatments.

● Develop effective interagency and community interactions and cooperation to meet

wildland-fire and fuel-management strategies and landscape-scale resource condition

objectives across administrative boundaries.

● Include wildfire hazard mitigation strategies in the Fire Management Plan for the Planning

Area by identifying appropriate areas for prescribed fire use and mechanical, biological,

or chemical treatments to reduce hazardous fuels to minimize the adverse effects of

uncharacteristic wildland fires and meet resource objectives. The plan will also identify

areas for exclusion from fire (through fire suppression), chemical, mechanical, and biological

treatments.

● Protect human life (both firefighters’ and the public) and communities, property, and the

natural resources on which they depend are. Firefighter and public safety are the highest

priority in all fire management activities.

● Improved public awareness of the role of fire in ecosystem restoration, wildfire risk and

mitigation strategies, and wildfire safe community, preparedness, and response planning.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Wildland Fire Management (WF)
118 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.8. RESOURCE USES

2.8.1. LANDS & REALTY (LR)

The lands and realty program for the Planning Area consists of three distinct parts: (1) land use

authorizations (LUAs), which includes ROWs for utility-scale renewable energy development

proposals;, (2) land tenure (disposal and acquisition of lands); and (3) withdrawals, classifications,

and segregations. The lands and realty program processes applications related to solar, wind, and

biomass energy; while geothermal proposals are managed by the minerals program and are

discussed in Section 2.8.3, “Minerals Management (MM)” (p. 151).

The lands and realty program administers uses on public lands within a framework of numerous

laws and mandates, which are discussed below:

● The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as amended enables the

BLM to accomplish a variety of lands actions, including but not limited to sales, withdrawals,

acquisitions, exchanges, leases, permits, easements, and ROWs.

● Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act (FLEFA) (102 Stat. 1087) established uniform rules

for the resolution of appraisal disputes in the exchange process.

● Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA) (30 U.S.C. 185), as amended authorizes the BLM to

process ROWs for pipelines for the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or

gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced.

● Recreation and Public Purposes Act of June 14, 1926 (R & PP) (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), as

amended authorizes the sale and/or lease of public lands for recreational and public service

needs for parks and other related community buildings.

● Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (49 U.S.C. 2215) provides for the conveyance of public

lands to public agencies for use as airports and airways.

● Various Federal Highway Acts codified in 23 U.S.C., Sections 17 and 317 established to build,

improve, and maintain the Federal interstate highway system.

● Federal Land Transaction and Facilitation Act (FLTFA) (114 Stat. 613; 43 U.S.C. 2301 et

seq.) of July 25, 2000 allows retention by the BLM of receipts received from the sale of or

interests in land if a LUP was completed prior to July 25, 2000.

● Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801) encourages energy efficiency and conservation,

promotes alternative and renewable energy sources, and encourages the expansion of nuclear

energy.

2.8.1.1. Land Use Authorizations (LUAs)

This segment of the lands and realty program focuses on requests for rights-of-way (ROWs),

permits, leases, and easements, which are all referred to as “land use authorizations (LUAs)”

throughout this document. As a general rule, proponents need an LUA (grant, permit, or lease)

whenever a surface disturbing activity takes place on public land. Some examples of land uses

which require a LUA grant include: electric transmission lines, communication sites, roads,

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Resource Uses August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 119

highways, trails, telephone/fiber optic lines, canals, flumes, pipelines, reservoirs, and utility-scale

renewable energy developments. Proponents do not need a LUA for so-called “casual uses.”

Examples of casual uses include driving vehicles over existing roads, sampling, surveying, or

collecting data to prepare an application for a ROW, and performing certain activities that do not

cause any appreciable disturbance or damage to the public land, resources, or improvements.

The objective of the LSFO is to meet the public land use demands on public lands, while also

minimizing unnecessary impacts to resources. The LSFO will meet this objective by organizing

the LUA types the Planning Area is accustomed to processing (or anticipates to receive in the

next twenty years) into defined LUA category types (which are dictated by the size and intensity

of the surface disturbance of the proposed LUA). Management allocations from other resource

specific program areas (such as priority wildlife, special designations, and cultural resources) set

restrictions on certain LUA types or state whether or not they are avoided or excluded. These

allocations have been consolidated and renamed by the Lands and Realty program, so that the

public, future utility proponents, and current LUA holders can easily comprehend what LUA type

is allowed or prohibited within a certain location of the Planning Area.

These LUA types and the Lands and Realty designation in which the LUA type is managed

(allowed or excluded in a certain area), have been defined in Table 2.8, “Description of LUA

Types ” (p. 119).

Table 2.8. Description of LUA Types

LUA Type Description of LUA Type

Lands and Realty Designations

managing the LUA type

Utility-scale

Renewable Energy

Development

LUAs

Utility-scale renewable energy development ROWs

where the proponent has signed a purchase power

agreement with a utility company to sell power. These

facilities typically produce more than 100MW of power

and may include linear utility features such as access

roads, transmission lines, and/or pipelines.

Utility-scale Renewable Energy

Development Exclusion Areas (this

type of LUA would be excluded

in prohibited areas under all action

alternatives) (refer to Map 2–7b,

2–7c, 2–7d, and 2–7e)

Utility-scale Renewable Energy

Development Avoidance Areas (this

type of LUA would be avoided in high

and moderate sensitivity conflicts

areas under all action alternatives)

(refer to Map 2–7b, 2–7c, 2–7d and

2–7e)

Major Linear LUAs

Linear LUAs that require a ROW width of more than 20

feet. These types of utilities include, but are not limited

to:

● Transmission lines that are greater than 115 kV,

● Pipelines (water or gas) greater than 10 inches in

diameter, and

● Primary paved roads (as defined by the Planning and

Conducting Route Inventories Technical Reference

Guide 9113-1 [2006]).

Utility Corridors (this type of LUA

(excluding roads) would be routed

through these corridors under the no

action alternative) (refer to Map 2–5a)

Multiuse Utility Corridors (this type

of LUA would only be authorized

within these corridors under all action

alternatives) (refer to Map 2–5b,

2–5c, 2–5d and 2–5e)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
120 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LUA Type Description of LUA Type

Lands and Realty Designations

managing the LUA type

Minor Linear LUAs

Linear LUA lines that require a ROW width of no more

than 20 feet. These types of utilities include:

● Transmission lines that are 115kV or smaller,

● Pipelines (water or gas) smaller than 10 inches in

diameter,

● Roads other than primary paved roads as defined

by the Planning and Conducting Route Inventories

Technical Reference Guide 9113-1 [2006]), and

● Fiber optic or telephone lines

LUA Exclusion Areas (this type

of authorization would be excluded

in these areas under all action

alternatives) (refer to Map 2–5b,

2–5c, 2–5d, and 2–5e)

LUA Avoidance Areas (this type

of authorization would be excluded

in these areas under all action

alternatives) (refer to Map 2–5b,

2–5c, 2–5d and 2–5e)

Nonlinear LUAs

LUAs that are not linear in fashion and typically do not

exceed five acres of surface disturbance. These LUAs

do not produce or store more than 100MW of power.

These types of LUAs include:

● Oil, natural gas, or water wells,

● Cathodic protection utilities,

● Communication facilities,

● Meteorological devices (such as rain gauges),

● Apiaries,

● Wildlife waters,

● Geophysical exploration facilities, and

● Storage facilities.

LUA Exclusion Areas (this type

of authorization would be excluded

in these areas under all action

alternatives) (refer to Map 2–5b,

2–5c, 2–5d and 2–5e)

LUA Avoidance Areas (this type

of authorization would be excluded

in these areas under all action

alternatives).

Communication Sites (proposed

communication facilities would be

encouraged to be authorized in this

site under all action alternatives)

(refer to Map 2–5b, 2–5c, 2–5d and

2–5e)

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development

Proposals for the development of utility-scale renewable energy facilities on BLM administered

public lands fall under the authority of FLPMA as a land use authorization for a ROW, which

are subject to environmental analysis under NEPA. The high demand for utility-scale renewable

energy development (primarily solar development in the Western U.S.) has led to three parallel

processes within the agency to respond to this rapid demand: an agency wide programmatic

process, an Arizona BLM process, and the process being analyzed in detail for this planning effort

at the field office level. Regardless of when each of these processes become final decisions, this

resource management plan will be amended to meet the decisions set forth by both the agency

wide and state level decisions. However, the preferred alternative within this planning effort

would more than likely not conflict with the agency wide or state wide efforts.

The management actions set forth in this Plan were crafted from methods which were adopted

from the Western Governors’ Association and local utility companies’ planning efforts through

the Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ) initiative. For the Plan, 2010 BLM GIS data

was used to categorize public lands into four sensitivity categories (prohibited, high sensitivity,

moderate sensitivity, and low known sensitivity areas). These four categories indicate the level of

conflict that utility-scale renewable energy development proposals would encounter on public

lands, in regards to existing resources and management goals and objectives.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 121

This conflict analysis categorization method (which is described in detail in Appendix N, Analysis

for Renewable Energy Sensitivity (p. 1263)) was used to identify locations within the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area where utility-scale renewable energy development would encounter some

level of conflict, based on known resources and the allocations set forth in this plan. Management

actions were then guided by this analysis to decipher which areas of the Planning area would be

excluded or avoided to utility-scale renewable energy development. Map 2-7a, 2–7b, 2–7c,

2–7d and 2-7e displays the lands that fall under each of these sensitivity categories. Under all

of the action alternatives, public lands that fall under the “prohibited” category would be areas

where utility-scale renewable energy development proposals would be excluded and proposals

that fall under the “high and moderate sensitivity” categories would be areas where these types

of developments would be avoided. Applications within the Decision Area would still need

site-specific environmental analysis no matter where they are proposed in the Decision Area. The

polygons depicted on Maps 2-7a through 2-7e do not imply a preauthorization for utility-scale

renewable energy development, but are simply an RMP level depiction of where conflicts exists.

Other conflicts may be revealed as site-specific analysis are conducted.

According to Appendix B of the Wind Energy Development Final Programmatic EIS (June 2005),

there is little known potential for wind energy development on public lands in the Planning Area;

therefore, no management actions were developed to manage such developments. Proposals for

wind energy development would be entertained in low sensitivity areas of Planning Area and must

comply with the best management practices that are identified in the Programmatic EIS Record of

Decision (ROD) for Wind Energy Development.

Utility Corridors and Multiuse Utility Corridors

In order to minimize adverse environmental impacts and the proliferation of individual and

isolated LUAs, utility corridors and multiuse utility corridors would be designated. Major linear

LUA holders reserve to the BLM the right to grant additional major linear LUAs from other

holders for compatible uses adjacent and at times within existing LUAs and designated utility

corridors. Under existing management, there are ten designated utility corridors (now referred

to as multiuse utility corridors in all four of the action alternatives, in an effort to stress that

utilities, including transportation networks, are permitted in these corridors). Under current

management, major linear transportation facilities are not required to be placed within the

existing utility corridors. Multiuse utility corridor designations vary by each action alternative

and are displayed on Map 2-5b, 2–5c, 2–5d and 2-5e, while the ten existing utility corridors

are displayed on Map 2-5a.

Portions of the San Diego Gas and Electric, El Paso Natural Gas, and Tucson Electric Power

multiuse utility corridors (which exist throughout all alternatives and can be identified on Maps

2-5a through 2-5e) will comply with the adopted interagency operating procedures (IOPs)

and standards for Section 368 energy corridors, set by the Approved Resource Management

Plan/Record of Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy Corridors on BLM Administered

Lands in 11 Western States. Sections 368 (of the Energy Policy Act of 2005) corridors are

allocated for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution

facilities (energy corridors).

Land Use Authorization (LUA) Avoidance and Exclusion Areas

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
122 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LUA Avoidance Areas are areas with sensitive resource values where minor linear LUAs and

nonlinear LUAs (such as ROWs, permits, leases, and easements) would be strongly discouraged

and therefore “avoided”. Authorizations to be considered within avoidance areas must be

compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated and not be otherwise feasible on

lands outside the avoidance area. Authorizations approved within these areas would be required

to meet additional mitigation measures set forth by individual program areas that manage the

“avoided” designated allocation. For example, wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) call for the

avoidance of LUAs. If LUAs are authorized within the WHA (or LUA Avoidance Area), the

LUA would be required to meet the mitigation measures (or management actions) prescribed

for that WHA in this Plan.

LUA Exclusion Areas are areas with sensitive resource values where minor linear LUAs and

nonlinear LUAs (such as ROWs, permits, leases, and easements) would not be authorized.

These areas have been determined to be unsuitable for a LUA because of (1) unique, highly

valued, complex, or legally protected resources; (2) potentially significant environmental

impacts resulting from conflicts with current land uses; or (3) areas posing substantial hazard

to construction and/or operation of a linear facility (e.g., electric transmission line, pipeline,

telephone line, fiber optic line). In these areas, LUAs would be granted only in cases where there

is a legal requirement to provide such access or an immediate public safety concern.

LUA Avoidance and Exclusion Areas vary by alternative depending on the allocations established

by other resources and program areas , BLM policy, or congressional/secretarial/presidential

orders. These areas can be found on Maps 2-5a, 2–5b, 2–5c, 2–5d and 2-5e.

Communication Sites

Communications sites are generally limited to designated areas with existing facilities on

mountain peaks. Communications sites (a nonlinear LUA type) on public lands accommodate

the wireless systems referred to in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as well as many other

uses, including, but not limited to, AM/FM broadcast facilities, commercial mobile radios, private

mobile radios, and microwaves on designated communications sites. There is currently one

designated communication site in the Planning Area at Oatman Mountain (refer to Map 2-5a),

in which all proposed communication facilities would be encouraged to be placed. Throughout

all of the alternatives, communication facilities would be placed outside of LUA Exclusion

Areas on a case-by-case basis.

2.8.1.2. Land Tenure

Land tenure focuses on disposing and acquiring lands or interests in lands. The land tenure

segment of the lands and realty program specifies that BLM will (1) retain all public lands or

interests in land that enhance multiple-use management, (2) acquire lands or interests in land that

complement important resource values and further management objectives, and (3) dispose of

lands or interests in lands that are difficult or uneconomical to manage or are no longer needed

for Federal purposes.

Land Acquisition

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 123

The Secretary of the Interior is delegated with the authority from FLPMA to acquire non-Federal

lands or interests in lands. Lands acquired by the LSFO must accomplish at least one of the

following:

● Facilitate access to public lands and resources,

● Maintain or enhance public uses and values,

● Facilitate implementation of this RMP/EIS,

● Provide for a more manageable land ownership pattern,

● Include significant natural or cultural resource values,

● Eliminate split-estate by acquiring either the surface or subsurface rights, if acquisition of

rights would be in the public interest,

● Assist in the consolidation of large tracks of BLM administered lands, and/or

● Facilitate proper management within congressionally designated NLCS management units.

Lands Suitable for Disposal

Disposal actions usually take place in response to a request from the public, or from an application

that could result in a title transfer wherein the lands leave the public domain. Federal lands can be

disposed of through sale, exchange, or Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R & P P) patent. Sales

and exchanges are used for disposal in order to assure an optimum final land ownership pattern

and provide better overall land management. The types of sales include direct, competitive, and

modified-competitive. Lands identified as being suitable for disposal are displayed on Maps 2-6a,

2–6b, 2–6c, 2–6d and 2-6e in green. Lands that are shaded in blue on Maps 2-6b through 2-6e are

currently leased under the R & PP Act and could potentially be patented to these lease holders.

Public lands selected for disposal typically are those lands that meet the following criteria:

● Isolated and fragmented from larger tracks of BLM managed lands,

● Adjacent to urbanizing private and state lands, which could be subject to future development,

● Currently leased under the R&PP Act and are eligible to be patented, and/or

● Present an economic and management challenge to retain under public ownership,

The BLM would not transfer from Federal ownership the following:

● Designated or proposed critical habitat for a listed or proposed threatened, endangered or

special status species; and/or

● Lands supporting listed or proposed threatened, endangered, or candidate species if such

transfer would be inconsistent with recovery needs, objectives, and conservation measures or

would likely affect the recovery of the species.

Exceptions to the above could occur if the recipient of the lands agrees to protect the species or

critical habitat 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.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
124 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Disposal of lands would be made on a case-by-case basis and would be accomplished by the

most appropriate disposal authority and after proper NEPA analysis. Should the authorizing

official wish to dispose of lands not designated for disposal in this RMP, an RMP amendment

would have to be made and the lands would need to meet the disposal criteria of the applicable

laws and regulations.

No management actions related to land withdrawals, classifications are presented in this plan;

therefore, each proposal would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

2.8.1.3. Withdrawals, Classifications & Segregations

Withdrawn lands where another public agency manages the surface estate are displayed on Maps

2-5a, 2–5b, 2–5c, 2–5d and 2-5e. Withdrawn lands from congressional designations (such as

wilderness areas) and proposed withdrawn lands from program area allocations (such as ACECs

and public use and conservation for future use sites) where the BLM still manages the surface

are also displayed on these maps.

The BLM is delegated the authority to process withdrawal actions for the BLM and other Federal

agencies. Most of the existing plans for the subject Planning Area do not specifically address

withdrawals, however, the following items are generally considered consistent:

● Review existing withdrawals on a case-by-case basis. Determine whether the use is consistent

with the intent of the withdrawal and whether the withdrawal should be continued, modified,

revoked or terminated.

● If it is determined by a withdrawal review that a withdrawal should be revoked or terminated

or a withdrawal expires, the land does not automatically open to operation of the laws(s) to

which the land was closed. An opening order will be published to notify the public when and

to what extent the land will be opened. An opening order may be incorporated in a public land

order or termination order that revokes or terminates a withdrawal or may be published in

the Federal Register as a separate document.

● Land on which a withdrawal has expired or has been revoked or terminated will be managed

in a consistent manner with adjacent or comparable public lands within the Planning Area.

● New withdrawals may be completed when existing laws or regulations cannot adequately

protect or preserve the integrity of resources of rarity, significance, fragility, or irreplaceability,

or when valuable capital improvements are involved. They must be shown to be at risk by

current land management practices. New withdrawals may also be completed when land is

needed by another Federal agency. Proposed withdrawals will be the minimum acreage

consistent with the demonstrated need.

Classification of lands is the process of determining whether the lands are more valuable or

suitable for transfer or use under Federal ownership for management purposes. The classification

process is currently used for potential disposals under the Recreation & Public Purposes Act

(R&PP). The segregation of lands is an action such as a withdrawal or allowed application

(R&PP) that suspends the operation to entry under all or portions of the public land laws,

including the mining and mineral leasing laws. Similar to withdrawals, classifications and

segregations are not specifically addressed in all the applicable current land use plans, but are

generally considered consistent with the following actions:

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 125

● Review existing and subsequent segregations on a case-by-case basis to determine whether

the segregation is appropriate and should be continued, modified or terminated. A notice of

termination and opening order will be published to notify the public when and to what extent

the land will be opened. Land on which a classification or segregation has been terminated

will be managed in a manner consistent with adjacent or comparable public land within

the Planning Area.

No management actions related to land withdrawals, classifications are presented in this Plan;

therefore, each proposal would be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

2.8.1.4. Existing Management Decisions (Alternative A — No Action) Lands

& Realty

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

● Establish the following seven *multiple-use utility corridors along existing rights-of-way in

Lower Gila North. In these corridors, all utility uses (including transportation, pipelines, and

electrical transmission lines) will be allowed when the uses are compatible. (LR-07)

● Palo Verde-Devers*: 2 miles (restricted between Burnt Mountain and Big Horn Mountains)

● El Paso Natural Gas Company*: 2 miles (1 mile at Bill Williams River crossing) [*Only the

two corridors located within the Lower Sonoran Planning Area and are listed above.]

● Continue to allow small-utility distribution systems to be developed on an “as needed” basis

throughout the Lower Gila North Planning Area. These small distribution systems will include

all uses such as electrical lines, gas and water pipelines, and roads. These distribution systems

will be authorized when consistent with environmental and land use considerations. (LR-08)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Designate 10 corridors within the Lower Gila South Planning Area (each one-mile-wide).

(LR-13)

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

● All major utilities in the Phoenix RMP Planning Area would be routed through designated

corridors. (LR-02)

● All the corridors in the Phoenix RMP Planning Area [except for the Black Canyon corridor]

would be 1 mile in width. (LR-03)

● Retain 6,880 acres in the San Tan Mountains, outside the Resource Conservation Areas

(RCAs), as a Cooperative Recreation Management Area with state or local agencies. (LR-20)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
126 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Acquire 480 acres of state land in the San Tan Mountains Cooperative Recreation Management

Area. (LR-21)

● Designate 391,803 (remainder thereof) acres of Federal surface outside the seven RCAs as

suitable for disposal through state indemnity selection, R & P P patent, or state or private

exchange. (LR-29) This now refers to two RCAs (which are now within the Bradshaw

Harquahala RMP Area) based on the redesignation of BLM Field Office management

boundaries. Therefore, all public lands from the Phoenix RMP Planning Area that are now

within the Lower Sonoran Planning Area have been identified as suitable for disposal.

● Designate 45,000 (remainder thereof) acres of Federal surface outside the seven RCAs as

suitable for disposal through state indemnity selection, state or private exchange or sale.

(LR-30) This now refers to two RCAs (which are within the Bradshaw Harquahala RMP

Area) based on redesignation of BLM Field Office management boundaries. Therefore, all

public lands from the Phoenix RMP Planning Area that are now within the Lower Sonoran

Planning Area have been identified as suitable for disposal.

● Identify for disposal all subsurface mineral estate underlying Federal surface designated for

disposal outside the seven RCAs, Cooperative Recreation Management Areas and R & P P

lands. (LR-31) This now refers to two RCAs (which are within the Bradshaw Harquahala

RMP Area) based on the redesignation of BLM Field Office management boundaries.

Therefore, all public lands from the Phoenix RMP Planning Area that are now within the

Lower Sonoran Planning Area have been identified as suitable for disposal.

● Transfer 1,140 acres in the Goldfield Area to the City of Apache Junction for park

development under R & P P leases. (LR-32)

● On land retained or acquired, communication facility development would be limited to

designated sites. (LR-52)

● Land identified for disposal would generally be left open for communication site development

on a case-by-case basis. (LR-53)

● Communication site applications will continue to be considered on land identified for disposal

until such time as disposal takes place. (LR-54)

● Land use authorizations (right-of-way, leases, permits, easements) will continue to be issued

on a case-by-case basis. (LR-55)

● Rights-of-way will be issued to promote the maximum utilization of existing right-of-way

routes, including joint use whenever possible. (LR-56)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment)

(1990):

● Restrict construction of overhead transmission lines to paralleling the existing Gila Bend to

Ajo 69kV transmission line. Underground facilities must be constructed on the west side of

the Tucson Cornelia and Gila Bend railroad. All rights-of-way are subject to U.S. Air Force

concurrence. (LR-3) Applies only to the relinquished Ajo Airport parcel.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 127

● Communicate promptly to the public and other agencies, as necessary, new designations for

land use, resource protection, safety and security. (LR-6) Applicable to the three relinquished

BGR parcels.

● Prohibit new ROWs and other land use authorizations except those installed in the established

Interstate 8 utility corridors; encourage the installation of below ground utility services within

the corridor south of Interstate 8 unless overhead facilities are required due to technical and/or

operational circumstances (Not Numbered).

Lower Gila Resource Management Plan Amendment (2005):

● Approximately 33,459 acres of public lands within the Planning Area are identified for

disposal (LR-1; identified on Map 2-6a).

● Public lands in the Gila Bend Management Area adjacent to the White Tanks County Regional

Park, described as T.2 N., R. 3 W., sections 4,5,8,9,14,15,17 through 22, 26 through 29, and

33 through 35; T. 2 N., R. 4 W., section 1; and T. 3 N., R. 4 W., sections 1, 11 through 14, 24,

25, and 36 will be retained in Federal ownership and will only be available for disposal to

local or state governmental entities for recreation/park purposes. (LR-2)

● The BLM will continue to dispose of Federal subsurface estate under non-Federal surface

estate on a case-by-case basis. (LR-3)

● Exchanges to re-position lands within all the management areas may occur if it has been

determined that it would be in the public interest. (LR-4)

● Lands identified for disposal may be retained if significant resource values are found during

evaluation. The policy is not to dispose of lands occupied by proposed or listed threatened or

endangered species. If other public uses outweigh the value of a parcel as Federally owned

threatened or endangered species habitat, disposal could be considered on a case-by-case

basis. If a listed or proposed threatened or endangered species would be affected by a land

disposal action, consultation or conferencing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be

required. Exchange for other parcels of habitat will be encouraged. Compensation for loss

of habitat value would be required where such a policy exists. Other mitigation may also

be required. These determinations would be made during preparation of the site-specific

environmental assessments required for every disposal action. Environmental documentation

must be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act prior to the approval of

any lands action. (LR-5)

● Approximately 3,043,900 acres not listed in Appendix 3 or identified for specific purposes in

this amendment will be retained in public ownership unless needed for recreation or public

purposes. Such disposal proposals on lands not identified for disposal will be considered

on a case-by-case basis. (LR-6)

● All non-Federal lands with high resource values within the boundaries of the management

areas may be considered for acquisition. Acquisitions will occur primarily through the

land exchange process in accordance with 43 CFR 2200 and the Federal Land Exchange

Facilitation Act. Acquisition by donation and purchase using Land and Water Conservation

Funds will also be considered when willing parties or available funds exist. All acquisitions

will be negotiated with willing landowners only and must be in the public interest. There are

approximately 288,800 acres of non-Federal land within the four management areas. (LR-7)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
128 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● The BLM will continue to acquire non-Federal subsurface estate under Federal surface estate

on a case-by-case basis. (LR-8)

Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision

(ROD) for Designation of Energy Corridors on BLM Administered Lands

in 11 Western States (2009):

● Section 368 directs the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to designate energy transport

corridors under existing authorities, such as those provided by Section 503 of the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1763) (FLPMA). By signing this

ROD, the ASLM amends the affected BLM land use plans under the authority of FLPMA

and in accordance with BLM planning regulations (43 CFR Part 1600). The approved plan

amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act

of 2005. The decision also adopts IOPs to meet the Section 368 requirement to improve the

ROW application process and to meet NEPA requirements to provide practicable means to

avoid or minimize environmental harm which may result from future ROW grants within the

designated 3 corridors. The approved BLM plan amendments are presented in Appendix A of

this ROD and the IOPs are presented in Appendix B of this ROD. This decision reallocates

the El Paso Natural Gas, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Tucson Electric Powers Utility

Corridors (identified on Maps 2-5a, 2–5b, 2–5c, 2–5d and 2-5e in this Plan) as a Section 368

energy transport corridor.

2.8.1.5. Action Alternatives for Lands & Realty (LR)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and resource

management objectives.

● Goal 2: Manage land tenure to meet natural resource management objectives, community

needs, and to promote agency efficiency.

Land Use Allocations Summary

Table 2.9. Lands and Realty Allocations For the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

Utility-scale Renewable Energy Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Acres)

Acres avoided

(moderate and

high sensitivity

conflict areas)

- 744,600 639,900 413,700 511,100

Acres excluded

(prohibited areas)

105,000 145,000 271,900 511,500 380,800

Utility Corridors (Miles)

Width/

Length Width/ Length Width/ Length Width Length Width

El Paso Natural Gas 1.0/49.2 1.0/49.2* 1.0/34.8 1.0 34.8 1.0

Palo Verde to Devers 1.0/8.8 1.0/8.8 1.0/8.8 — — 1.0

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 129

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

San Diego Gas

and Electric

1.0/22.3 1.0/22.3 1.0/21.5 1.0 21.5 1.0

Palo Verde-Kyrene 1.0/8.1 1.0/8.1 1.0/7.6 1.0 7.6 1.0

Liberty-Gila Bend 1.0/9.2 1.0/9.2 1.0/9.2 1.0 9.2 1.0

Gila Bend-Ajo 1.0/0.5 1.0/0.5 — — — —

Santa Rosa-Gila

Bend

10.0/0.1 1.0/0.1 1.0/0.1 — — —

Interstate 8 1.0/22.9 1.0/22.9 1.0/24.4 1.0 20.5 1.0

Tucson Electric

Power

1.0/34.4 1.0/34.4 1.0/15.6 1.0 15.6 1.0

Interstate 10 1.0/1.0 1.0/1.0 1.0/1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Total Corridor Acres 134,328 acres 134,328 acres 95,203 acres 72,153 acres

82,301

acres

Multiuse utility corridor widths and lengths are measured as they cross BLM administered lands only. Multiuse

utility corridors are simply referred to as utility corridors within Alternative A and would not include transportation

facilities.

*Indicates that the multiuse utility corridor will only permit underground facilities in a certain portion of the corridor.

LUA Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Acres)

LUA Avoidance

Area Acres

- 520,900 604,300 328,600 310,200

LUA Exclusion

Area Acres

105,100 126,500 126,500 510,700 380,100

Communication Sites

The Oatman Mountain Communication Site is allocated in all alternatives.

LAND TENURE

Disposal Acres 27,400 38,200 36,200 19,400 30,500

R & PP Leased

Acres

3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400

Acquisition Acres Lands would be acquired from willing sellers on a case-by-case basis.

Retention Acres 899,400 888,600 890,600 907,400 896,300

Table 2.10. Lands and Realty Allocations For the SDNM Decision Area

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS

Utility-scale Renewable Energy Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Acres)

The SDNM is excluded from any potential utility-scale renewable energy development within all alternatives.

Utility Corridors (Miles)

Width Length Width Length Width Length Width Length Width Length

Santa Rosa-Gila

Bend

1 18.1 1.0 18.1 0.5* 17.9*

- - - -

Interstate 8 1 21.1 1** 21.1 0.5* 21.1* - - - -

Tucson Electric

Power

1 7.4 1.0 7.4

- - - - - -

Total Corridor

Acres

32,990 32,990 14,990 - -

Multiuse utility corridor widths and lengths are measured as they cross BLM administered lands only. Multiuse

utility corridors are simply referred to as utility corridors within Alternative A and would not include transportation

facilities.

*Indicates that the multiuse utility corridor will only permit underground facilities.

**Indicates that a portion of the multiuse utility corridor narrows to a 1⁄2 mile wide (south of the Interstate 8 highway

centerline) as it passes along the length of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness (refer to Map 2-5b)

LUA Avoidance and Exclusion Areas (Acres)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
130 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Avoidance Area

Acres

- 321,500 321,500 - -

Exclusion Area

Acres

164,900 164,900 164,900 486,400 486,400

Communication Sites

No communication sites are designated in the SDNM.

LAND TENURE

Disposal Acres

No lands are designated as being suitable for disposal within the Monument. Exchanges for

lands within the Monument for other private lands within the Monument’s boundaries would be

permitted if they further improve the management of Monument objects and present no net loss to

existing objects that will be impacted by the exchange.

R&PP Leases

Acres

No lands are presently leased under the R&PP Act within the SDNM, therefore no acres were

identified.

Acquisition

Acres

Lands would be acquired from willing sellers on a case-by-case basis.

Retention Acres All 486,400 acres of public land would be retained.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1 (Utility-scale Renewable Energy Development LUAs): Authorize utility-scale renewable energy

development LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by

Alternative” (p. 110)) in locations that are found to be suitable due to limited conflicts with other management

objectives.

LS SDNM B C D E LR-1.1.1: Utility-scale renewable energy development LUAs would be

excluded on lands that fall under the “prohibited” area (refer to Map

2–7b, 2–7c, 2–7d, 2–7e and Appendix N, Analysis for Renewable Energy

Sensitivity (p. 1263)).

LS B C D E LR-1.1.2: Utility-scale renewable energy development LUAs would be avoided

on lands that fall under the “high and moderate sensitivity” conflict areas (refer

to Map 2–7b to Map 2–7e and Appendix N, Analysis for Renewable Energy

Sensitivity (p. 1263)).

Objective 1.2 (Major Linear LUAs): Authorize major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of Lands

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110)) in locations that utilize designated multiuse

utility corridors effectively.

LS B LR-1.2.1: Ten 1 mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated,

in which all compatible major linear utility LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7,

“Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by

Alternative” (p. 110)) would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the

authorizing official. The corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5b and

Table 3.15, “Utility Corridors within the Lower Sonoran” (p. 308) for location

descriptions:

A. El Paso Natural Gas (section from Ajo, AZ to the Tohono O’odham Nation

would allow only underground facilities).

B. Palo Verde-Devers

C. San Diego Gas and Electric

D. Palo Verde-Kyrene

E. Liberty-Gila Bend

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 131

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

F. Gila Bend-Ajo

G. Gila Bend-Santa Rosa

H. Interstate 8

I. Tucson Electric Power

J. Interstate 10

LS C LR-1.2.2: Nine 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated in

which all compatible major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of

Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110))

would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the authorizing official. The

corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5c:

A. El Paso Natural Gas (section from Ajo to the Tohono O’odham Nation would

be removed).

B. Palo Verde Devers

C. San Diego Gas and Electric

D. Palo Verde-Kyrene

E. Liberty-Gila Bend

F. Gila Bend-Ajo would be removed.

G. Gila Bend-Santa Rosa (underground facilities only)

H. I-8

I. Tucson Electric Power (section from Ajo, AZ to Tohono O’odham Nation

would be removed)

J. I-10

LS D LR-1.2.3: Seven 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated

in which all compatible major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of

Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110))

would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the authorizing official. The

corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5d:

A. El Paso Natural Gas (section from Ajo to the Tohono O’odham Nation would

be removed).

B. Palo Verde-Devers would be removed.

C. San Diego Gas and Electric

D. Palo Verde-Kyrene

E. Liberty-Gila Bend

F. Gila Bend-Ajo would be removed.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
132 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

G. Gila Bend-Santa Rosa would be removed.

H. I-8

I. Tucson Electric Power (section from Ajo, AZ to Tohono O’odham Indian

Reservation would be removed)

J. I-10

LS E LR-1.2.4: Eight 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated in

which all compatible major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of

Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110))

would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the authorizing official. The

corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5e:

A. El Paso Natural Gas (section from Ajo to the Tohono O’odham Nation would

be removed).

B. Palo Verde Devers

C. San Diego Gas and Electric

D. Palo Verde-Kyrene

E. Liberty-Gila Bend

F. Gila Bend-Ajo would be removed.

G. Gila Bend-Santa Rosa would be removed.

H. I-8

I. Tucson Electric Power (section from Ajo, AZ to Tohono O’odham Nation

would be removed)

J. I-10

LS B C E LR-1.2.5: Major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of Lands

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110)) may be

authorized on case-by-case basis outside designated multiuse utility corridors

if they are due and necessary in connecting a generating facility to the closest

designated multiuse utility corridor.

LS B C D E LR-1.2.6: Portions of the El Paso Natural Gas, San Diego Gas and Electric,

and Tucson Electric Powers Multiuse Utility Corridors (as shown in Maps 2-5a

to 2-5e) would adhere to the decisions and IOPs set forth in the Approved

Resource Management Plan Amendments / Record of Decision (ROD) for

Designation of Energy Corridors on BLM Administered Lands in 11 Western

States (2009).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 133

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

SDNM B LR-1.2.7: Three 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated

in which all compatible major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of

Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110))

would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the authorizing official. The

corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5b and Table 3.16, “Existing Utility

Corridors within the SDNM” (p. 314) for location descriptions:

G. Gila Bend-Santa Rosa

H. I-8

I. Tucson Electric Power

SDNM C LR-1.2.8: Two 1⁄2-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated in

which all compatible major linear LUAs (as defined in Table 2.7, “Acres of

Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110))

would be allowed unless otherwise specified by the authorizing official. The

corridors are listed below; also see Map 2-5c:

G. Gila Bend to Santa Rosa (underground facilities only)

H. I-8

I. Tucson Electric Power would be removed.

SDNM D E LR-1.2.9: No existing or future multiuse utility corridors would be designated

within the Monument (see Map2-5d and 2-5e).

Objective 1.3 (Minor Linear and Nonlinear LUAs):Authorize minor linear and nonlinear LUAs (as defined in

Table 2.7, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics by Alternative” (p. 110)) in locations

that minimize resource impacts, are compatible with multiple use objectives, and do not compromise the existing

rights of current holders.

LS SDNM B C D E LR-1.3.1: Proposed minor linear and nonlinear LUAs would be prohibited in

areas designated as LUA Exclusion Areas, unless they allow for:

● Access to private property in holdings when there is no other reasonable

access alternative across non-Federal land,

● Authorized emergency, public safety and administrative uses, and

● Authorized emergency, public safety and administrative uses, and

● Uses that would further enhance the goals and objectives of the allocation,

as permitted by the authorizing official.

Exclusion areas for minor linear and nonlinear LUAs include:

● The SDNM (Alternatives D and E only),

● Designated wilderness areas (all alternatives),

● The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (all alternatives),

● The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt (PLO 1015 lands) (all alternatives),

● Sentinel Plain (military land relinquished to the BLM with restrictions

related to public safety)(all action alternatives),

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
134 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

● Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics (in Alternative D only)

● ACECs (Alternative D and E only),

● VRM Class I lands (all action alternatives) and

● High-potential segments of the Butterfield Overland Stage Route

(Alternative D only).

LS SDNM B C D E LR-1.3.2: Proposed minor linear and nonlinear LUAs would be strongly

discouraged in areas designated as LUA Avoidance Areas, unless they allow

for / or are:

● Authorized emergency, public safety, and administrative uses.

● Uses that are compatible with the purpose for which the allocation was

designated by meeting the restrictions set forth by the underlining program

area allocation, an

● Are not feasible on lands outside the avoidance area.

LUA Avoidance Areas for minor and nonlinear LUAs include:

● SDNM (Alternatives B and C only),

● ACECs (Alternatives B and C only),

● BLM threatened and endangered species habitats, including Sonoran desert

tortoise habitats (all action alternatives),

● Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics (in Alternatives C

and E only),

● VRM Class II lands (all action alternatives),

● SCRMAs (Alternative D only),

● Fred J. Weiler Green Belt (non-PLO 1015 lands) (all action alternatives),

● Cultural sites allocated to a use category (such as public and conservation

use sites)(all action alternatives),

● High-potential segments of the Butterfield Overland Stage Route

(Alternatives B, C, and E only), and

● Back country recreation settings (Alternative D only).

LS B C D E LR-1.3.3: Proposed minor linear and nonlinear LUAs would continue to be

authorized on an “as needed” case-by-case basis in areas outside of LUA

Avoidance and Exclusion areas.

LS B C D E LR-1.3.4: Oatman Mountain would be designated as a communication site

(see Map 2-5a through 2-5e).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 135

Goal 1 (Land Use Authorizations): Manage lands and realty actions to effectively support public needs and

resource management objectives.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C D E LR-1.3.5: Communication facilities would be encouraged to be authorized

within the designated Oatman Mountain Communication Site.

LS B C D E LR-1.3.6:Apiary special-use permits (a nonlinear LUA) would not be

authorized within 1⁄4 mile of a developed recreation facility or water sources

such as livestock waters and springs.

Goal 2 (Land Tenure): Manage land tenure to meet natural resource management objectives, community

needs, and to promote agency efficiency.

Decision Area Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E Management Actions

Objective 2.1: Determine interests in lands for consolidation, retention, disposal, and acquisition. Evaluate

land tenure actions in accordance with the criteria established in the Arizona Land Tenure Adjustment Strategy

(Appendix O, Arizona Land Tenure Strategy (p. 1267)).

LS B LR-2.1.1: Approximately 41,600 acres would be suitable for disposal via any

disposal method, including patent through the R&PP Act on a case-by-case

basis (as shown on Map 2–6b).

LS C LR-2.1.2: Approximately 39,600 acres (including San Tan Mountain Regional

Park) would be suitable for disposal via any disposal method, including patent

through the R&PP Act on a case-by-case basis (as shown on Map 2-6c).

LS D LR-2.1.3: Approximately 22,800 acres (including San Tan Regional Park)

would be suitable for disposal via any disposal method, including patent through

the R&PP Act on a case-by-case basis (as shown on Map 2-6d).

LS E LS-2.1.4: Approximately 33,900 acres (including San Tan Regional Park)

would be suitable for disposal via any disposal method, including patent through

the R&PP Act on a case-by-case basis (as shown on Map 2-6e).

LS B C D E LR-2.1.5: Land interests disposed of through the R&PP Act would be evaluated

on a case-by-case basis. (Current R&PP leased lands are identified on Map

2-6b through 2-6e).

LS B C D E LR-2.1.6: Disposal of 1,140 acres of R&PP leased lands near the City of

Apache Junction to the City of Apache Junction would continue via any disposal

method on a case-by-case basis.

LS B C D E LR-2.1.7: Non-Federal interests for acquisition would be targeted on a

case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on acquiring lands that adjoin or are

near existing public lands that would increase the continuity of public lands,

facilitate proper management, or protect an existing use.

LS B C D E LR-2.1.8: Acquisition by donation and purchase would be considered when

willing parties or available funds exist.

LS B C D E LR-2.1.9: All acquisitions would be negotiated with willing landowners only

and would have to be in the public interest.

LS B C D E LR-2.1.10: Public lands bordering the Gila River Indian Reservation, which

are identified as being suitable for disposal (as shown on Maps 2-6b, 2–6c,

2–6d and 2-6e), would only be available for disposal to local, state, federal, or

tribal governmental entities.

LS SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.11: The BLM will continue to eliminate split estate situations by

acquiring non-Federal subsurface estates that lies beneath Federal lands when

there is a willing seller.

LS SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.12: The BLM will continue to eliminate split estate situations by

disposing of Federal subsurface estates when there are no known mineral values.

LS SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.13: The BLM will not dispose of any subsurface mineral estates that lie

under BLM managed surface estate.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR)
136 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 2 (Land Tenure): Manage land tenure to meet natural resource management objectives, community

needs, and to promote agency efficiency.

Decision Area Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E Management Actions

SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.14: The BLM would seek land owners who are willing to sell private

land interests within the Monument and proceed with acquiring these inholdings

(surface and subsurface) as funding opportunities arise.

SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.15: The BLM would seek landowners who are willing to sell partial

private land interests (i.e., “easements”) within the Monument in cases where

the BLM cannot acquire fee-simple ownership in land interests, and proceed

with securing the easements as funding opportunities arise.

SDNM B C D E LR-2.1.16: No lands are designated as being suitable for disposal within the

Monument. Exchanges for lands within the Monument for other private lands

within the Monument’s boundaries would be permitted if they further improve

the management of Monument objects and present no net loss to existing objects

that will be impacted by the exchange.

Administrative Actions

● Continue to coordinate with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT),

the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Pinal County, Pima County, the Arizona

Department of Transportation (ADOT), and the Federal Highway Administration for

transportation activities that may affect public lands.

● Cooperate with the Western Utility Group and other industry groups to facilitate the exchange

of information and coordinate planning efforts between federal agencies and utility providers

through the western U.S.

● Whenever possible, promote energy transfer efficiency and support alternative energy sources

such as the use of photovoltaic cells (solar energy) and wind power.

● Promptly communicate new designations for land use, resource protection, safety, and security

to the public and other agencies, as necessary.

● Utility-scale renewable energy land use authorizations within designated multiuse utility

corridors shall not conflict with existing and potential future linear facilities.

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

● Activities to maintain existing facilities will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and if

SDNM resources can be protected, approved.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Lands & Realty (LR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 137

2.8.2. LIVESTOCK GRAZING (GR)

The livestock grazing program in the Planning Area is managed under Title 43 of the Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR), section 4100, to carry out the intent of the Taylor Grazing Act of

1934, as amended and supplemented, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and

the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. Grazing permits or leases are valid for up to 10

years and authorize grazing within grazing districts on public land and other land administered

by the BLM under Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act, and outside of grazing districts under

Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.

The BLM evaluates allotments when leases or permits are scheduled for renewal consistent with

43 CFR 4100 (subpart 4180) and the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines

for Grazing Administration, IM-AZ-98-013. Terms and conditions are specified in grazing

permits or leases, which require lessees to meet management objectives, provide for proper range

management, and assist in the orderly administration of the public rangelands. These terms and

conditions are contained in 43 CFR 4100 (subpart 4130).

In Arizona, BLM rangelands and grazing allotments are classified as perennial, ephemeral, or

perennial-ephemeral. These classifications correspond to the following types of designated

rangelands:

● Perennial rangeland: consistently produces perennial forage to support a year-round livestock

operation;

● Ephemeral rangeland: does not consistently produce enough forage to sustain a year-round

livestock operation but may periodically produce large amounts of annual forage to

accommodate livestock grazing; and

● Perennial-ephemeral rangeland: produces perennial forage each year and periodically

provides additional ephemeral vegetation. In a year of abundant moisture and favorable

climatic conditions, annual forbs and grasses add materially to the total grazing capacity.

During the resource management planning process, land use plan decisions identify lands

available or not available for livestock grazing. In contrast implementation decisions identify

areas available for grazing, and then establish allotment-specific grazing management practices

and livestock forage amounts, based on monitoring and assessment information. Grazing

management practices and levels of livestock grazing use must achieve the desired outcomes

outlined in the land use plan, including rangeland health standards (or comprehensive Land Health

Standards), or must result in significant progress toward fulfilling rangeland health standards.

They must also conform to the guidelines required under 43 CFR 4180.2(b).

Proposed Land Use Allocations for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

For both LS Decision Area, the proposed land use allocations are provided in Proposed

alternatives for grazing allotments are as follows:

● Alternative A (No Action): Grazing allotments would continue to be allocated as perennial,

perennial/ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics.

Season of use adjustments on perennial allotments would be considered.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
138 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Alternative B: Ephemeral grazing applications would continue to be considered, but perennial

stocking rates would be reduced.

● Alternative C: Grazing allotments designated as perennial/ephemeral would be reclassified

as perennial only, with no supplemental ephemeral grazing applications considered. This

alternative does not apply to ephemeral-only allotments. Season of use adjustments on

perennial allotments would be considered.

● Alternative D: All allotments currently open to livestock grazing would become unavailable

as permits expire.

● Alternative E (Preferred): Grazing allotments would be allocated as perennial,

perennial/ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics.

Season of use adjustments on perennial allotments would be considered. Alternative E

incorporates elements from each of the other alternatives.

Once the RMP is adopted for the Lower Sonoran Decision area, the BLM will evaluate allotments

when leases or permits are scheduled for renewal consistent with 43 CFR 4100 (subpart 4180)

and the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration,

IM-AZ-98–013. These decisions will be implemented as directed pursuant to 43 CFR 4100.

Proposed Implementation Decisions for the SDNM Decision Area

Within the SDNM Decision Area, the Proclamation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument

requires the BLM to determine the compatibility of grazing “with the paramount purpose of

protecting objects identified in this proclamation.” A draft grazing Compatibility Analysis which

represents the BLM’s analysis of livestock grazing on 252,500 acres of public lands currently

available for livestock grazing within the SDNM north of I-8, is available in Appendix E, Draft

Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039).

The compatibility analysis is used to determine whether livestock grazing is compatible with

the paramount purpose of the Monument, which is to protect the objects identified in the

proclamation. Process steps for the compatibility analysis include:

● Identify the “objects” of the Monument.

● Conduct a literature review. The literature review helps identify potential effects of livestock

grazing in the Sonoran Desert.

● Prepare a draft land health evaluation (LHE). The LHE documents if standards are achieved

or not achieved, including causal factors for non-achievement.

● Analyze the effects of grazing on the biological and cultural Monument objects.

● Develop a draft grazing Compatibility Analysis.

● Develop a full range of Alternatives presented in this Resource Management Plan.

The results of the draft Compatibility Analysis indicate that, in some locations, current conditions

on the SDNM’s six allotments are not achieving all of the Arizona Standards for Rangeland

Health. Where standards are not being achieved, and grazing has been determined to be a

contributing factor, the BLM has determined that current grazing practices are not compatible

with protection of the objects of the Monument. Current livestock grazing practices were

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 139

determined to be a contributing factor of non-achievement of Standards in areas where forage

utilization exceeded 41% (or “moderate” to “severe” utilization). In areas that showed negligible

to light utilization (0–40%), yet did not achieve Land Health Standards, other causal factors

(such as fire, drought, historic livestock use patterns, OHV use, or combinations thereof) were

considered to be the contributing factor(s). The draft Compatibility Analysis indicates that

livestock grazing is a contributing factor for non-achievement of Standard 3 on 8,498 acres of the

252,500 (3.4%) acres north of I-8, and these areas will be considered unavailable for livestock

grazing in all of the action alternatives for the SDNM considered.

The LHE and the Compatibility Analysis will not be final until the RMP’s Record of Decision is

approved.

For the SDNM Decision Area, implementation level allocations (see Table 2.13, “Proposed

Permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for the SDNM” (p. 143)) reflect the findings of the

compatibility analysis. Based on the results of the compatibility analysis, livestock grazing has

been determined to be compatible with protection of most biological and cultural objects of the

Monument. The 8,498 acres determined to be incompatible with livestock grazing would be

unavailable for grazing under all alternatives, except the no action alternative. This is to ensure

that non-compatible areas are protected, per the Monument proclamation. Through this RMP/EIS

process, a full range of alternatives and management actions will be considered that will allow for

continued protection of the objects of the Monument and grazing management design features

that will ensure continued compatibility.

The grazing Compatibility Analysis and Land Health Evaluation (Appendix E, Draft Compatibility

Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039) and Appendix F,

Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1081),

respectively) analyzed the effects of livestock grazing on the SDNM only. The alternatives

presented are designed to provide the full range of the possible management scenarios for analysis.

The proposed alternatives and implementation decisions for the SDNM grazing allotment are

summarized as follows:

● Alternative A (No Action Alternative): Livestock grazing permits south of I-8 are

terminated. Livestock grazing north of I-8 would continue to be allocated as perennial,

perennial/ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics, if

determined to be compatible with protecting Monument resources. Season of use adjustments

on perennial allotments would be considered.

● Alternative B: Stocking rates on grazing allotments north of I-8 would be allocated as

perennial grazing and would be reduced by approximately 40 percent. Ephemeral grazing

applications would continue to be considered. The approximately 8,500 acres determined to

be incompatible with livestock grazing would be made unavailable for grazing by fencing off

these specific areas.

● Alternative C: Grazing allotments in the SDNM north of I-8 would be allocated as perennial

only, with no ephemeral grazing applications considered (this would not apply to the Arnold

Allotment). Season of use adjustments on perennial allotments would be considered.

Approximately 8,500 acres determined to be incompatible with livestock grazing, plus an

additional 36,300 acres that connect and/or surround those 8,500 acres, would be made

unavailable for grazing. Grazing management of these areas would be accomplished by

using a combination of fencing and natural topographic barriers to make grazing exclosures,

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
140 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

rather than directly fencing off the incompatible areas. As part of the historic Anza NHT,

approximately 10 acres around North Tank would be directly fenced.

● Alternative D: All allotments currently open to livestock grazing in the SDNM would become

unavailable as permits expire.

● Alternative E (Preferred): Livestock grazing north of I-8 would continue to be allocated

as perennial, perennial/ ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific

characteristics. Grazing would be adjusted as needed, in accordance with grazing regulations

and in response to the grazing determinations required by the Proclamation. This alternative

reflects the fenced exclosures of Alternative C. Additionally, the SDNM portion of the Conley

Allotment (which is the allotment with the largest departure from Standard 3 and has the most

acreage found to be incompatible with grazing) would be unavailable for grazing.

2.8.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) Livestock

Grazing

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

● Construct 21 reservoirs, 32 wells, and develop nine springs in areas of low forage production.

(RM-1.5) Applies only to those present in the Saddle Mountain area.

● Allocate forage on all (33) allotments based on preference. Initiate monitoring studies that

include actual use, utilization, trend in condition, and climate, using the Bureau's Selective

Management Policy (Appendix 34 of the Decision Source) to set priorities. These studies

will be used to adjust stocking rates, either upward or downward to meet multiple-resource

management objectives (GR-13). Only a few allotments in the northwestern part of the

Phoenix South Planning Area are addressed in the Decision Source.

Eastern Arizona Grazing Environmental Impact Statement and Rangeland

Program Summary (1985):

● Land that is presently unleased for livestock use would remain unleased, with vegetation

reserved for wildlife and non-consumptive use (GR-07). Applies only to those allotments in

the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area covered by the Decision Source.

● Grazing management systems including rest rotation, deferred rotation, deferred, seasonal,

short-duration or others which are various combinations of these would be implemented where

needs are identified through monitoring (maintain and improve categorized allotments). On

custodial allotments, grazing systems or season of use would be coordinated with the private

landowners, State Land Department, or Soil Conservation Service (GR-11). Applies only to

those allotments in the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area covered by the Decision Source.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 141

● Fences would be needed to support grazing or land treatments and would be built to allow

wildlife movement. Any fences that currently restrict wildlife movement would be modified

to facilitate movement (GR-12). Applies only to those allotments in the eastern Lower

Sonoran Planning Area covered by the Decision Source.

● Stocking additional animals would be allowed in the good ephemeral years where additional

but unquantified animal-unit months (AUMs) of forage are available (GR-14). Applies only to

those allotments in the eastern Phoenix South Planning Area covered by the Decision Source.

● Long-term target AUM figures (from increased vegetation production through revision of

grazing systems already implemented, additional grazing systems and various land treatments)

would be distributed on the basis of 40 percent to livestock and 60 percent to nonconsumptive

uses (GR-18). Applies only to those allotments in the eastern Phoenix South Planning Area

covered by the Decision Source.

● Grazing is authorized at the levels presented in the Range Program Summary (GR-19).

Applies only to those allotments in the eastern Phoenix South Planning Area covered by

the Decision Source.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Institute grazing-management practices that would ensure perpetuation of botanical diversity

within the Coffee Pot Botanical ACEC (GR-02).

● Livestock facilities will not be developed in Table Top area where that development would

serve to increase livestock use within the area proposed for designation (GR-03).

● Improvement and maintenance of the rangeland will be accomplished through the construction

of new rangeland developments (see Table 1 in Decision Source) and through livestock

adjustments if needed (GR-05). The majority of allotments in the Lower Sonoran Planning

Area are covered by this Decision Source.

● Livestock facilities will not be developed where that development would serve to increase

livestock use within the Coffee Pot Botanical ACEC being proposed for designation (GR-07).

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (1997):

● S&G Guideline 3-4: Intensity, season and frequency of use, and distribution of grazing use

should provide for growth and reproduction of those plant species needed to reach desired

plant-community objectives (GR-43).

● S&G Guideline 3-5: Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland may

be authorized if the following conditions are met (GR-44):

● Ephemeral vegetation is present in draws, washes, and under shrubs and has grown to useable

levels at the time grazing begins;

● Sufficient surface and subsurface soil moisture exists for continued plant growth;

● Serviceable waters are capable of providing for proper grazing distribution;

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
142 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Sufficient annual vegetation will remain on site to satisfy other resource concerns, (i.e.,

watershed, wildlife, Wild Horse & Burro); and

● Monitoring is conducted during grazing to determine if objectives are being met.

SDNM Current Management Guidance (2002):

● Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the BLM in issuing and administering grazing

leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply with regard to the lands in the

Sonoran Desert National Monument;

● The grazing permits south of Interstate 8, in the SDNM, shall not be renewed at the end

of their current term;

● Grazing in the SDNM north of Interstate 8 shall be allowed to continue only to the extent that

the BLM determines that grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the

objects identified in the Proclamation (biological, scientific, and historic resources).

Cameron Allotment Amendment to the Lower Gila South Resource

Management Plan (2004):

The above amendment approved decisions to protect the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn which

affected grazing management for four allotments in the Ajo area, including the closure of the

Cameron allotment in its entirety. See Section 2.7.5, “Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat

(PS)” (p. 63) for specific decisions.

2.8.2.2. Action Alternatives for Livestock Grazing (GR)

Program Goals:

● Goal 1: Manage livestock grazing in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area to provide for

multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems.

● Goal 2: Manage livestock grazing in the SDNM Decision Area to provide for multiple uses

while maintaining healthy ecosystems and protecting the Monument’s biological and cultural

resources.

Land Use Allocations Summary for the Lower Sonoran

Table 2.11. Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for Lower Sonoran Decision Area

Alternatives (BLM Acres and Animal Unit Months)

Allocation by

Decision Area A - No Action

B - Reduced

Perennial

C - Perennial

Only / No

Ephemeral

D - Closed E - Preferred

Available Acres 830,200 830,200 830,200 0 830,200

Unavailable Acres1 100,000 100,000 100,000 930,200 100,000

Total Acres 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 143

Total Proposed

(AUMs)3 17,541 10,4313 17,541 0 17,541

1 Cameron allotment closure; Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, Sentinel Plain, Ajo parcels, lands leases, and other areas

currently unallocated or unavailable to grazing within the Decision Area.

2 Animal unit month (AUM) means the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its equivalent

for a period of 1 month.

3 Ephemeral AUMs are permitted on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the Special Ephemeral Rule. These AUMs are

not included in the proposed perennial AUMs listed.

Table 2.12. Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for the SDNM

Alternatives (BLM Acres and Animal Unit Months)

Allocation by

Decision Area A - No Action

B - Reduced

Perennial

C - Perennial

Only / No

Ephemeral

D - Closed E - Preferred

Available Acres 252,500 244,000 207,700 0 157,210

Unavailable

Acres1 From RMP

Decisions

233,900 8,5002 44,8003 252,500 95,2904

Unavailable Acres

from Proclamation

155,900 155,900 155,900 155,900 155,900

Unavailable Acres

from Area A5 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000 78,000

Total Acres 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400

Total Proposed

AUMs6 8,703 5,3217 7,092 0 3,114

1

In accordance with the Monument Proclamation the allotments or portions of allotments south of I-8, within

SDNM, were made unavailable to livestock grazing when the permits expired.

2 Acreage includes approximately 8,500 acres, or 3.4% of the area north of I-8 determined to be unavailable for

livestock grazing through the compatibility analysis and would be fenced off (see Map 2-8b).

3 Acreage includes the 8,500 acres found to be incompatible with Monument objects, plus 36,300 connected or

surrounding acres, using a combination of fencing and topographic barriers and wilderness boundaries, for a total

of 44,800 acres of unavailable acres under Alternative C (see Map 2-8c).

4 Acreage includes all unavailable acreage identified in Alternative C (44,800 acres) plus the Conley Allotment

(50,490 acres) from recommendations in the grazing Compatibility Analysis (Appendix E, Draft Compatibility

Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)). All unavailable acres will

remain unallocated for livestock grazing, and its forage and other vegetation will be reserved for wildlife habitat.

5Relinquished lands in Barry M. Goldwater Range south of I-8.

6

In Alternative A, AUMs are prorated and reduced by 7,884 from the total permitted use due to the allotment

closures south of I-8. In Alternative B, final AUM numbers were prorated from the Lower Gila South RMP

Resource Protection Alternative to the acres within the Monument for each allotment. Acres are rounded to the

nearest hundred.

7 Ephemeral AUMs are permitted on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the Special Ephemeral Rule.

Table 2.13. Proposed Permitted Animal Unit Months (AUMs) for the SDNM

Applicable Alternative

Allotments A -

Permitted

AUMs

B - Reduced

Perennial

C - Perennial

Only – No

Ephemeral

D - Closed

E – Proposed

Preferred

% Reduction

from Alt. A

SDNM

Big Horn1 2,812 2,031 2,278 0 1,633 42%

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
144 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Beloat 776 541 936 0 552 29%

Conley2 3,403 1,572 2,212 0 0 100%

Hazen 886 531 873 0 400 55%

Lower Vekol 826 646 793 0 529 36%

Arnold 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total AUMs3 8,703 5,321 7,092 0 3,114 64%

1 The AUM’s for the Big Horn allotment in Alternative A reflect the reduction in permitted use due to the closure

of the portion of the allotment south of Interstate-8.

2 Acres within the SDNM portion of the Conley allotment are proposed to be made unavailable for the following

reasons:

● It has the largest departure from achieving Land Health Standard 3 of all other SDNM allotments,

● It has the most acreage found incompatible with the Monument proclamation, and

● Future management options for the remaining available portion will be limited due to the amount and location of

pasture fencing that will be required to be placed around the non-achieving acres.

3

In Alternative A, the total prorated permitted use is reduced by 7,884 AUMs due to the allotment closures south of

I-8. In Alternative B, AUM’s were prorated from the Lower Gila South RMP Resource Protection Alternative to

the acres within the Monument for each allotment.

Table 2.14. Proposed Livestock Grazing Acres for the SDNM North of Interstate 8 Only

Alternatives (BLM Acres)1

A-No Action

B-Reduced

Perennial

C - Perennial

Only

D - Closed E - Preferred

Allotment

Avail.

Unavail. Avail.Unavail.2 Avail.Unavail.3 Avail.Unavail. Avail.Unavail.

Big

Horn

92,204 0 86,687 5,517 78,230 16,974 0 92,204 78,230 16,974

Beloat 33,600 0 33,600 0 33,600 0 0 33600 33,600 0

Conley 77,708 0 74,734 2,974 50,491 27,217 0 77,708 50,491 27,217

Hazen 31,926 0 31,926 31,926 31,926 0 0 31,926 31,926 0

Lower

Vekol

15,409 0 15,402 7 14,802 607 0 15,409 14,802 607

Arnold 1,609 0 1,609 0 1,609 0 0 1,609 1,609 0

Total 252,456 0 243,958 8,498 207,658 44,798 0 252,456 207,658 44,798

1 These numbers reflect the numbers from the Land Health Assessment and are estimated pending field GIS

inventory verification. The totals shown in Table 2.12, “Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for the SDNM

” (p. 143) were rounded up for the land use plan-level decisions.

2 Alternative B unavailable numbers come from the acres determined to be incompatible with Monument objects

from the Compatibility Analysis in Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran

Desert National Monument (p. 1039).

3 Alternatives C and E unavailable numbers come from the acres determined to be incompatible with Monument

objects from the Compatibility Analysis in Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the

Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039), and the acreage determined to become unavailable due to the

projected boundary closures of the area based on fencing, topographic boundaries and wilderness boundaries.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses (GR)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 145

Goal 1: Manage livestock grazing to provide forage for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a manner consistent

with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure that the health

of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved. Management will achieve, or make

significant progress toward achieving, Land Health Standards and produce a wide range of public values

such as wildlife habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.

LS B C E GR-1.1.1: Public lands would be allocated and available for livestock grazing

as shown in .

LS D GR-1.1.2: All public land acres currently available to grazing would become

unavailable when current permits expire.

LS B GR-1.1.3: All perennial/ephemeral and perennial allotments available to

grazing would receive a reduction in the authorized grazing preference as

reflected in Table 2.11, “Proposed Livestock Grazing Allocations for Lower

Sonoran Decision Area” (p. 142). Total proposed AUMs in the Lower Sonoran

would be reduced by approximately 41%.

LS C GR-1.1.4: All perennial/ephemeral allotments that are available to grazing

would be reclassified as perennial only. Ephemeral authorizations would not be

permitted on these allotments or allotments currently classified as perennial.

LS D GR-1.1.5: No AUMs would be permitted for allotments currently available to

grazing when permits expire.

LS E GR-1.1.6: All allotments that are currently available to grazing will remain

open to grazing under their current classifications and permitted AUM’s as

reflected in . (also see Appendix P, Grazing Allotment Information (p. 1281)).

General Management Actions

LS B C E GR-1.1.7: The portion of the Santa Rosa allotment outside of SDNM would

remain available for livestock grazing if fencing is built to exclude SDNM

from the allotment.

LS B C E GR-1.1.8: The portion of the Big Horn allotment south of I-8 and outside of

the SDNM would remain available for livestock grazing if fencing is built to

exclude SDNM from the allotment.

LS B C E GR-1.1.9: The portion of the Table Top allotment south of Interstate 8 and

outside of SDNM, would be unavailable for livestock grazing.

LS B E GR-1.1.10: The portion of the Table Top allotment north of I-8, outside

SDNM, would be classified as Perennial/Ephemeral. The authorized grazing

preference will be 148 AUM’s.

LS SDNM B C D E GR-1.1.11: All existing water developments will be evaluated, and modified as

necessary, to provide the maximum benefit and minimum impact to priority

wildlife and special status species.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.12: Grazing management on allotments categorized as maintain and

improve may include rest rotation, deferred rotation, deferred, seasonal, short

duration or other management practices would be implemented where needs

are identified through monitoring. On custodial allotments, grazing systems or

season of use would be coordinated with the private landowners, Arizona State

Land Department, or Natural Resource Conservation Service.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.13: If grazing availability or classification differs for the Big Horn,

Conley, Lower Vekol, Hazen, Beloat, and Arnold allotments outside SDNM

versus inside the Monument boundaries, fencing or other control mechanisms

would be installed to allow for management of Monument lands separately

from the rest of the allotment before grazing could continue.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
146 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Manage livestock grazing to provide forage for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a manner consistent

with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure that the health

of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved. Management will achieve, or make

significant progress toward achieving, Land Health Standards and produce a wide range of public values

such as wildlife habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.

LS SDNM B E GR-1.1.14: Allotments may be reclassified as ephemeral in accordance with

the Special Ephemeral Rule published December 7, 1968 through Rangeland

Health Assessments. The BLM has established criteria based upon the Special

Rule through which allotments can be classified as ephemeral. These criteria

include:

● Rangelands are within the hot desert biome;

● Average annual precipitation is less than eight inches;

● Rangelands produce less than 25 pounds per acre of desirable forage

grasses;

● The vegetative community is composed of less than five-percent desirable

forage species;

● The rangelands are generally below 3,500 feet in elevation;

● Annual production is highly unpredictable and forage availability is of

a short duration;

● Usable forage production depends on abundant moisture and other

favorable climatic conditions; and

● Rangelands lack potential to improve existing ecological status and produce

a dependable supply of forage through intensive rangeland management

practices.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.15: The Arizona Guidelines for Grazing Administration, as approved

in the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (1997), would apply where appropriate to all livestock grazing

activities (Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253)).

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.16: Land not currently allocated for livestock use would remain

unallocated for this use and its forage and other vegetation would be reserved

for wildlife and non-consumptive uses.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.17: If an evaluation of land health standards identifies an allotment

where land health standards cannot be achieved under any level or management

of livestock use and where current grazing use has been identified as the causal

factor, then decisions identifying those areas as available for livestock grazing

would be revisited.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.18: Should a livestock grazing permit be relinquished the allotment

and associated resources, and other resources and public uses would be

evaluated to determine the appropriate allocation of available forage.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.19: Within habitat for endangered species, livestock grazing allowable

use 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 T&E Species (BLM and USFWS, Arizona

and New Mexico, 1999), or any subsequent agreed upon amendment to these

guidelines. Livestock grazing permits will be updated, as needed, to conform

to this guidance.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 147

Goal 1: Manage livestock grazing to provide forage for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a manner consistent

with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure that the health

of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved. Management will achieve, or make

significant progress toward achieving, Land Health Standards and produce a wide range of public values

such as wildlife habitat, livestock forage, recreation opportunities, clean water, and functional watersheds.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.20: One-time travel off designated routes may be approved with written

authorization from the authorized officer to access sick or injured livestock.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.21: Construction of new livestock waters in Category I and Category

II desert tortoise habitat and in bighorn sheep habitat will be addressed on

a case-by-case basis.

LS SDNM B C E GR-1.1.22: Range improvement permits and cooperative range improvement

agreements shall specify the standards, design, construction and maintenance

criteria for the range improvements and other additional conditions and

stipulations or modifications deemed necessary. The extent, location and timing

of such actions will be based on allotment-specific management objectives

adopted through the evaluation process, interdisciplinary development and

analysis of proposed actions, and funding.

Goal 2: Manage livestock grazing to provide for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems and

protecting the Monument’s biological and cultural resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.2: Public lands in SDNM north of I-8 available to livestock use will be managed to achieve or

make significant progress toward achieving Land Health Standards to ensure that the health of the biological

resources are maintained or improved. Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a

manner consistent with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure

that the health of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved.

SDNM B C D E GR-1.2.1: Pursuant to the Monument Proclamation grazing permits for

allotments within SDNM south of I-8, were not renewed upon expiration. The

public lands South of I-8, within SDNM, will remain unavailable for livestock

use. The grazing preferences for permitted use on the allotments that are

attached to the base properties will be cancelled. Forage previously allocated

for livestock grazing (7,255 AUMs) will be available for other resource uses

such as wildlife habitat, watershed values, recreation, etc.

SDNM B GR-1.2.2: Domestic goats or sheep would not be permitted within nine miles

of suitable bighorn sheep habitat or within allotments that contain suitable

bighorn sheep habitat.

SDNM C D E GR-1.2.3: Domestic goats or sheep would not be permitted.

Implementation Level Decisions for the SDNM

Available Acres by Allotment

SDNM B GR-1.2.3: Acres would become unavailable to livestock grazing use within

allotments north of Interstate 8 that were found to be incompatible with the

objects of the Monument due to current livestock use as specified in the Draft

Compatibility Analysis. They are as follows (see Map 2-8b and Appendix E,

Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert

National Monument (p. 1039)):

● 5,520 acres within the Conley allotment,

● 2,970 acres within the Big Horn allotment, and

● 10 acres within the Lower Vekol allotment.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
148 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 2: Manage livestock grazing to provide for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems and

protecting the Monument’s biological and cultural resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.2: Public lands in SDNM north of I-8 available to livestock use will be managed to achieve or

make significant progress toward achieving Land Health Standards to ensure that the health of the biological

resources are maintained or improved. Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a

manner consistent with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure

that the health of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved.

SDNM C GR-1.2.4: Through a combination of fencing and natural barriers, 44,800

acres would become unavailable to livestock grazing use within allotments

north of Interstate 8 that were found to be incompatible with the objects of the

Monument due to current livestock use. They are as follows (see Map 2-8c and

Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran

Desert National Monument (p. 1039)):

● 27,220 acres within the Conley allotment,

● 16,970 acres within the Big Horn allotment, and

● 610 acres within the Lower Vekol allotment.

● (Total of 8,500 incompatible acres and 36,300 surrounding acres

SDNM D GR-1.2.5: All public land acres currently available to grazing in the SDNM

would become unavailable as current permits expire.

SDNM E GR-1.2.6: Acreage as described in Alternative C would become unavailable to

livestock grazing use through a combination of fencing and natural barriers.

Additionally, the closure of the SDNM portion of the Conley allotment as

specified in the Draft Compatibility Analysis, for a total of 95,290 acres north

of I-8. Specific reductions are as follows: (see Map 2-8e and Appendix E,

Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert

National Monument (p. 1039)):

● 77,710 acres within the Conley allotment,

● 16,970 acres within the Big Horn allotment, and

● 610 acres within the Lower Vekol allotment.

● (Total of 8,500 incompatible acres, 36,300 surrounding acres and the

remaining 50,490 acres in Conley allotment)

Proposed AUMs by Allotment

SDNM B E GR-1.2.6: All perennial/ephemeral and perennial allotments that are available

to grazing within the SDNM would receive a reduction in the authorized

grazing preference. Reduction in permitted use would reflect reduced available

acreage and prorated AUM’s from resource protection alternative from the

Lower Gila South RMP. Actions result in approximate 39% AUM reduction

in Alternative B and 64% AUM reduction in alternative E due to closure of

Conley allotment.

Rationale for this includes:

● Majority of desirable forage species are perennial browse species and

winter/spring annuals;

● Reduces competition with special status wildlife species considered

Monument objects (Sonoran desert tortoise, Desert bighorn sheep, etc.);

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 149

Goal 2: Manage livestock grazing to provide for multiple uses while maintaining healthy ecosystems and

protecting the Monument’s biological and cultural resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.2: Public lands in SDNM north of I-8 available to livestock use will be managed to achieve or

make significant progress toward achieving Land Health Standards to ensure that the health of the biological

resources are maintained or improved. Livestock grazing use and associated practices will be managed in a

manner consistent with other multiple use needs and other desired resource condition objectives to ensure

that the health of rangeland resources and ecosystems are maintained or improved.

● Supported by inventory and monitoring data; and

● Supported by the Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the SDNM and the

Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the SDNM, Arizona,

April 2011 (Appendices E and F).

SDNM C GR-1.2.7: Perennial/ephemeral allotments that are available to grazing would

be reclassified as perennial only and AUMs would be adjusted due to acreage

reductions defined above (Map 2-8c). Ephemeral authorizations would not be

permitted on any allotment classified as perennial. (See Table 3.13, “ Historical

Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity” (p. 304)in Chapter 3,

Affected Environment (p. 251) for actual ephemeral use from 1998 to 2007.)

SDNM D GR-1.2.8: No AUMs would be permitted for allotments currently available to

grazing when permits expire.

SDNM E GR-1.2.9: The period and level of use (approximately 65 percent of permitted

use) would be adjusted to primarily fall-winter season (Oct. 1 – April 30) and

reduced use levels (approximately 35 percent of permitted use) during the

summer season (May 1 – Sept. 30). The rationale for this includes:

● Bimodal precipitation pattern provides more consistent and widespread

rainfall during winter season, when the majority of the forage is produced;

● Majority of desirable forage species are perennial browse species and

winter/spring annuals;

● Provides for rest period for key browse species;

● Reduces competition with wildlife during critical hot summer months;

● Reflects general pattern of current grazing management practices;

● Supported by inventory and monitoring data; and

● Supported by the Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the SDNM and the

Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the SDNM, Arizona,

April 2011 (Appendices E and F).

Administrative Actions

● Existing range developments in areas not allocated for livestock use may be removed if not

necessary for management of other resources.

● Develop a monitoring plan for allotments as needed to determine and track ecological

condition and trend.

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR)
150 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Livestock management changes may be made based on assessment, inventory, or monitoring data.

Except under Alternative D, develop and implement a monitoring plan on the SDNM to determine

and track ecological condition and trend. The plan would include:

● Monitoring previously established study sites in allotments that will continue to be grazed, and

establishing new key areas as needed. Data would be used to support grazing management

decisions.

● Monitoring previously-established study sites in the allotments not to be grazed and

establishing new sites as needed. Location of sites should be established based on resource

management goals. Data would be used for comparison to grazed areas and historical data to

track resource responses to management changes.

● Establish frequency and intensity of monitoring effort.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Livestock Grazing (GR) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 151

2.8.3. MINERALS MANAGEMENT (MM)

The BLM supports mineral exploration and development on public lands in keeping with its

multiple-use mandate. Unless otherwise restricted, all Federal mineral estates administered

within the Planning Area would be available for orderly and efficient development of mineral

resources. Exploration and development would be conducted in accordance with applicable laws,

regulations, and policies, and in conformance with the approved resource-management plan.

Restrictions and stipulations would be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Identified mineral resources are classified according to the BLM’s system as described in Manual

3031 (BLM 1985) and Manual 3060 (DOI BLM undated). Mineral and mining laws and policy

are implemented through the BLM’s minerals management regulations which are contained in

the 3000 series of volume 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. A mineral resource potential

report was prepared for the Planning Area (URS Corporation, 2004). Mineral resources are

categorized as follows:

● Locatable Minerals: metallic minerals including, but not exclusively, gold, silver, copper, lead,

zinc, and uranium, as well as some non-metallic minerals such as allunite, asbestos, barite,

gypsum, and mica, and also unique and uncommon varieties of stone and other construction

materials (43 CFR 3800 and 43 CFR 3715).

● Leasable Minerals: mostly, but not exclusively, energy minerals, including fluid minerals such

as oil and gas and geothermal resources, and some solid minerals such as coal, sodium, and

potash (43 CFR 3100 and 43 CFR 3200).

● Mineral Material Disposals (saleables): common varieties of construction materials such as

sand, gravel, cinders, decorative rock, and building stone (43 CFR 3600).

2.8.3.1. Existing Management Decision, Alternative A (No Action)

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

● 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.

Leave the Planning Area open to mineral leasing. (MM-03) Applicable to the northwestern

Lower Sonoran Planning Area near Saddle Mountain.

● Leave Planning Area open to mineral location and development. (MM-05) Applicable to the

northwestern Lower Sonoran Planning Area near Saddle Mountain.

● Leave Planning Area open to mineral leasing. (MM-06) Applicable to the northwestern Lower

Sonoran Planning Area near Saddle Mountain.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM)
152 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Mitigate mining practices that adversely impact unique botanical and animal habitat in

Vekol Valley ACEC. (MM-15) Decision still applicable to area although not being carried

forward as an ACEC.

● Demand for saleable minerals will be met by sales or free-use permits on a case-by-case

basis. (MM-16)

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

● All land in the RMP/EIS area would remain open to leasing. Should exploration and/or

development of leasable resources be pursued, special stipulations will be incorporated into

the lease agreement after the results of site-specific environmental assessments for each action

are known. (MM-02) Applies to the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area, including the

Apache Junction and Globe/Miami areas.

● Mining activity within the Planning Area would continue to be administered on a case-by-case

basis. (MM-09) Applies to the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area, including the Apache

Junction and Globe/Miami areas.

● Sales of mineral materials to the public would continue to be administered on a case-by-case

basis. (MM-10) Applies to the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area, including the Apache

Junction and Globe/Miami areas.

● Free-use permits would continue to be issued to the state and local communities as the need

arises. (MM-11) Applies to the eastern Lower Sonoran Planning Area, including the Apache

Junction and Globe/Miami areas.

SDNM Current Management Guidance

● All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of the Monument are

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 mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to

mineral and geothermal leasing. Unless otherwise specified in legislation or proclamation,

all valid existing rights will be recognized in accordance with policy. Mining claims that

predate the Monument designation have valid rights if those rights continue to be supported

by a discovery. (Not numbered)

Lower Gila Resource Management Plan Amendment (2005):

● All lands in the Planning Area are considered open for oil and gas leasing unless specifically

ruled closed. Approximately 375,000 acres of Federal minerals in wilderness are closed to oil

and gas leasing. The approximately 1.6 million acres of Federal minerals remaining in the

Planning Area are open to oil and gas leasing. Conditions of approval and special stipulations

will be developed and incorporated as part of any operational permit after site-specific

environmental analyses are completed and documented per the National Environmental

Policy Act. Stipulations will mitigate impacts to special status species, cultural areas, and

other resources affected by leasing-related activities. (MM-1)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 153

2.8.3.2. Action Alternatives for Minerals Management (MM)

Land Use Allocations Summary

Table 2.15, “Acres of Public Lands Available for Mineral Activity by Alternative” (p. 153) enumerates the acreages available for minerals activities for each category (locatables, leasables,

mineral material [saleables]) under each alternative. Lands with BLM Federal reserved mineral

estate and non-Federal surface (state, local government, and private lands) are shown only for

Alternative A but remain the same under all alternatives. The BLM has limited authority to

manage non-BLM surface and there are no proposals for the withdrawal of BLM managed

mineral estate under non-Federal surface.

Table 2.15. Acres of Public Lands Available for Mineral Activity by Alternative

A B C D E

Acres Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %

Locatable Minerals

Existing Closed 625,000 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47%

Proposed Closures 2,350 <1% 2,350 <1% 381,500 28% 2,350 <1%

Total Closure 627,350 47% 627,350 47% 1,006,500 75% 627,350 47%

Open with standard

stipulations

710,950 53% 710,950 53% 331,800 25% 710,950 53%

Total Available 713,300 710,950 53% 710,950 53% 331,800 25% 710,950 53%

Leasable Minerals

Existing Closed 625,000 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47%

Proposed Closed 250 <1% 250 <1% 381,500 28% 53,700 4%

Total Closure 625,250 47% 625,250 47% 1,006,500 75% 678,700 51%

Open w/ NSO 7,100 <1% 61,400 5% 0 0% 15,400 1%

Open with

mitigation

276,500 21% 356,000 27% 206,800 15% 259,500 19%

Open with

Standard

Stipulations

429,450 32% 295,650 21% 125,000 10% 384,700 29%

Total Available 713,300 713,050 53% 713,050 53% 331,800 25% 659,600 49%

Mineral Material (Saleables)

Existing Closed 625,000 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47% 625,000 47%

Proposed Closed 65,800 5% 184,800 14% 521,400 39% 192,300 14%

Total Closure 690,800 52% 809,800 72% 1,146,000 86% 817,300 5%

Open with

Mitigation

0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Open with

Standard

Stipulations

647,500 48% 528,500 39% 191,900 14% 521,000 39%

Total Available 713,300 647,500 48% 528,500 39% 191,900 14% 521,000 39%

Total Acreage 1,338,300 acres (all alternatives)

Acres of BLM Subsurface with Non-BLM Surface*

Closed (Total) 71,000 (34%)

Open (Total) 139,000 (66%)

Total 210,000 acres (Alternative A)

*Includes land in State, local, and private lands.

* Includes SDNM (461,000 acres), LS wilderness (89,200 acres) Sentinel Plain, Fred J Weiler Green Belt and

Painted Rock Dam area (64,300 acres) and R&PP leases (10,500 acres).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM)
154 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Action Alternatives For Minerals Management (MM)

Goal 1: Provide opportunities for exploration and development of energy and mineral resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Utilize mineral potential determinations (high, medium, and low) during the evaluation of all

proposed actions for all resources. Reduce or mitigate hindrances to mineral development, particularly in

areas of moderate to high potential. Mitigate impacts to other resource values.

All Minerals

LS B C D E MM-1.1.1: Minerals activities would be managed to provide maximum

protection for other resources while attempting to allow sufficient mineral

development to occur to meet public demand.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.2: Should lands now closed to mineral activity be opened, these

lands, including the mineral estate, would be managed to be consistent with

the decisions made in this plan.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.3: On split-estate lands where the BLM manages the Federal mineral

estate but the surface is not in Federal ownership, the BLM will manage the

minerals in accordance with existing laws and regulations while providing the

surface owner input into the management process and state law.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.4: Within ACECs, WHAs, SCRMAs, SRMAs, and lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics, minerals-related actions would be approved

in a manner and with mitigation that maintains the resource values for which

the special designation or allocation was made while not denying valid existing

rights for locatable minerals. Leasable or saleable minerals actions would be

severely restricted or prohibited depending on the management allocation.

Locatable Minerals

LS B C D E MM-1.1.5: All public lands would be open to entry and location under the

mining laws except lands with existing segregations or withdrawals as follows

(Maps 2-9a, 2–9b, 2–9c, 2–9d, and 2–9e): Existing Segregations/Withdrawals

(Alternative A):

● Designated wilderness areas,

● Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area,

● Painted Rock Dam power site withdrawal area,

● Sentinel Plain withdrawal area,

● San Tan Mountains RMZ/SMA.

● Proposed Withdrawals for all Alternatives unless otherwise noted:

● Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail,

● Public Use and Conservation for Future Use Sites,

○ Sundad,

○ Butterfield West,

○ Painted Rock Petroglyph,

● Developed Recreation Sites,

● Painted Rock Campground and surrounding lands,

● Quartz Peak,

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 155

Goal 1: Provide opportunities for exploration and development of energy and mineral resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Utilize mineral potential determinations (high, medium, and low) during the evaluation of all

proposed actions for all resources. Reduce or mitigate hindrances to mineral development, particularly in

areas of moderate to high potential. Mitigate impacts to other resource values.

● Gunsight Wash (Alternatives B, C and E),

● Ajo 40 acre open use OHV area (Alternatives B and E).

LS B C D E MM-1.1.6: Notices and plans of operations would be processed according to

the 43 CFR 3802 and 3809 regulations.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.7: The use and occupancy of public lands would be managed to that

which is reasonably incident to prospecting, mining or processing operations

under the mining laws (43 CFR 3715).

LS D MM-1.1.8: The following lands are proposed for withdrawal or segregation

from location (see Map 2-9d):

● Sentinel Plain SRMA,

● Cuerda de Lena ACEC,

● Saddle Mountain ACEC,

● Batamote-Coffee Pot ACEC,

● Gila River and Lower Gila Historic Trails ACEC,

● Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics.

Leasable Minerals (Fluid energy minerals, including geothermal resources and sodium)

LS B C D E MM-1.1.9: All public lands would be open for mineral leasing in accordance

with resource-management objectives except lands with existing segregations

or withdrawals (Maps 2-10a, 2—10b, 2–10c, 2–10d and 2–10e). Lands that

would be closed are the following:

● Sentinel Plain withdrawal area,

● Cuerda de Lena ACEC,

● Saddle Mountain ACEC,

● Batamote-Coffee Pot ACEC,

● Gila River and Lower Gila Historic Trails ACEC,

● Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

LS B C D E MM-1.1.10: Leases would be issued for fluid energy minerals with appropriate

stipulations. Site-specific actions would be addressed such as geophysical

exploration, approval or disapproval of applications for permit to drill (APDs),

well siting, tank-battery placement, and pipeline routing would be addressed

on a case-by-case basis and include appropriate restrictions or conditions of

approval.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.11: Mineral-use authorizations for non-energy leasables would be

issued for prospecting permits, exploration licenses, preference-right leases,

competitive leases, lease modifications, and use permits subject to appropriate

restrictions and stipulations to protect other resources.

Mineral Material Disposals (saleables)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM)
156 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide opportunities for exploration and development of energy and mineral resources.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Utilize mineral potential determinations (high, medium, and low) during the evaluation of all

proposed actions for all resources. Reduce or mitigate hindrances to mineral development, particularly in

areas of moderate to high potential. Mitigate impacts to other resource values.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.12: All public lands not withdrawn or segregated from minerals

actions would be open to discretionary mineral materials disposal via

sales or free-use permits on a case-by-case basis in accordance with

resource-management objectives. Those lands unavailable for mineral

materials disposal are as follows (for specific acreages for each alternative see

above; see Maps 2-11a, 2—11b, 2–11c, 2–11d and 2–11e)

● Lands with existing segregations or withdrawals,

● Desert tortoise habitat; unless no net loss of habitat can be ensured,

● Washes deemed suitable to support cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl,

● Portions of the Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

SCRMAA and ACEC,

● Sentinel Plain withdrawal area,

● Cuerda de Lena ACEC,

● Saddle Mountain ACEC,

● Batamote-Coffee Pot ACEC,

● Lands managed to protect wilderness Characteristics.

LS B C D E MM-1.1.13: Common-use areas and community pits would be established.

Exploration for, and disposal of, mineral materials would also be allowed

through exploration permits, free-use permits, and competitive and

noncompetitive sales subject to appropriate restrictions and stipulations to

protect other resources.

Administrative Actions

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

● Recognize the superior right to explore for and mine mineral resources on those split estate

lands where the BLM manages the surface and the subsurface estate is owned by the state

of Arizona or private entities. Develop a MOU with the state to establish procedures to

protect SDNM resources from the effects of exploration and mining on SDNM to the greatest

extent possible.

Locatable Minerals.

● The 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 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 land identified in a mining notice by the geologist, as well as an archeologist

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 157

and biologist if they are available. A site visit would generally be conducted by the 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. The BLM will work with

operators to ensure that notices and plans are processed efficiently and in a timely manner.

Reclamation plans and bonds are required for each notice and plan per regulation. The

amount of such bonds is for the full amount required to complete 100 percent of the required

reclamation as if the BLM were required to hire independent contractors to do the work.

● In addition to the requirements of 43 CFR 3715 and 43 CFR 3809, State and Federal laws

require numerous other permits including but not limited to an aquifer protection permit

and a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit, both issued by the Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality; a Section 404 permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers; and a flood-control permit issued by the County. In addition, Arizona State

law requires mining claimants to keep mining property in a safe condition. The State Mine

Inspector’s Office is responsible for enforcing this law. The BLM will cooperate with all

interested agencies to ensure that operations conducted on BLM-administered lands are in

full compliance with all Federal, State 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 Environmental Assessment for Mining Claim Use and Occupancy.

● Surface-disturbing activities at a level greater than casual use in wilderness areas, national

Monuments, ACECs, and other areas identified in 43 CFR 3809.11 will require a plan of

operations before mining can begin. Operations proposed for land that is withdrawn from

mineral entry will cause the BLM to initiate a validity examination and will be allowed only

on claims with a valid discovery and location existing before designation. Before the 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 that 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 viable mine.

Leasable Minerals.

● Lease applications will be considered on a case-by-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.

Saleable Minerals.

● The sale of minerals is discretionary on the part of the BLM under 43 CFR 3600 regulations

and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Minerals Management (MM)
158 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.8.4. RECREATION MANAGEMENT (RM)

Recreation management in the BLM is guided by the allocation of recreation management

areas (RMAs) and the corresponding decisions related to them. All BLM public lands are

allocated to one of two types of RMAs: “extensive” or “special.” The process used to allocate

public lands to RMAs has changed substantially during recent years. In an approach known as

“benefits-based-management,” the BLM now integrates perceptions of visitor demand to produce

market-based strategies for the provision of recreation opportunities and visitor services.

An extensive recreation management Area (ERMA) is an area of public land where the BLM

has not identified a specific demand for structured recreation opportunities. In an ERMA, the

BLM’s management strategy for recreation resources is primarily custodial, and major recreation

program investments will not be authorized except to resolve use conflicts, assure visitor safety,

and provide for protection of other resources; the BLM will not be managing to produce specific

recreational opportunities, experiences, or outcomes. All tracts of BLM public land that are not

allocated as part of a SRMA are, by default, an ERMA.

In contrast, a sSRMA is an area of public land where the BLM has identified a specific demand

for structured recreation opportunities. The BLM’s management objective will be to produce

the recreation opportunities, experiences, and outcomes indicated by this demand, which may be

facilitated through major recreation program investments. These opportunities, experiences, and

outcomes will be directed to a distinct recreation-tourism market for each SRMA.

Recreation-tourism markets can vary greatly; therefore, the strategies used to manage recreation

resources in SRMAs also may vary greatly. The BLM uses three such strategies in response to

recreation market demand:

● Community: The BLM intends to guide management decisions, actions, and recreation

program investments to produce beneficial outcomes primarily for a community (or

communities) that value the SRMA’s public lands for recreation, tourism and growth;

● Destination: The BLM intends to guide management decisions, actions, and recreation

program investments to produce beneficial outcomes primarily for national or regional visitors

who value the SRMA’s public lands as a recreation-tourism destination; and

● Undeveloped: The BLM intends to guide management decisions, actions, and recreation

program investments to produce beneficial outcomes from the SRMA’s undeveloped,

frontier-like nature, primarily for recreation-tourism markets that come to the SRMA seeking

a freedom to choose where to go for their own adventure, preferring little direction, few

services, and very unnoticeable facilities.

Recreation-tourism markets may also consist of unique segments known as niches. For example,

some destination-oriented visitors may come to a SRMA to hike over its mountains while others

may come to the same SRMA to float a river winding down from its mountains. Satisfying both

market niches requires different natural recreation resources, such as high, scenic places with

great vistas for one and the flowing river canyon with fewer contacts between visitors for the

other. To manage different areas with different objectives intended to produce different products

for different niches, SRMAs may be separated into RMZs. The RMZs serve to delineate, define,

and “match up” the kinds of recreation opportunities, experiences and outcomes available for

the various customers of a primary market.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 159

The LSFO and SDNM have identified a spectrum of four generalized settings that describe the

unique physical, social, and administrative environment required to achieve the management

objective(s) of RMZs. These settings have been termed “community interface,” “passage,”

“front country,” and “back country.” Definitions of these settings and further descriptions of

opportunities, experiences and outcomes may be found in Appendix Q, Recreation Settings and

Descriptions (p. 1285). The definitions do not change from alternative to alternative; however,

the combination of settings and the amount of each is prescribed individually for each RMZ to

achieve the desired outcomes of each alternative (see Appendix R, Benefits Based Recreation

Worksheets (p. 1295)).

Finally, a very important concept to remember as you read the following proposed decisions is

that managing an SRMA for a primary market does not mean managing for an exclusive market.

Other uses will be allowable in SRMAs. However, these other uses will only be allowed up to the

point where they conflict with the desired management, or the production of desired beneficial

outcomes, as described below for each SRMA.

The plan alternatives would have the following emphasis for the recreation program:

● Alternative A represents current management guidance. The recreation resource would not be

targeted to specific markets, and recreation benefits and outcomes would be actively produced

only in four existing SRMAs.

● Alternative B would emphasize the production of commodities from public lands. The

recreation resource would be managed to produce the greatest amount and diversity of

recreation benefits, particularly with respect to motorized recreation, across the largest scale

of public lands.

● Alternative C would manage for a balance of motorized and non-motorized recreational

benefits while minimizing or mitigating impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources.

● Alternative D would emphasize resource conservation and protection over commodity

production. The recreation resource would be managed to produce the greatest amount of

benefits derived from natural, undeveloped setting prescriptions.

● Alternative E would balance the production of commodities with conservation and protection

of natural public resources. The recreation resource would be managed to produce diverse

recreation benefits, including the most extensive system of motorized access and travel that

would be compatible with large areas of undeveloped public lands.

These alternatives attempt to address all approaches or alternatives for management of recreation

that were brought forward through public scoping and internal management analysis.

2.8.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) For

Recreation Management

The following list is a comprehensive compilation of land-use planning decisions (and their

identifying planning decision number) currently in effect that constitutes the existing management

situation for the Decision Areas. Because none of these current land use plans encompass the

entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions are being carried forward as common to all

alternatives. They are restated as new action alternatives where applicable. Decisions specific to

travel management will be found in Section 2.8.5, “Travel Management (TM)” (p. 180).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
160 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment)

(1990):

(Applicable to public lands in the Sand Tank Mountains, “Area A” within the SDNM, lands south

of Interstate 8 referred to as the Sentinel Plain, and selected parcels near the Ajo airport.)

● Establish the Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA and prepare a recreation area management

plan. Implement management prescriptions to maintain recreation, geologic, and educational

features associated with the Sentinel Plain Lava Flow (SM-1).

● In the Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA, prohibit new rights-of-way (ROWs) and other land use

authorizations (LUAs) except those installed in the established I-8 utility corridor; encourage

the installation of below ground utility services within the corridor south of I-8 unless

overhead facilities are required due to technical and/or operational circumstances (SM-4).

● In the Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA, minimize visual impacts on the area's geologic

formations (from ROWs construction in the I-8 utility corridor) by application of visual

resource management guidelines (SM-5).

● Issue a special recreation use permit for specific recreation uses on the public lands of the

BGR when required by the BLM's special recreation permit policy. Permits would be issued

only with the concurrence of the U.S. Air Force when such activity does not impair or damage

natural or cultural resources or interfere with military operations (RR-6).

● Establish ERMA and implement appropriate management actions to facilitate compatible

recreation use of each ERMA. (RR-10).

● Survey sites for primitive or undeveloped campgrounds in the ERMA (RR-13).

● Allow camping on all lands open to the public in accordance with standard operating

procedures for camping on public lands, permit self-contained or vehicle-based camping

within 50 feet of designated or established roads (RR-16).

● Allow campfires using dead and down wood (RR-17).

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

(Applicable to public lands in the Saddle Mountain area.)

● No new land will be acquired in this area (former Saddle Mountain Wilderness Study Area).

If Saddle Mountain is rejected as a wilderness area, no new roads will be allowed, but it will

be designated as a recreation and rock-hound area. (LGN-MFP-3-R-4.1)

Lower Gila Resource Management Amendment (2005)::

(Applicable to a portion of lands in the LSFO and all lands within the SDNM Planning Areas)

● Management of recreation opportunities and developments will be evaluated using two

inventory and management tools called the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). and

Visual Resource Management (RR-1).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 161

● Recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classifications will be reviewed, refined, and adopted

during interdisciplinary planning (RR-2).

● Four SRMAs are established (Ajo, Gila Trail, Saddle Mountain, and Vulture Mountains)

and one is revised (Sentinel Plain) (RR-19).

● The Gila Trail SRMA, to include lands surrounding the Gila Trail, the Butterfield Overland

Stage Route, the Anza National Historic Trail (NHT), the Southern Overland Trail, the

Mormon Battalion Trail, the Oatman Massacre Site, the Painted Rock Mountains, and

associated cultural and recreational features, is established (RR-26).

○ Facilities and maintenance to protect resource values and improve visitor safety and

recreational opportunities are authorized in areas classified as rural, roaded-natural, or

semi-primitive motorized (RR-27).

○ Single-use and multiple-use trails to meet the demand for hiking, equestrian, and mountain

biking opportunities will be developed (RR-28).

○ Surface-disturbing activities within one-quarter mile of historic and prehistoric trail

segments will be mitigated (RR-29).

○ All OHV routes will be inventoried and designated (RR-30).

○ Signing, regulations, and brochures will be provided as needed (RR-31).

● The Saddle Mountain SRMA, to include the public lands containing Saddle Mountain and

the Palo Verde Hills, is established to emphasize provision of geologic, cultural, and wildlife

interpretive sites; protection of the area's scenic landscapes and vistas; and promotion of

recreational opportunities (RR-32).

○ Facilities and maintenance to protect resource values and improve visitor safety and

recreational opportunities are authorized for the northern and northeastern portions of the

area (RR-33).

○ Single-use and multiple-use trails to meet the demand for hiking, equestrian, and mountain

biking opportunities will be developed (RR-34).

○ Signing, regulations, and brochures will be provided as needed (RR-35).

○ The southern and western portions of the area will be maintained as remote and mostly

undeveloped (RR-36).

● The Ajo SRMA, to include the entire Ajo Management Area, is established (RR-37).

○ Facilities and maintenance to protect resource values and improve visitor safety and

recreational opportunities are authorized (RR-38).

○ Single-use and multiple-use trails to meet the demand for hiking, equestrian, and mountain

biking opportunities will be developed (RR-39).

○ Signing, regulations, and brochures will be provided as needed (RR-40).

● The Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA is restricted to entry by permit only. Existing boundaries

may be adjusted through interdisciplinary planning to respond to changing land uses (RR-41).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
162 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

○ Existing prescriptions authorized by the Goldwater Amendment (BLM, 1990) will be

brought forward without change (RR-42).

○ Facilities and maintenance to protect resource values and improve recreational

opportunities and visitor safety are authorized (RR-43).

○ Single-use and multiple-use trails to meet the demand for hiking, equestrian, and mountain

biking opportunities will be evaluated (RR-44).

○ Signing, regulations, and brochures will be provided as needed (RR-45).

● Project level planning for the ERMA will be conducted on a case-by-case basis (RR-46).

○ Primitive facilities are authorized where needed for resource protection, visitor safety,

improvement of the recreation experience, or increasing recreational opportunities

(RR-47).

○ Camping locations, camping stay limits, OHV and special recreation vehicle use, and

utilization of the existing natural resources will be established (RR-48).

○ Long- and short-term camping areas, commercial or competitive OHV and special

recreation vehicle use areas, scenic turnouts, cultural interpretive sites, hiking, equestrian

or mountain bike trails, road and portal signage, and road maintenance will be evaluated

(RR-49).

○ A “designated routes only” OHV and special vehicle classification will be established

on a site-specific basis when needed for resource protection or to maintain consistency

with ROS classifications (RR-50).

● The existing 14-day camping stay limit and all associated policy will be maintained

throughout the Planning Area unless otherwise designated by the authorized officer or through

project planning. Areas may be closed for resource protection, rehabilitation, or to reduce

conflicts with other uses (RR-51).

● Camping facilities and length-of-stay limits may be established as prescribed below for

dispersed camping, long-term visitor areas, extended camping areas, and short-term camping

areas (RR-52).

● Self-contained or vehicle-based camping will be permitted within 50 feet of the centerline of

designated or existing routes. Cross-country travel to campsites is not permitted (RR-54).

● Trailhead facilities will be closed to overnight camping upon written approval of the field

manager (RR-55).

● Long-term visitor areas (LTVAs) will be defined on the ground with fences or signs. Each

LTVA will include designated roads, designated campsites, and amenities to support long-term

camping occupancy (RR-56).

● The following resource factors will be considered for implementation and development of

LTVAs (RR-57):

○ Permitted only in rural or roaded-natural ROS classes.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 163

○ Location on rocky or resilient soils.

○ Well-maintained ingress and egress routes.

○ Location within 30 miles of local community.

○ Location outside of Category I or II desert tortoise habitat.

○ Mitigation if located in Category III desert tortoise habitat.

○ Location with no cultural resource conflicts.

○ Location outside of burro HMAs.

○ Location of developments in a manner that “is not likely to adversely affect” threatened

or endangered species and their habitats.

○ Location outside of riparian areas.

○ Location outside of areas of critical environmental concern and wild and scenic river areas

● The following operating rules will be considered for LTVA development and use (RR-58):

○ Long term camping will be restricted to the term of the permit.

○ Long term camping will be restricted to designated sites.

○ Services may be provided by contract or local vendor, but the costs of services (firewood,

sanitation, trash, water, etc.) will be the responsibility of each occupant.

○ Users will be required to comply with all other LTVA regulations.

○ LTVA users must comply with all local, state and Federal laws.

○ LTVA supplementary rules may be enacted as needed.

● The following operating rules will be considered for extended camping area development

and use (RR-63):

○ Camping restricted to designated sites.

○ Services may be provided by contract or local vendor, but the costs of services (firewood,

sanitation, trash, water, etc.) will be the responsibility of each occupant.

○ Extended camping area visitors must comply with all local, state, and Federal laws.

○ Extended camping area supplementary rules may be enacted as needed.

● Other regulations and conditions for extended camping area use will be identified as required

during interdisciplinary project planning. If, during the planning process, the interdisciplinary

project planning team determines that modifications need to be made to the guidelines listed

above those modifications may be made without the need for a planning amendment. Other

regulations and conditions identified during ongoing operation of extended camping areas will

require public notification (RR-64).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
164 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Short-term camping areas will be designated only where such use promotes resource

protection and where all conflicts can be mitigated. Short-term camping areas will be defined

on the ground with fences or signs (RR-65).

● Interdisciplinary planning will evaluate short-term camping areas where historic use patterns

equate to this type of use, and potential new areas are identified that would be suitable for

short-term camping (RR-66).

● The following resource factors will be considered for implementation and development of

short-term camping areas (RR-67):

○ Primitive ingress and egress routes.

○ Location on rocky or resilient soils.

○ Mitigation if located in category I, II or III desert tortoise habitat.

○ Location with no cultural resource conflicts.

○ Location outside of burro HMAs.

○ Location of developments in a manner that “is not likely to adversely affect” threatened

or endangered species and their habitats.

○ Location outside of wildernesses.

○ Location outside of areas of critical environmental concern and wild and scenic river areas.

● The following operating rules will be considered for short-term camping area development

and use (RR-68):

○ Camping will be restricted to the terms and conditions of that campground.

○ Camping will be restricted to designated sites.

○ Services may be provided by contract or local vendor, but the costs of services (firewood,

sanitation, trash, water, etc.) will be the responsibility of each occupant.

○ Camping area users must comply with all local, state and Federal laws.

○ Specific supplementary rules may be enacted as needed.

● Other regulations and conditions for short-term camping area use will be identified as required

during interdisciplinary project planning. If, during the planning process, the interdisciplinary

project planning team determines that modifications need to be made to the guidelines listed

above those modifications may be made without the need for a planning amendment. Other

regulations and conditions identified during ongoing operation of short-term camping areas

will require public notification (RR-69).

● Interdisciplinary planning will evaluate and authorize development of special use areas within

the management areas (RR-70).

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 165

● Current management guidance for the Sonoran Desert National Monument is the same as for

current management guidance for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area (presented above),

except as modified by Presidential Proclamation 7397 as identified below.

● In order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent BGR and to continue

management practices that have resulted in an exceptionally well preserved natural resource,

the current procedures for public access to the portion of the Monument depicted as Area A

shall remain in full force and effect except to the extent that the U.S. Air Force agrees to

different procedures which the BLM determines are compatible with the protection of the

objects identified in this proclamation.

● Unauthorized persons cannot appropriate, injure, destroy, or remove any feature of this

Monument.

2.8.4.2. Action Alternatives for Recreation Management (RM)

Program Goals

To provide a diverse array of recreation settings, opportunities and experiences; manage recreation

activities and settings consistent with other resource goals; enhance recreation quality and reduce

conflicts amongst various users, the following goals were developed:

Lower Sonoran Decision Area:

● Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public

land resource values and responsive to visitor demand.

● Goal 2: Balance the provision of recreation opportunities and experiences with other resource

uses.

Sonoran Desert National Monument Decision Area:

● Goal 3: Recreation opportunities and experiences are derived from the objects and resource

values for which the SDNM was established.

Land Use Allocation Summary

Table 2.16. Recreation Management Area and Zone Allocations

Alternative (BLM Acres)

SRMA

B C D E

Lower Sonoran SRMAs

Ajo SRMA 177,800 174,800 - 177,800

132,500 155,300 - 155,700

42,800 19,800 - 20,200

Ajo Desert RMZ

Gateway RMZ

Gunsight Wash RMZ

2,500 2,500 - 2,500

Arlington Trails SRMA 60,600 - - 60,600

Buckeye Hills SRMA 47,900 47,900 47,900 47,900

East RMZ 25,800 25,800 25,800 25,800

West RMZ 22,100 22,100 22,100 22,100

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
166 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative (BLM Acres)

SRMA

B C D E

Gila Bend Mountains SRMA 253,800 314,800 - 259,800

Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA 52,300 52,300 52,300 52,300

Gila River RMZ 42,300 42,300 42,300 42,300

Painted Rock RMZ 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Painted Rock Mountains SRMA 41,300 - - -

Saddle Mountain SRMA 47,500 47,500 - 47,500

San Tan Mountains SRMA 6,800 - - -

Lower Sonoran ERMAs

San Tan Mountains ERMA - 6,800 6,800 6,800

Sentinel Plain Lava Flow ERMA 20,800 20,800 20,800 20,800

SDNM SRMA

Sonoran Desert SRMA 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400

Desert Back Country RMZ 433,600 433,600 - 433,600

Anza National Historic Trail RMZ 52,800 52,800 - 52,800

Management Actions and Allowable Uses by Alternative

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage at least one destination location or area to attract regional or national tourism demand.

Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA

LS B C D E RR-1.1.1: The Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA would be established

(52,300 acres), and would have a “Destination” primary strategy targeted to

a regional/national market. The BLM would invest in facilities and visitor

assistance, recognizing that national and regional visitors and constituents

value the SDNM as a recreation-tourism destination.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.2: The Gila River RMZ would be established (42,300 acres) for

regional and national visitors seeking to discover, tour, and learn about the

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, Arizona history, and natural

history of the Sonoran Desert.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.3: The Painted Rock RMZ would be established (10,000 acres) for

winter season camping, petroglyph viewing and interpretation of area history

and as a portal to cultural attractions of regional and national interest.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.4: Physical, social and administrative settings would be established as

100 percent front country for both RMZs.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Gila River RMZ

LS B C D E RR-1.1.5: When designated, the motor vehicle travel system would consist

primarily of primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, with up to 10 percent

of the route network (approximately 16 miles) maintained at level 5 to provide

two-wheel-drive passenger car access to public use cultural sites, day-use,

and camping facilities.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.6: Visitor and management infrastructure would respond to demand for

facilities and access to the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, Butterfield Overland

Stage Route and other high-intensity trail segments and cultural properties.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.7: Visitor and management infrastructure would generally be modest

in scope and scale, but may include fully developed facilities with paved

access, water, and sewer.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.8: Activities, vehicles, and group sizes would be limited to designated

sites and lengths of stay; types and speeds; and numbers as deemed necessary

to provide access in balance with conservation of natural and cultural resources.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 167

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C E RR-1.1.9: Facilities may be developed as needed for visitor use or public

safety at public use sites.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Painted Rock RMZ

LS B C D E RR-1.11: The Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and Campground would be

retained as a fee site per FLREA. Camping would remain limited to designated

campsites. Fees would be adjusted or established as needed to meet business

plan objectives.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.12: The designated travel system would consist of roads suitable for

two-wheel drive maintained at levels three to five. Routes away from the

immediate vicinity of the Painted Rock Campground Petroglyph Site would

be maintained at levels one to three.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.13: At Painted Rock Campground, the camping-stay limit would be

14 days except Oct. 1 to April 30, when the stay limit would be increased to

90 days provided the campground does not remain at 100 percent capacity for

three (3) consecutive nights. If this limit is reached, the 14 day limit will be

placed into effect for the remainder of the fiscal year.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.14: Public lands adjacent to Painted Rock Petroglyph Campground

(T4S, R7W, Sections 30-32; T4S, R8W, Sections 13, 14, 24, 25; T5S, R7W,

Sections 5-8, 17, 20; and T5S, R8W, Sections 1-3, 10-12; approximately

10,000 acres) would remain closed to camping and motorized access.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.15: The Painted Rock Petroglyph Campground and public use site

(approximately 300 acres) would be closed to all locatable minerals exploration

and development, geophysical exploration, and mineral material sales. Public

lands would be recommended for withdrawal to all mineral location and entry.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.16: Public lands adjacent to Painted Rock Petroglyph Campground

(T4S, R7W, Sections 30-32; T4S, R8W, Sections 13, 14, 24, 25; T5S, R7W,

Sections 5-8, 17, 20; and T5S, R8W, Sections 1-3, 10-12; approximately

10,000 acres) would be closed to seismic exploration and mineral material

sales.

LS B C D E RR-1.1.17: The Painted Rock Petroglyph Campground and surrounding area

(approximately 10,000 acres) would remain open to all non-renewable leasable

minerals actions (including geothermal and sodium), but any lease would

contain a No surface occupancy stipulation

Objective 1.2: In areas with recreation-dependant economies, manage recreation resources

in cooperation with local communities.

Ajo SRMA (Alternatives B, C and E)

LS B C E RR-1.2.1: The Ajo SRMA would be established (177,800 acres) with a

“Community” market strategy. The market is local and seasonal residents

who use this rural southwest Arizona locale as a gateway to public lands,

other Federal lands and Mexico.

LS B C E RR-1.2.2: The Ajo Desert RMZ would be established (155,500 acres) for self

directed opportunities for motorized and non-motorized exploration of the

Sonoran Desert.

LS B C E RR-1.2.3: For the Ajo Desert RMZ, the physical, social and administrative

settings would be 14 percent front country, 3 percent passage and 83 percent

back country.

LS B C E RR-1.2.4: The Gateway RMZ would be established (19,900 acres) for local

attractions and opportunities that highlight the surrounding public lands.

LS B C E RR-1.2.5: For the Gateway RMZ, the physical, social and administrative

settings would be 100 percent community interface.

LS B C E RR-1.2.6: The Gunsight Wash RMZ would be established (2,500 acres) for

remote winter camping and portal to adjacent public lands.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
168 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C E RR-1.2.7: For the Gunsight Wash RMZ, the physical, social and administrative

settings would be 100 percent front country.

LS D In Alternative D, recreation of the Ajo Block would be managed as an ERMA;

seeRR-2.1.1.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Ajo Desert RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.2.8: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 1 to 3. Major access roads and pullouts could be

maintained at level 5.

LS B C E RR — 1.2.9: A maximum camping stay would be established of seven days

per party. Persons may occupy any one site or multiple sites within a 25 mile

radius on public lands not closed or otherwise restricted to camping for a total

period of not more than seven (7) days within a 28 day period. When the seven

(7) day limit has been reached, the party must move 25 miles from site of last

occupation, or off of public land. The authorized officer may give written

permission for extension of the seven (7) day limit.

LS B C E RR-1.2.10: Competitive motorized speed events would not be authorized.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Gateway RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.2.11: The designated travel system would predominately consist of roads

suitable for two wheel drive maintained at levels 1 to 3, with up to 5 percent

(6 to 9 miles) of the route network maintained at level 5 to provide access for

dispersed camping and motorized sightseeing and hiking opportunities.

LS B C E RR-1.2.12: Visitor and management infrastructure would generally be

moderate in scope and scale, but may include developed facilities which would

include a system of primitive roads and trails that meet the desired recreation

setting.

LS B C E RR-1.2.13: A 40-acre open area to accommodate motorized opportunities,

such as unrestricted motocross bike riding, would be established with the

provision that local partners would be sought to monitor and provide on-site

management and educate users in environmental stewardship.

LS B C E RR-1.2.14: The Ajo Scenic Loop road would be established to interpret and

educate local and seasonal visitors on adjacent public lands with the provision

that local partners would be sought to monitor and provide on-site management

and educate users in environmental stewardship.

LS B C E RR-1.2.15: Competitive motorized speed events would be authorized in the

40-acre open area.

LS B C E RR-1.2.16: The 40-acre open use motocross site would be closed to mineral

material sales and recommended for withdrawal from mineral location.

LS B C E RR-1.2.17: The 40-acre open use motocross site would remain open to all

non-renewable leasable minerals actions, but any lease would contain a No

Surface Occupancy stipulation with no exceptions, waivers, or modifications

geothermal resources and sodium.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Gunsight Wash RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.2.18: The Gunsight Wash area (T14S, R5W, Sections 2-4 and 9-11;

approximately 2,500 acres) would be developed as a managed campground.

Camping would be limited to designated sites. Fees could be established

as needed per the FLREA to meet objectives that would be addressed in a

subsequent activity/business plan.

LS B RR-1.2.19: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads suitable for two-wheel-drive access for RVs with at least 90 percent (8

miles) maintained at levels 3 to 5 to provide access for dispersed camping and

motorized sightseeing and hiking opportunities.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 169

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B RR-1.2.20: At the Gunsight Wash Campground, the camping stay limit would

be 14 days except during October 1 – April 30 when the stay limit would be

increased to 120 days provided the campground does not remain at 100 percent

capacity for three (3) consecutive nights. If this limit is reached the 14-day

limit will be placed into effect for the remainder of the fiscal year.

LS B C E RR-1.2.21: The Gunsight Wash Campground would be closed to locatable

minerals exploration and development, geophysical exploration, and mineral

material sales. Public lands would be recommended for withdrawal to all

mineral location and entry.

LS B C E RR-1.2.22: The Gunsight Wash Campground would remain open to all

non-renewable leasable minerals but any lease would contain a No Surface

Occupancy stipulation.

LS B C E RR-1.2.23: Controlled access, such as a center turning lane on Highway 85,

would be secured with ADOT.

LS B RR-1.2.24: Standard and expanded amenity infrastructure would be provided.

LS C E RR-1.2.25: At the Gunsight Wash Campground, the camping stay limit would

be 14 days except during October 1 – April 30 when the stay limit would be

increased to 60 days provided the campground does not remain at 100 percent

capacity for three (3) consecutive nights. If this limit is reached the 14-day

limit will be placed into effect for the remainder of the fiscal year.

LS C E RR-1.2.26: Infrastructure would be limited to standard amenities.

LS C E RR-1.2.27: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads suitable for two-wheel-drive access for RVs with at least 40 percent (4

miles) maintained at levels 3 to 5 to provide access for dispersed camping and

motorized sightseeing and hiking opportunities.

Buckeye Hills SRMA

LS B C D E RR-1.2.28: The Buckeye Hills SRMA would be established (47,900 acres)

with a “Community” market strategy for residents of western Maricopa County.

LS B RR-1.2.29: The Buckeye Hills East RMZ would be established (25,800

acres) with an emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities adjacent to the

communities of Buckeye, Avondale and Goodyear.

LS C E RR-1.2.30: The Buckeye Hills East RMZ would be established (25,800 acres)

for a balanced mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities

adjacent to the communities of Buckeye, Avondale and Goodyear.

D RR-1.2.31: The Buckeye Hills East RMZ would be established (25,800 acres)

with an emphasis on non-motorized recreation opportunities adjacent to the

communities of Buckeye, Avondale, and Goodyear.

LS B E RR-1.2.32: The physical, social, and administrative settings for the Buckeye

Hills East RMZ would be 100 percent community interface.

LS C D RR-1.2.33: The physical, social, and administrative settings for the Buckeye

Hills East RMZ would be 100 percent front country.

LS B C E RR-1.2.34: The Buckeye Hills West RMZ would be established (22,100

acres) for dispersed recreational opportunities adjacent to the Buckeye Hills

Recreation Area Regional County Park and the nearby Robbins Butte State

Wildlife Area. The RMZ would be managed in partnership with Maricopa

County and Arizona Game and Fish Department.

LS D RR-1.2.35: The Buckeye Hills West RMZ would be established (22,100 acres)

for dispersed recreational opportunities and would be managed by the BLM in

cooperation with Maricopa County and Arizona Game and Fish Department.

LS B E RR-1.2.36: Physical, social and administrative settings for the Buckeye Hills

West RMZ would be 100 percent front country.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
170 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS C E RR-1.2.37: Physical, social and administrative settings for the Buckeye Hills

West RMZ would be 40 percent front country, 58 percent back country and 2

percent passage zone.

LS D RR-1.2.38: Physical, social and administrative settings for the Buckeye Hills

West RMZ would be 96 percent back country and 4 percent passage zone.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Buckeye Hills East RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.2.39: The RMZ would be established as a Special Management

Area (SMA) and an Individual Special Recreation Permit (ISRP) program

may be established to allow for special management and protection of the

SMA in partnership with Maricopa County and the Arizona Game and Fish

Department. Through a Cooperative Management Agreement, partners may be

authorized to share in the collection and management of fees.

LS B C E RR-1.2.40: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 1 to 3. Access roads could be maintained at level 5.

LS B RR-1.2.41: Up to six staging/parking areas may be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic tables, and fire rings (up to

30 acres). Up to two large staging areas could be developed not to exceed

10 acres each.

LS C E RR-1.2.42: Up to six staging/parking areas may be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic tables, and fire rings (up to 30

acres). One large staging area could be developed not to exceed 10 acres.

LS D RR-1.2.43: Up to four staging/parking areas may be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic tables, and fire rings (up

to 20 acres).

LS B C D E RR-1.2.44: Vehicle-based camping would be limited to existing or designated

sites.

LS B C E RR-1.2.45: Primitive roads or trails, especially connector and loop routes,

would be developed for a diversity of users

LS D RR-1.2.46: Up to 50 percent of the primitive roads (approximately 63 miles)

would be converted to non-motorized trails. Trails could be developed to

provide connector and loop opportunities for non-motorized users.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Buckeye Hills West RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.2.47: The RMZ would be established as a Special Management

Area (SMA) and an Individual Special Recreation Permit (ISRP) program

may be established to allow for special management and protection of the

SMA in partnership with Maricopa County and the Arizona Game and Fish

Department. Through a Cooperative Management Agreement, partners may be

authorized to share in the collection and management of fees.

LS B C E RR-1.2.48: Fees may be established as needed to meet activity or business

plan objectives in accordance with the FLREA.

LS B C E RR-1.2.49: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 1 to 3.

LS B C E RR-1.2.50: Primitive roads or trails, especially connector and loop routes,

would be developed for a diversity of users.

LS C E RR-1.2.51: Overnight camping would be prohibited unless specifically

authorized.

LS D RR-1.2.52: An SMA and ISRP program would not be established.

LS D RR-1.2.53: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

primitive roads maintained at level 1.

Saddle Mountain SRMA (Alternatives B, C and E)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 171

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B C E RR-1.2.54: The Saddle Mountain SRMA would be established (47,500 acres)

with a “Community” market strategy for the community market strategy for

residents of Maricopa County.

LS B RR-1.2.55: The Saddle Mountain RMZ would be established (47,500 acres)

for motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities.

LS B RR-1.2.56: For the Saddle Mountain RMZ, the physical, social and

administrative settings would be 5 percent community interface, 83 percent

front country, 10 percent back country and 1 percent passage.

LS C E RR-1.2.57: The Saddle Mountain RMZ would be established (47,500 acres)

for non-motorized recreation opportunities.

LS C RR-1.2.58: For the Saddle Mountain RMZ, the physical, social and

administrative settings would be 0 percent community interface, 54 percent

front country, 45 percent back country and 1 percent passage.

LS E RR-1.2.59: For the Saddle Mountain RMZ, the physical, social and

administrative settings would be 5 percent community interface, 83 percent

front country, 11 percent back country and 1 percent passage.

LS D RR-1.2.60: In Alternative D, recreation for Saddle Mountain would be

managed as an ERMA; see RR-2.1.1.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses for Saddle Mountain RMZ

LS B RR-1.2.61: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3 with up to 5 percent maintained at

level 5 (approximately 5 miles) to provide access for motorized recreation

opportunities.

LS C E RR-1.2.62: The designated travel system would emphasize primitive access to

non-motorized trail opportunities. Roads would predominately be maintained

at level 1 with up to 10 percent maintained at level 3 (approximately 9 miles).

LS B RR-1.2.63: Primitive roads and trails would be developed to provide

sustainable opportunities for motorized and non-motorized trail opportunities.

LS C E RR-1.2.64: Non-motorized trails would be developed, or converted from

motorized roads, to meet demand for hiking, equestrian, and mountain biking.

Primitive roads would only be developed if needed to redirect motorized use

from the Saddle Mountain.

LS C E RR-1.2.65: Vehicle-based camping would be limited to existing or designated

sites.

LS C E RR-1.2.66: SRPs would not be authorized for motorized or non-motorized

competitive events.

LS C E RR-1.2.67: Motorized technical and specialized uses, such as rock-crawling

and rock-hopping, would be prohibited.

San Tan Mountains SRMA

LS B RR-1.2.68: The San Tan Mountains SRMA would be established (6,800 acres)

with a “Community” market strategy. The market is residents and visitors to

Pinal and eastern Maricopa counties.

LS B RR-1. 2.69: The San Tan Mountains RMZ would be established (6,800 acres)

for non-motorized trails and associated outdoor recreation activities.

LS B RR-1.2.70: For the San Tan Mountains RMZ, the physical, social and

administrative settings would be 69 percent front country and 31 percent back

country.

LS D RR-1.2.71: In Alternatives D, recreation for San Tan Mountains would be

managed as an ERMA; see RR-2.1.1.

San Tan Mountains RMZ

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
172 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B RR-1.2.72: The RMZ would be established as a Special Management Area

(SMA) and an Individual Special Recreation Permit (ISRP) program would

be established to allow for special management and protection of the SMA

in partnership with Maricopa and Pinal Counties. Through a Cooperative

Management Agreement, partners would be authorized to share in the

collection and management of fees.

LS B RR-1.2.73: Fees would be established as needed to meet activity or business

plan objectives in accordance with the FLREA.

LS B RR-1.2.74: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 3 to 5 based on visitor expectations.

Objective 1.3: Manage 70 percent or more of the Lower Sonoran Planning Area recreation opportunities dependent

on vast, open and undeveloped public lands.

Gila Bend Mountains SRMA

LS B E RR-1.3.1: The Gila Bend Mountains SRMA would be established (253,800

acres), and would have an “Undeveloped” primary strategy targeted to

desert explorers from western Maricopa County. To better manage dispersed

recreation opportunities the BLM may provide major investments in visitor

services however investments in visitor facilities would be minor.

LS C RR-1.3.2: The Gila Bend Mountains SRMA would be established (314,300

acres), and would have an “Undeveloped” primary strategy targeted to

desert explorers from western Maricopa County. To better manage dispersed

recreation opportunities the BLM may provide major investments in visitor

services however investments in visitor facilities would be minor.

LS B E RR-1.3.3: The Gila Bend Mountains RMZ would be established (253,700

acres) for visitors primarily seeking non-motorized dispersed recreation

experiences in a remote back country setting.

LS C RR-1.3.4: The Gila Bend Mountains RMZ would be established (314,300

acres) for visitors primarily seeking non-motorized dispersed recreation

experiences in a remote back country setting.

LS B C E RR-1.3.5: Physical, social and administrative settings would be established,

with 15 percent front country, 82 percent back country, and 3 percent passage.

LS D RR-1.3.6: In Alternative D, recreation for the Gila Bend Mountains would be

managed as an ERMA; see RR-2.1.1.

Gila Bend Mountains RMZ

LS B C E RR-1.3.7: To provide a rugged primitive motorized experience, 90 percent of

the designated motor vehicle travel system (324 – 465 miles) would consist of

primitive roads maintained at level 1, but up to 3 percent (11-16 miles) could

be maintained at level 3-5 to allow for two-wheel-drive access.

LS B C E RR-1.3.8: Standard camping amenities, interpretive displays, and improved

access would be constructed at the Sundad public use site to facilitate visitation.

LS B C E RR-1.3.9: Areas of disturbance greater than 2 acres would be rehabilitated

back to natural condition and group limits may be established to prevent

further resource degradation.

Arlington SRMA

LS B E RR-1.3.10: The Arlington SRMA would be established (60,600 acres), and

would have a “Destination” primary strategy targeted to visitors primarily

seeking dispersed motorized recreation or a family oriented riding experience

in a remote Sonoran desert landscape.

LS B E RR-1.3.11: The Arlington RMZ would be established (60,600) for visitors

primarily seeking dispersed motorized recreation or a family oriented riding

experience in a remote Sonoran desert landscape.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 173

Goal 1: Provide quality recreation opportunities and experiences that are derived from public land resource

values and responsive to visitor demand.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS B E RR-1.3.12: Physical, social and administrative settings for the Arlington RMZ

would be comprised of 100 percent front country.

Arlington RMZ

LS B E RR-1.3.13: The designated motor vehicle travel system would consist of

primitive roads maintained at level 1 with up to 10 percent of the network (19

miles) maintained at level 3 and up to 30 percent (60 miles) maintained at level

5 to allow for two-wheel-drive access.

LS B E RR-1.3.14: Up to 25 miles of new roads may be constructed as needed to

connect loop routes to provide opportunities for a family riding experience.

Existing roads could be re-aligned to improve resource management or public

safety.

LS B E RR-1.3.15: Up to two staging areas would be developed with standard amenity

facilities and limited to a maximum of 10 acres each.

Painted Rock Mountains SRMA

LS B RR-1.3.16: The Painted Rock Mountains SRMA would be established

(approximately 41,300 acres), and would have an “Undeveloped” primary

market strategy targeted to the local/regional communities. The BLM

would invest in visitor services but make minimal investment in facilities,

recognizing that visitors value recreational opportunities of the Painted Rock

Mountains that are produced by the vast undeveloped and remote character

of the landscape.

LS B RR-1.3.18: Physical, social and administrative settings would be established

with front country comprising 100 percent of the SRMA.

LS B RR-1.3.19: The designated motor vehicle travel system would consist

primarily of primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, but up to 5 percent of

the route network could be maintained at level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive

passenger car access to public use cultural sites, day-use, and camping

facilities.

LS B RR-1.3.20: One parking / staging area, not exceeding five acres in size, would

be constructed.

LS C D E RR-1.3.21: In Alternatives C, D, and E, recreation for Painted Rock Mountains

would be managed as an ERMA; see RR-2.1.1.

Goal 2: Balance the provision of recreation opportunities and experiences with other resource uses.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Upon entry to the LSFO area, 75 percent of visitors will become aware they are on public lands and

95 percent of visitors will be satisfied with their recreation opportunities and experiences.

LS D RR-2.1.1: Recreation of the Ajo, Gila Bend Mountains, Arlington, Painted

Rock Mountains, and Saddle Mountain areas would be managed as an ERMA.

Recreation opportunities and amenities would not be proactively managed and

developed except in the case of conflict with other resource uses.(for example

a campground would not be developed at Gunsight Wash unless a biological

opinion indicated continued dispersed camping was harming a priority wildlife

species)

LS C E RR-2.1.2: The San Tan Mountains area would be managed for recreation

resources by Maricopa County.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.3: The Sentinel Plain area would be established and managed as a

special management area within an ERMA. Access to the area would require

the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range entry and public safety permit (for

the BLM, these are managed as Individual Special Recreation Permit.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
174 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 2: Balance the provision of recreation opportunities and experiences with other resource uses.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

LS D RR-2.1.4: The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 1 to 3. Major access roads and pullouts could be

maintained at level 5.

LS D RR-2.1.5: Public lands within the Cuerda de Lena ACEC near Ajo would be

closed to public access for all recreation uses including SRPs, during March 15

– July 15 or as determined by the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team.

General Recreation Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Camping

LS B C D E RR-2.1.6: Camping on all lands open to the public would be allowed in

accordance with 43 CFR 8365.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.7: Except as otherwise provided, camping would continue to be

limited to no more than a period of 14 days within any period of 28 consecutive

days and, after the 14th day of occupation, the camper would be required to

move outside of at least a 25-mile radius of the previous location until the 29th

day since initial occupation.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.8: Self-contained or vehicle-based camping would be permitted within

100 feet of the centerline of designated or existing routes. Cross-country travel

to campsites would not be permitted.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.9: LTVAs would not be allocated.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.10: Camping facilities and length-of-stay limits may be developed and

adjusted to sustain the prescribed settings and attain the desired objectives of

the RMA(s) for dispersed camping, extended camping areas, and short-term

camping areas.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.11: Collection of saguaro cacti skeletons for personal use or campfire

burning would be prohibited.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.12: Collection of dead, downed and detached ironwood and mesquite

for any use would be limited to three pieces at any one time unless otherwise

restricted.

LS D RR-2.1.13: Collection of firewood would be prohibited at developed

recreation sites.

Target Shooting

LS B C D E RR-2.1.14: Discharge of firearms would be allowed on BLM public lands

except as specifically restricted in this land use plan or prohibited by state law.

This activity may be restricted or prohibited in specific areas where public

safety and resource conflicts exist.

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs)

LS B C D E RR-2.1.15: At the discretion of the authorized officer, special recreation

permits (SRPs) would be authorized on a case-by-case basis as outlined

in 43 CFR 2930.5. See Appendix R, Benefits Based Recreation

Worksheets (p. 1295) for general permit guidance.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.16: Certified weed-free feed would be required for all equestrian and

stock animal uses authorized under SRPs.

LS B C D E RR-2.1.17: Except as otherwise provided, motorized competitive speed events

would not be permitted.

Paintball Activities

LS B C E RR-2.1.18: Paintball activities would not be allowed in WA’s, ACECs and

SRMAs. Paintball activities will be allowed beyond 0.25 miles of any

established facility or site, campground, residence, trailhead, road, staging

area, Special Designation and other areas as posted. Paintball activities would

be restricted in accordance with any applicable local and state law.

LS D RR-2.1.19: Paintball activities would be prohibited.

Geocaching Activities

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 175

Goal 2: Balance the provision of recreation opportunities and experiences with other resource uses.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

LS B C E RR-2.1.20: An SRP would not be required if the geocaching activity is

non-commercial, complies with land use decisions and designations, does not

award cash prizes, is not publicly advertised, poses minimal risk for damage

to public land or related water resource values, and generally requires no

monitoring.

LS D RR-2.1.21: Geocache activities would be prohibited.

Goal 3: Recreation opportunities and experiences are derived from the objects and resource values for which the

SDNM was established.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Upon entry to the SDNM, all visitors realize they are in an important natural and historic landscape.

Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) SRMA

SDNM B C E RR-3.1.1: The SDNM SRMA would be established (approximately 486,400

acres) and would have a “Destination” primary market strategy targeted to

a regional/national market. The BLM would invest in facilities and visitor

assistance, recognizing that national and regional visitors and constituents

value the SDNM as a recreation-tourism destination.

SDNM B C E RR-3.1.2: The Anza NHT RMZ would be established within the SDNM

SRMA (approximately 52,800 acres). This management zone would be

directed at visitors seeking to discover, tour, and learn about the Anza National

Historic Trail, Arizona history, and natural history of the Sonoran Desert.

SDNM B C E RR-3.1.3: A “desert back country” RMZ would be established within the

SDNM SRMA (approximately 433,600 acres). This management zone would

be directed at visitors seeking an undeveloped, back country experience with

resource-dependent activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, sightseeing,

and four-wheel-drive touring.

SDNM D RR-3.1.4: The SDNM would be established as a SRMA (approximately

486,400 acres) and would have an “Undeveloped” primary market strategy

targeted to a regional/national market. The BLM would invest in visitor

assistance but make only minimal investments in facilities, recognizing that

national and regional visitors and constituents value recreational opportunities

of the SDNM that are produced by the vast, undeveloped, and remote character

of the landscape.

SDNM D RR-3.1.5: Separate zones of management for the Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail and remainder of the SDNM would not be established.

The SDNM SRMA would be managed in its entirety as a RMZ for visitors

seeking an undeveloped, back country experience along a historic trail, and for

resource-dependent activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, sightseeing,

and four-wheel-drive touring.

SDNM B RR-3.1.6: Physical, social and administrative settings would be established

for the Anza National Historic Trail RMZ, with front country comprising

approximately 27 percent, back country 72 percent, and passage 1 percent.

SDNM C RR-3.1.7: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Anza National Historic Trail RMZ, with front country comprising

approximately 31 percent, back country 67 percent, and passage 2 percent.

SDNM E RR-3.1.8: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Anza National Historic Trail RMZ, with front country comprising

approximately 45 percent, back country 55 percent, and passage 1 percent.

SDNM B RR-3.1.9: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Desert back country RMZ, with front country comprising approximately

16 percent, back country 84 percent, and passage 3 percent.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
176 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 3: Recreation opportunities and experiences are derived from the objects and resource values for which the

SDNM was established.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

SDNM C RR-3.1.10: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Desert back country RMZ, with front country comprising approximately

9 percent, back country 91 percent, and passage 3 percent.

SDNM E RR-3.1.11: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Desert back country RMZ, with front country comprising approximately

13 percent, back country 87 percent, and passage 2 percent.

SDNM D RR-3.1.12: Physical, social, and administrative settings would be established

for the Sonoran Desert National Monument RMZ, with front country

comprising approximately 8 percent of the SRMA. The back country setting

would comprise approximately 92 percent and passage 2 percent of the

remainder of the Monument.

Anza National Historic Trail RMZ

SDNM B C E RR-3.1.11: The motor vehicle travel system would consist primarily of

primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, but up to 20 percent of the route

network would be maintained at level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive passenger

car access to public use cultural sites, day-use, and camping facilities.

Desert Back Country RMZ

SDNM B C E RR-3.1.12: The motor vehicle travel system would consist primarily of

primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, but up to 5 percent of the route

network would be maintained at level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive passenger

car access to public use cultural sites, day-use, and camping facilities.

Sonoran Desert National Monument RMZ

SDNM D RR-3.1.13: The designated motor vehicle travel system would consist entirely

of primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3. Maintenance would not be

provided for two-wheel-drive passenger car access.

Objective 3.2: Impacts to Monument objects resulting from recreation use do not exceed 2001 levels.

General Recreation Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Camping and Facilities

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.1: Unless otherwise regulated, camping length-of-stay is limited to no

more than 14 days within any period of 28 consecutive days. After the 14th

day of occupation, the camper would be required to move at least 25 miles

from the previous location.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.2: Collection of native vegetation as firewood would be prohibited in

front country and passage settings.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.3: Visitor and management infrastructure would be constructed and

maintained to achieve the primary market strategy and outcome objective(s).

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.4: Visitor and management infrastructure would be constructed and

maintained to accommodate visitation in balance with protection of Monument

objects; would be modest in scope and scale; and would be designed to blend

with the dominant features of the landscape.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.5: Visitor and management infrastructure would be placed on

non-Monument lands, where possible.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.6: Activities, vehicles, and group sizes would be limited to designated

sites and lengths of stay; types and speeds; and numbers as deemed necessary

to protect Monument objects.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.7: The designated non-motorized travel system would consist

primarily of existing vehicle routes; however, construction of short segments

of new vehicle routes to provide experience opportunities consistent with the

outcome objective(s) of management zones would be allowed.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.8: Standards for the management of recreation impacts to objects

of the SDNM will be established and monitored by the limits of acceptable

change (LAC) method.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 177

Goal 3: Recreation opportunities and experiences are derived from the objects and resource values for which the

SDNM was established.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternatives

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Special Recreation Permits (SRPs)

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.9: At the discretion of the authorized officer, SRPs would be

authorized on a case-by-case basis as outlined in 43 CFR 2930.5 as well as

the decisions below and as described in Appendix Q, Recreation Settings and

Descriptions (p. 1285).

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.10: Competitive motor sports would not be allowed in the SDNM

SRMA.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.11: Organized groups numbering greater than 25 participants will

require a special recreation permit.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.12: To assure protection of Monument objects, permits will not be

issued for organized groups of more than 200 participants at one site.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.13: All commercial, other competitive, and vendor activities would be

permitted on a case-by-case basis if Monument objects are protected.

SDNM B C E RR-3.2.14: A SRP is not required for geocaching if the activity is not

commercial, complies with land use decisions and designations, does not award

cash prizes, is not publicly advertised, poses minimal risk for damage to public

land or related water resource values, and generally requires no monitoring.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.15: Certified weed-free feed would be required for all equestrian and

stock animal uses authorized under SRPs.

SDNM B C D E RR-3.2.16: The Sand Tanks Mountains area of the SDNM commonly known

as “Area A” would continue to be managed as a special management area that

requires a Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range entry and public safety permit

for access (for the BLM, these are managed as Individual Special Recreation

Permit).

Paintball Activities

SDNM B C E RR-3.2.17: Paintball activities would be prohibited on the SDNM.

Geocaching Activities

SDNM D RR-2.1.18: Geocache activities would be prohibited on the SDNM.

Recreation Management Implementation Actions for the SDNM

Recreational Target Shooting

SDNM B RR-3.2.18: Recreational target shooting would be prohibited on approximately

389,989 acres, or 80.2 percent, of the SDNM determined to be unsuitable for

this activity due to a prevalence of Monument objects. Recreational target

shooting would continue on approximately 96,411 acres, or 19.8 percent, of

the SDNM where Monument objects are not prevalent. Hunting would be

allowed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws. See Map

2–13b and Appendix G, Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreational

Target Shooting Analysis (p. 1183).

SDNM C RR-3.2.19: Recreational target shooting would be prohibited on approximately

485,264 acres, or 99.8 percent, of the SDNM determined to be unsuitable for

continued recreational target shooting. Recreational target shooting would

continue in five areas totaling 1,136 acres, or 0.2 percent, of the SDNM where

it was found to be potentially moderately or highly suitable. Hunting would be

allowed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws. (See Map

2–13c and Appendix G, Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreational

Target Shooting Analysis (p. 1183).)

SDNM D E RR-3.2.20: Recreational target shooting would not be allowed in the SDNM

SRMA. Hunting would be allowed in accordance with applicable federal,

state and local laws.

Allocation Summaries

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
178 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Summaries of allocations, by market strategy and setting character, of SRMAs and ERMAs for

the Planning Areas are shown in Table 2.17, “Recreation Allocations by Decision Area for LSFO

and SDNM” (p. 178) and Table 2.18, “Recreation Settings by Decision Area” (p. 178). While

existing land use plans allocated public lands to SRMAs (Alternative A), these allocations were

not made to specific market strategies and thus are described as “undefined.”

Table 2.17. Recreation Allocations by Decision Area for LSFO and SDNM

Recreation

Market Strategy

Alternative (BLM Acres)

A B C D E

LSFO

Undefined

SRMA

285,000 (30%) - - - -

Destination 0 112,900 (12%) 52,300 (6%) 52,300 (6%) 112,900 (12%)

Community 0 280,000 (30%) 273,200 (29%) 47,900 (5%) 273,200 (29%)

Undeveloped 0 253,700 (27%) 314,300 (34%) - 253,700 (27%)

ERMA 645,200 (70%) 283,600 (31%) 290,400 (31%) 830,000 (89% 290,400 (31%)

SDNM

Undefined

SRMA

146,600 (30%) - - - -

Destination - 486,400 (100%) 486,400 (100%) - 486,400 (100%)

Undeveloped - - - 486,400 (100%) -

ERMA 339,800 (70%) - - - -

Table 2.18. Recreation Settings by Decision Area

Alternative (BLM Acres)

Setting

B C D E

LSFO

Community Interface 71,300 (9%) 19,900 (3%) - 48,600 (8%)

Front Country 263,300 (34%) 186,300 (29%) 78,100 (78%) 244,000 (38%)

Back Country 347,200 (45%) 423,100 (66%) 21,600 (22%) 345,100 (53%)

Passage 98,000 (13%) 11,000 (2%) 500 (0.005%) 8,800 (1%)

SDNM

Community Interface - - - -

Front Country 107,200 (22%) 55,500 (11%) 39,000 (8%) 78,700 (16%)

Back Country 377,600 (78%) 429,000 (88%) 446,200 (92%) 406,500 (84%)

Passage 1,600 (2%) 1,600 (3%) 1,300 (2%) 1,200 (2%)

Administrative Actions

● Coordinate with partners and nearby land owners/managers to develop joint campgrounds on

and off public lands to provide for public camping needs.

● Develop partnerships and volunteer opportunities with local clubs, organizations, and

communities to maintain and monitor routes, recreation sites, and other areas.

● Develop brochures, maps, and information sheets to disseminate recreation use information to

the public

● Coordinate with adjoining landowners; Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties; and local

communities to enhance visitor and resident safety, improve resource protection, and manage

recreation use and access that is compatible with protecting resources.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 179

● Plan, designate, and develop recreation areas, routes, trails, tours, and management strategies

through interdisciplinary plans with community and user input. Project plans will establish

use indicators and standards for monitoring and evaluation. All development must be

compatible with SRMAs, RMZs, VRM classes, and resource management objectives. Areas

may be developed as needed for the following purposes:

○ Protecting resources,

○ Improving visitor safety,

○ Maintaining desired recreational setting and experiences.

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

● Coordinate with partners and nearby land owners/managers to develop regional shooting

ranges outside the SDNM boundaries to support concentrated recreational target-shooting

activities.

● Coordinate with partners and nearby land owners/managers to develop joint campgrounds

outside the SDNM boundaries to provide for public camping needs.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Recreation Management (RM)
180 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.8.5. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT (TM)

Comprehensive travel management (TM) strives to provide manageable access to public lands

while balancing resource protection. The allocation of areas as open, closed or limited to OHV,

also described as “off-road vehicles” in 43 CFR 8340-8342, directs the management approach

for vehicular travel on public lands. Implementation-level actions such as designating routes as

part of a planned network help create a balance between human use and resource protection.

Administrative uses of vehicles such as military, fire, or police actions are expressly defined as not

being an off-road vehicle and are therefore exempt from vehicle regulations 43 CFR 8342.

Open-area allocation, where cross-country travel is allowed, is largely unused in central Arizona

due to resource constraints presented by efforts to protect Sonoran Desert Tortoise, other wildlife

disturbance; and concerns about public safety, such as those presented by abandoned mines.

Several policies issued by national and Arizona State Office BLM direct local offices to be

sensitive to resources/resource uses that may be affected by route designation. These policies

include direction to:

● Complete route designation within 5 years of RMP completion (BLM Land Use Planning

Handbook 1600-1).

● Follow archaeological and biological policies to ensure land health and compliance with

protection laws. Specifically, IM-2007-030 and State manual supplements address National

Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance for archaeological survey requirements

where the Federal action of designating the route network would have an effect on cultural

resources.

● Not designate routes within wilderness study areas or lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Specifically, IM 2009-132 addresses the designation of routes in these areas,

indicating that routes will not be designated as roads, trails or primitive roads and would

remain as “routes” with no maintenance requirements compiled by the BLM’s Facilities and

Asset Management System (FAMS) for future funding or specific management would occur.

● Implement travel management (IM-2008-014) by addressing all routes, motorized and

non-motorized, for designation for public or administrative use.

● Designate transportation assets as roads, primitive roads, and trails using the

travel-management process (IM 2006-014). (See Appendix U, Definition of Transportation

Asset Type, Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity (p. 1321)).

In this plan, the inventoried routes in the SDNM would be the basis for transportation assets

designations as roads, primitive roads, or trails as defined in Appendix U, Definition of

Transportation Asset Type, Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity (p. 1321). Routes in the

Lower Sonoran Decision Area, outside the SDNM, would be designated within 5 years of RMP

approval. Currently, all routes in the Lower Sonoran have been evaluated for potential conflict

with the goals and objectives of resource programs and for their necessity for public use. Model

route networks have been created for Alternatives B and D to assess the possible impacts to

the resource programs when the actual route designations are completed. No individual route

designations have been enacted, not even for ACECs or special wildlife management areas.

Current Temporary Closure on the SDNM:

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 181

A temporary closure is currently in place in the SDNM to restore damaged lands predominately

located north of SR 238 in the vicinity of the Anza NHT. No camping or vehicle use is permitted

on 54,817 acres, including 89 miles of existing primitive roads. This temporary closure began on

June 13, 2008 and is now under a court ordered settlement agreement. It is to remain in effect

until the RMP is approved or when the damaged lands are restored-whichever is later.

2.8.5.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A — No Action For

Travel Management

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Goldwater Amendment – Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan

(1990):

(Applicable to public lands in the Sand Tanks Mountains “Area A” within the SDNM and lands

south of Interstate 8 named the Sentinel Plains.)

● Maintain and enforce public access permit requirements for visitation into Area A (Sand Tank

Mountains) and other areas as required under Public Law 99-606.

● Designate the Sand Tank Mountains (Area A) and Sentinel Plain areas, and other lands

under BLM jurisdiction, as limited off-road vehicle use areas, with vehicle use restricted to

designated routes in ACECs and established roads elsewhere.

● Develop transportation plan for Area A.

● Permit no open or unrestricted OHV use areas or competitive OHV use or events.

● Prohibit public off-road travel or cross-country vehicle use in all areas.

● Adopt the US.S. Air Force General Vehicle Operating Rules.

Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (1983):

(Applicable to public lands in the Saddle Mountain area.)

● No new roads would be allowed in the Saddle Mountain block of public land. About 5,500

acres area’s center encompassing Saddle Mountain would be established as a recreation and

rock hound area if Congress did not designate the lands as wilderness (RR-12).

Lower Gila Resource Management Plan Amendment (2005):

(Applicable to a portion of lands in the LSFO and all lands within the SDNM Planning Areas.)

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
182 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● The Vekol Valley Grassland and Coffee Pot Botanical Area ACECs will be closed to

recreational OHV use in accordance with 43 CFR, Part 8340, and Subpart 8342. (Not

numbered)

● All public lands described in the MFP and RMP are designated as “limited” except

wilderness, which is closed to motor vehicles, and relinquished portions of the BGR, which

remain restricted to entry by permit only. OHV and special-recreation vehicles are limited to

existing designated roads and vehicle routes. No unauthorized cross-country vehicle travel is

permitted. Creation of unauthorized new trails, as well as widening or extension of existing

trails, is not permitted (RR-9).

● Single- or multiple-use OHV and special-recreation vehicle areas, routes, and management

strategies will be designated and developed through interdisciplinary plans. Planning shall

address limits of acceptable change indicators and standards, conflicts, issues, and solutions

to vehicle-management problems (RR-10).

● Roads and trails used as race courses will be evaluated for no action, closure, rehabilitation,

or modification and authorization as race courses (RR-11).

● Site-specific inventories will be conducted to delineate existing roads and vehicle routes as

requested by the authorized officer (RR-12).

● Approved hiking and equestrian trails are closed to unauthorized motorized use (RR-13).

● Road or area closures will be enacted where OHV or special-recreation vehicle use is

determined to be inconsistent with established ROS classifications or such use is causing

harm to natural or cultural resources (RR-14).

● Cross-country vehicle travel will be permitted only when specifically authorized to complete a

task requiring such use, and only in areas where such use will not cause unnecessary or

undue resource impacts (RR-15).

● OHV designations for relinquished portions of the BGR are retained – a permit is required for

entry to these lands, and motorized travel is limited to designated, established routes (RR-16).

● Wilderness is closed to mechanized use. The provisions of existing wilderness-management

plans and wildlife operations and maintenance plans pertaining to motorized and mechanized

administrative uses in wilderness will remain in effect (RR-17).

● Self-contained or vehicle-based camping will be permitted within 50 feet of the centerline of

designated or existing routes. Cross-country travel to campsites is not permitted (RR-54).

Phoenix Resource Management Plan (1989):

(Applicable to public lands in the extreme eastern part of the Planning Area.)

● The RMP presented both area designations and included language for route designations.

● The 6,800-acre San Tan Mountains Regional Park was retained as a Cooperative Recreation

Management Area in association with Maricopa County Parks and Recreation. (Travel

management decisions were addressed subsequently in the San Tan Mountains Regional Park

Master Plan). This agreement expires in 2013.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 183

SDNM Current Management Guidance (2002):

(Applicable to lands in the Sonoran Desert National Monument)

● For the purpose of protecting Monument objects, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use

off road will be prohibited, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes.

● In order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent BGR and to continue

management practices that have resulted in an exceptionally well preserved natural resource,

the current procedures for public travel and access to the portion of the Monument depicted

as Area A shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent that the USAF agrees to

different procedures which the BLM determines are compatible with the protection of the

objects identified in this proclamation.

2.8.5.2. Action Alternatives for Travel Management (TM)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: All public land should be classified as open, closed or limited per 43 CFR 8342.1.

● Goal 2: Public use, resource management, and regulatory needs are met by development of a

travel management plan and implementation of a travel management system.

● Goal 3: Protect Monument objects and purposes from human impacts associated with

motorized and non-motorized travel within the SDNM.

● Goal 4 : Protect Monument objects and resources, meet conservation and restoration goals,

ensure sustainable public use and enjoyment, and satisfy public safety and regulatory

requirements by developing a travel management plan and implement a sustainable and

compatible travel management system.

● Goal 5: Manage the travel management system for the LSFO area to protect resources and

maintain desired recreation experiences.

Land Use Allocations Summary

Table 2.19. Off-Highway Vehicle Area Designations by Alternative

Alternative (BLM Acres)

Classification

A B C D E

LSFO

Open 0 40 0 0 40

Closed 110,700 101,800 101,800 378,300 152,800

Limited to existing

roads and trails

819,500 0 0 0 0

Limited to Designated

Routes

0* 828,360 828,360 551,900 777,360

Totals 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200

SDNM

Open 0 0 0 0 0

Closed 161,200 157,700 157,700 310,700 157,700

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
184 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Limited to existing

roads and trails

325,200 0 0 0 0

Limited to Designated

Routes

0* 328,700 328,700 175,700 328,700

Totals 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400

*The amount of closed lands is less in B-D alternatives than in alternative A because the Vekol ACEC, which is

currently closed to motorized use, is not proposed to be carried forward, thereby adding the total of lands in the

limited classification category.

Table 2.20. Proposed Route Designation Table by Alternative

Applicable Alternative

A B C D E

Total Route Inventory (Miles) 631.5 631.5 631.5 631.5 631.5

Total Proposed Route System

(Miles)1 624.9 567.5 456.6 261.2 432.9

Road Closures (Miles)2 6.6 72 174.9 370.3 206.6

Route Closure Percentage3 1.0% 11.4% 27.7% 58.6% 32.7%

Current Asset Type (miles) (miles) (miles) (miles) (miles)

Road - Maintained 17.7 32.6 24.6 24.6 32.6

Open 17.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2

Limited to Admin Use Only 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Closed 0 0 0 0 0

New 0 8 0 0 8

Primitive Road – Unmaintained 576.8 569.9 569.9 570.1 569.9

Open 570.2 494.4 358.1 200.0 331

Seasonally Limited (Closed April 1

to Sept. 15)

0 0 0 0 32.7

Seasonally Limited (Closed Feb. 1

to Sept.15)

0 0 37.3 0 0

Limited to vehicles 50” wide or less 0 3.9 0 0 0

Limited to Non-Motorized Use4 0 2.1 7.2 11 8.3

Limited to Admin Use Only 0 0 17.1 36.9 4.3

Closed 6.6 69.5 150.2 322 193.6

Trail 37 37 37 37 37

Open to non-motorized/

non-mechanized travel (wilderness

trails)

37 37 37 37 37

1 Total Proposed Route System (Miles) equals the sum of open roads, primitive roads, trails (including those limited

by season, width, and non-motorized use), and new roads. The total excludes roads and primitive roads limited to

administrative use. See Maps 2–15a, 2–15b, 2–15c, 2–15d, and 2–15e.

2 Road Closures (Miles) equals the sum of closed roads, primitive roads, trails, primitive roads limited to

administrative use, and primitive roads limited to non-motorized use.

3 Route Closure Percentage equals the miles of road closure divided by the total route inventory (631.5 miles).

Note: Primitive roads limited to non-motorized use are included here because no vehicular use would be permitted.

4 Applies to the Anza NHT, where bicycles and handcarts would be allowed, but not motor vehicles.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 185

Goal 1: All public land should be classified as open, closed or limited per 43 CFR 8342.1.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Manage areas to sustain experiences of unstructured travel throughout the life of the plan using

the OHV area allocation open.

LS B E TM-1.1.1: 40 acres would be designated as an open motorized and mechanized

vehicle-use area in the Ajo SRMA (T12S R6W Sec4; Map 2-14b). Within this

area, vehicles would not be restricted to vehicle routes. The area would be

signed and fenced. Local partners would be sought to monitor use, provide

on-site management, and educate users in environmental stewardship.

LS B E TM-1.1.2: Within the 40-acre open area described under TM-1.1.1, campsite

access would be allowed by any travel mode to any location.

Objective 1.2: Manage areas for resource protection, conservation, restoration, and public safety using the OHV

area allocation closed.

LS B C TM-1.2.1: Approximately 101,800 acres would be closed to motorized use.

These areas would include designated wilderness, an area around Painted Rock

Campground and dam, and the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC.

LS D TM-1.2.2: Approximately 378,300 acres would be closed to motorized use.

These areas would include designated wilderness areas, an area around

Painted Rock Campground and dam, and allocated lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics.

LS E TM-1.2.3: Approximately 152,800 acres would be closed to motorized use.

These areas would include designated wilderness, an area around Painted Rock

Campground and dam, and allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics.

LS SDNM B C D E TM-1.2.4: Camping would be allowed in closed areas when accessed by

non-motorized, non-mechanized means.

LS SDNM B C D E TM-1.2.5: The use of wheeled game carriers would be prohibited in wilderness

areas. Elsewhere, non-motorized, hand-powered, wheeled game carriers would

be permitted to travel cross-country for the purpose of retrieving downed game.

Retrieval of downed game by cross-country motor vehicle use is prohibited.

Objective 1.3: Manage areas by structuring travel for visitor use and enjoyment, resource protection, conservation,

and restoration using the OHV area allocation limited over the lifetime of the plan.

LS B C TM-1.3.1: Approximately 828,360 acres would be limited to existing roads

and trails (based on current BLM route inventories) until such time as route

designations are completed. When this is completed, travel would be restricted

to designated roads, primitive roads and trails. Non-motorized vehicles

(e.g., bicycles, hang gliders, other devices for conveyance and stock drawn

carts/wagons) would be limited to designated roads, primitive roads and trails.

LS C TM-1.3.2: The 40-acre parcel in the Ajo SRMA (T12S, R6W, Sec.4) used

for motocross riding would be managed the same as the surrounding area

where motorized and mechanized vehicles would be restricted to designated

routes. The “motocross experience” area would be signed and fenced. A

“motocross experience” primitive road would be designated within the

fenced area. Local partners would be obtained to monitor use and provide

training in environmental stewardship to users of the area and provide on-site

management.

LS D TM-1.3.3: Same as alternative C except 551,900 acres would be limited to

existing roads and trails until such time as route designations are completed.

When this is completed, travel would be restricted to designated roads,

primitive roads and trails.

LS D TM-1.3.4: The “motocross experience” primitive road in the 40-acre parcel

(T12S, R6W, Sec.4) would be closed and rehabilitated. Motorized use in the

40-acre area would be limited to existing roads and trails until such time as

route designations are completed. At that time, travel would be limited to

designated primitive roads.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
186 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: All public land should be classified as open, closed or limited per 43 CFR 8342.1.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS E TM-1.3.5: Same as Alternative B except motorized use of 777,360 acres

would be limited to existing roads and trails until such time route designations

are completed, at which time travel would be restricted to designated roads,

primitive roads and trails.

LS B C E TM-1.3.6: One-time travel off of designated routes may be approved with

written authorization from the authorized officer to access sick or injured

livestock. Use of vehicles for livestock herding in a cross-country manner

is prohibited.

LS B C D E TM-1.3.7: The use of motorized or mechanized vehicles off designated routes

would be prohibited in OHV areas designated as limited to designated routes,

closed for motorized vehicles, and in all travel-management areas designated

for non-motorized vehicles except as noted below:

● Motorized vehicles would be allowed to pull off 100 feet on either side of

the centerline of a designated route for the purpose of camping as long as

soils, drainages, and woody vegetation are not damaged. This use shall be

monitored on a continuing basis. If monitoring results show effects that

exceed limits of acceptable change, motorized vehicles will not be allowed

to pull off a designated route 100 feet on either side of the centerline.

● Motorized uses would be required to stay within the designated route, with

reasonable use of the shoulder and immediate roadside allowing for vehicle

passage, emergency stopping, or parking unless otherwise posted.

● Outside of wilderness, hand-powered, non-motorized wheeled game

carriers would be allowed to travel cross-country for the purpose of

retrieving downed game.

● Motorized cross-country use will only be permitted with written

authorization from the BLM authorized officer, or when necessary for

emergency situations involving public health and safety.

LS B C D E TM-1.3.8: Retrieval of downed game by cross-country motor vehicle use

is prohibited.

Objective 1.4: Secure legal access to public lands at all designated entry points to public land within ten years of

completing route designations.

LS B C D E TM-1.4.1: The BLM would enter into access agreements for long-term legal

access.

LS B C D E TM-1.4.2: The BLM would acquire easements or real property from private

land owners or other jurisdictions as necessary to maintain or reestablish

access to public lands.

LS B C D E TM-1.4.3: Access to public lands along urban interface areas would be limited

to designated legal access routes as established by travel management planning.

Goal 2: Public use, resource management, and regulatory needs are met by development of a Travel

Management Plan and implementation of a travel management system.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Action and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Complete the designation of roads, primitive roads, and trails within 5 years of plan completion.

LS B C D E TM-2.1.1: A standardized method for identifying uses and impacts to routes

and areas would be employed following established selection criteria and

proposing route designations. An example of such a process is shown in

Appendix S, Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311).

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 187

Goal 2: Public use, resource management, and regulatory needs are met by development of a Travel

Management Plan and implementation of a travel management system.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Action and Allowable Uses

LS B C D E TM-2.1.2: Criteria to guide route designations would be established based on

management actions for recreation wildlife, vegetation, cultural resources,

lands/realty, mining, and other resources or resource uses as appropriate. (See

Section H.2.5, “Travel Management” (p. 1225)).

LS B C D E TM-2.1.3: Mitigation strategies would be identified and used to reduce the

impacts of travel routes and their use on the resources. Examples of typical

actions are shown in Appendix T, Route Mitigations (p. 1319).

LS B C D E TM-2.1.4: Route-designation decisions would be incorporated into planning

for all resources or resource uses and would be based on the route networks

portrayed on final designation maps and written guidance contained within

travel management plans.

Objective 2.2: Delineate areas where community interests or a manageable geographic boundary exists and

address landscape issues in a programmatic manner.

LS SDNM B C D E TM-2.2.1: The following travel management areas (TMAs) would be

created. (See Maps 2-14b, 2—14c, 2–14d and 2–14e.)

Table 2.21: Travel Management Areas (Acres)

TMA Total BLM

Ajo 190,200 177,800

SDNM 496,400 486,400

Gila Bend Mountains 744,900 517,500

Globe/Miami 119,600 5,600

Rainbow Valley 349,100 108,400

Buckeye Hills 219,700 55,500

East Valley 497,700 15,000

Saddle Mountain 184,100 50,400

Goal 3: Protect Monument objects and purposes from human impacts associated with motorized and

non-motorized travel within the SDNM.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Close areas of the SDNM to motorized-vehicle activities for the purposes of protecting Monument

objects and resources; and meeting associated conservation, restoration, and public safety goals over the lifetime

of the plan.

SDNM B C E TM-3.1.1: Approximately 157,700 acres of designated wilderness would

remain closed to motorized use.

SDNM D TM-3.1.2: Approximately 310,700 acres would be closed to motorized use.

These acres include designated wilderness and lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics.

Objective 3.2: Limit motorized vehicle use in certain SDNM areas to designated roads, primitive roads to minimize

impacts to Monument objects; other resources; and to reduce or eliminate resource, visitor, and behavior-based

conflicts over the lifetime of the plan.

SDNM B C E TM-3.2.1: Approximately 328,700 acres would be limited to designated

roads, primitive roads and trails. All other vehicles (e.g., bicycles, hang

gliders, stock drawn carts/wagons, and other devices for conveyance) would

be limited to primitive roads designated as open for such use.

SDNM D TM-3.2.2: Same as Alternative C except motorized travel and bicycle use in

175,700 acres would be limited to designated, primitive roads.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
188 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 3: Protect Monument objects and purposes from human impacts associated with motorized and

non-motorized travel within the SDNM.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

SDNM B C D E TM-3.2.3: Motorized vehicles would be required to be “street legal” (licensed

and registered), display a valid Arizona OHV sticker, be compliant with

current or future state, county or local licensing, certification or authorization

requirements, and be operated by licensed drivers.

SDNM D TM-3.2.4: The following vehicle types: all-terrain (ATV, UTV and quad),

motorcycle (dirt and dual-sport), and vehicles weighing less than 1,800

pounds, would be prohibited on primitive roads.

Goal 4: Provide a comprehensive travel management system that supports protection of Monument objects,

facilitates resource protection, and provides sustainable public use and enjoyment.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 4.1: Pursue and secure legal access when possible over the lifetime of the plan.

SDNM B C D E TM-4.1.1: Legal or permissive access would be secured to all identified

access points to designated routes within 10 years of final route designation.

SDNM B C D E TM-4.1.2: Access to public lands would be restricted along urban interface as

needed to protect Monument values and objects or at the request of adjoining

land owners.

Objective 4.2: Assign BLM road maintenance intensity levels on designated roads as a part of travel management

planning and make adjustments as needed as maintenance of the travel management plans.

SDNM B C D E TM-4.2.1: Roads and primitive roads could be redeveloped to meet either

Level 5 maintenance intensity (the highest BLM standard) or the Level 3

standard as necessary to satisfy Objective 4.2 and prescriptions in TM-4.2.2 or

TM-4.2.3. Level 1 roads are primitive and would not be maintained except to

correct safety hazards or resource problems such as erosion.

SDNM B C TM-4.2.2: Over the life of the plan, up to 20 percent of designated Monument

roads/primitive roads could be assigned to Level 5 maintenance standards

(passenger-car access) or Level 3 maintenance standards. Level 5 and 3

maintenance level assignments would be adjusted or assigned as necessary to

ensure that motorized travel routes:

● Are compatible with protection of Monument objects and resources;

● Achieve the Monument’s desired social and managerial recreation settings;

● Meet established limits of acceptable change indicators and standards;

● Satisfy biological and ecological land health standards;

● Protect or mitigate effects on cultural resources;

● Ensure visitor and agency staff safety;

● Resolve erosion, air quality or resource-damage issues;

● Offer sustainable access to popular Monument features, as well as

recreation and national historic trail attractions; and

● Meet water-quality standards for influenced drainages and watersheds.

See Table 2.22: SDNM Road Maintenance Intensity Level Model (p. 189) for

a model of potential maintenance level assignments for each alternative.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 189

Goal 4: Provide a comprehensive travel management system that supports protection of Monument objects,

facilitates resource protection, and provides sustainable public use and enjoyment.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

SDNM D E TM-4.2.3: Over the life of the plan, up to 10 percent of designated Monument

roads/primitive roads could be assigned to Level 5 maintenance standards

(passenger-car access) or Level 3 maintenance standards. Level 5 and 3

maintenance level assignments would be adjusted or assigned as necessary

to ensure that motorized travel routes: (1) are compatible with protection of

Monument objects and resources; (2) achieve the Monument’s desired social

and managerial recreation settings; (3) meet established limits of acceptable

change indicators and standards; (4) satisfy biological and ecological land

health standards; (5) protect or mitigate effects on cultural resources; (6)

ensure visitor and agency staff safety; (7) resolve erosion, air quality or

resource-damage issues; (8) offer sustainable access to popular Monument

features, as well as recreation and national historic trail attractions; and (9)

meet water-quality standards for influenced drainages and watersheds. See

Table 2.22: SDNM Road Maintenance Intensity Level Model (p. 189) for a

model of potential maintenance level assignments for each alternative.

SDNM B C E TM-4.2.4: One-time travel off of designated routes may be approved with

written authorization from the authorized officer to access sick or injured

livestock. Use of vehicles for livestock herding is prohibited.

SDNM B C D E TM-4.2.5: Roads and primitive roads could be redeveloped to meet either

Level 5 maintenance intensity (the highest BLM standard) or the Level 3

standard as necessary to satisfy Objective 4.2 and prescriptions described

in TM-4.2.1 or TM-4.2.2. Level 1 roads are primitive and would not be

maintained except to correct safety hazards.

Table 2.22: SDNM Road Maintenance Intensity Level Model & Potential BLM Road

Maintenance Intensity Levels/Maximum Miles By Alternative

Maintenance A B C D E

Intensity Levels 5 or 3 1 5 or 3 1 5 or 3 1 5 or 3 1 5 or 3 1

Road miles

maintained

18 0 106 0 81 0 27 0 41 0

Primitive road

miles (not

maintained)

0 578 0 423 0 355 0 246 0 363

Total road miles

available for

travel*

568 531 403 235 404

*From Table 2.20: Proposed Route Designation Table by Alternative (p. 184): the Total

Proposed Route System minus Trail Miles equals the Total Road Miles Available for Travel.

Objective 4.3: Minimize the effects of the route system on the Monument and its objects and implement mitigation

strategies as needed to resolve conflicts.

SDNM B C D E TM-4.3.1: Mitigation strategies would be identified and required to reduce

the effects of routes and their use. Examples of typical actions are shown in

Appendix S, Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311).

Goal 5: Manage the travel management system to protect resources and maintain desired recreation experiences.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Objective 5.1: Determine the compatibility of emerging issues such as new vehicle technology or new or proposed

recreation uses or use areas such as technical vehicle-use sites or motorcycle-observed traills. Proposals for using

new recreation technologies or activities would be evaluated and a decision made to proceed or deny the use or

proposal as funding and staffing allows.

LS B C D E TM-5.1.1: Technical vehicle use sites or other specialized recreation sites

would be delineated through activity level planning.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
190 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 5: Manage the travel management system to protect resources and maintain desired recreation experiences.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

LS B C D E TM-5.1.2: Technical vehicle use sites would be evaluated and established

on a case-by-case basis with community and user input. Sites would be

developed as needed to ensure visitor safety, meet enthusiast needs, improve

recreation experiences, and increasing recreation opportunities. Site plans

would establish limits of acceptable change indicators and standards. All

sites would be compatible with social and managerial recreation settings and

VRM standards; would satisfy biological and ecological land health standards;

would protect or mitigate cultural resources; and would meet water-quality

standards for influenced drainages and watersheds.

LS SDNM B C D E TM-5.1.3: Travel Management assets or their maintenance intensity shall not

be changed without NEPA and a travel plan amendment. Road maintenance

activities can only be completed with approval of the authorized BLM officer.

This includes all permitted activities that use designated routes such as

ranching, mining and other authorized activities.

Objective 5.2: Proposals for new recreation technologies and activities would be evaluated when presented

to determine impacts on Monument objects and resources. Such uses would be prohibited until research and

analysis determines the use is fully compatible with Monument objects and resources. The BLM would respond to

proposals immediately upon detection and determine their compatibility with Monument objects and resources

as funding and staffing allows.

SDNM B C D E TM-5.2.1: New travel technologies and uses would be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis with community and user input. Compatibility evaluations

would be developed as needed to ensure protection of Monument objects

and resources, provide compatible and sustainable experiences based on

Monument Objects and resources, and visitor safety. The compatibility

analysis would establish limits of acceptable change indicators and standards.

All uses would be compatible with protection of Monument objects, the

Monument’s social and managerial recreation settings and VRM standards;

the Monuments biological and ecological land health standards; protection of

cultural resources; and water-quality standards for influenced drainages and

watersheds.

Goal 6: Protect Monument objects and resources, meet conservation and restoration goals, ensure sustainable

public use and enjoyment, and satisfy public safety and regulatory requirements by developing a travel

management plan and implementing a sustainable and compatible travel management system.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 6.1: Plan and implement a networked system of roads, primitive roads and trails within 1 year of

plan completion.

SDNM B C D E TM-6.1.1: The use of motorized or mechanized vehicles off designated roads

or primitive roads would be prohibited with the following management

restrictions:

● Motorized and mechanized use would be limited to areas within the

designated route with reasonable use of the shoulder and immediate

roadside allowing for vehicle passage, emergency stopping, or parking

unless otherwise posted. For the purposes of this plan, a reasonable use

will be defined as up to 25 feet.

● Motorized and mechanized vehicles would be allowed to pull off a

designated route 25 feet either side of centerline for the purpose of

camping as long as soils, drainages, or woody vegetation are not damaged.

This use shall be monitored on a continuing basis and if monitoring results

show effects that exceed limits of acceptable change the 25 feet distance

may be reduced.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 191

Goal 6: Protect Monument objects and resources, meet conservation and restoration goals, ensure sustainable

public use and enjoyment, and satisfy public safety and regulatory requirements by developing a travel

management plan and implementing a sustainable and compatible travel management system.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

● Non-motorized, hand-powered wheeled game carriers would be permitted

to travel cross-country (except in wilderness areas) for the purpose of

retrieving downed game on public lands.

SDNM B C D E TM-6.1.2: A travel management plan would be developed and implemented

upon plan approval, including designating roads, primitive roads and trails that

are open, closed or limited by use type or time, and allocating maintenance

class.

Travel Management Implementation Actions for the SDNM

SDNM B C D E TM-6.1.3: A network of routes would be designated upon plan approval to

include roads, primitive roads and trails that are open, closed or limited in

their use as specified in Table 2.20, “Proposed Route Designation Table by

Alternative” (p. 184). (For route locations, refer to the route maps on the CD,

web site, or hard copies by request to the LSFO.)

SDNM B C D E TM-6.1.4: Prepare and implement a travel management plan, including

designating routes within five years of the SDNM’s Record of Decision

(ROD).

SDNM B C D E TM-6.1.5: Legal or permissive access will be secured to all designated routes

within 10 years of final designation.

Note: Any additional implementation-level actions will be considered and addressed in the TMP.

Administrative Actions

General.

● The development of standards for monitoring the route system will be directed by compliance

with laws, regulations, and travel management plan goals and objectives

● Areas affected by legal off-route travel, such as law enforcement-pursuit and wildfire

suppression, will be restored within one year of the incident.

● Agreements with local interest groups and communities will be established for long-term

route maintenance and community support.

● Participate in regional or municipal transportation planning and promote appropriate legal

access consistent with the land-use plan.

● Establish a framework for reviewing the travel management program and make necessary

changes to meet land health standards, area management, and recreation goals.

● Casual and authorized recreational uses of the travel system will be addressed when

authorizing actions. Where major arteries in the recreational route network would be truncated

or considerably altered by the authorization, mitigation will be required

● Consider adjustments to route designations, including adding, removing, and redeveloping

routes and access, when necessary. Criteria for route designation adjustments can be found in

Section H.2.5, “Travel Management” (p. 1225).

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
192 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Develop brochures, maps, access guides, and information sheets to disseminate targeted

recreation opportunity information to the public.

● Develop and maintain a monitoring system to support implementation and management of

motorized and non-motorized use of the public lands, including routes and access points.

● Create an acquisition plan including a list of parcels where legal access needs to be secured.

● Implement route-mitigation techniques when designing and implementing the route system.

● Identify and manage for a wide range of issues in travel management areas.

● In areas where access permits are required, coordinate with other agencies that issue use

permits on public lands to provide reasonable access for their permitted activities. For

example, the BLM and AGFD will coordinate hunter access into permit-required access areas

for hunters with valid hunting licenses for the affected hunting unit.

● Promote the establishment of additional areas open to motorized and/or non-motorized

vehicle use outside of public lands if regional public demand for off-road motorized and/or

non-motorized vehicle recreation would support such activities.

● Support the development and implementation of regional or municipal transportation plans

that protect or promote appropriate legal access to public lands and are consistent with

resource and use objectives.

● Establish relationships and enter into agreements with local OHV groups and other groups

and communities for long-term route maintenance and community support.

● Respect valid existing rights.

Specific to the Lower Sonoran Decision Area.

● Publish a map of the approved travel system depicting the route designation and associated

access points for public access.

● Sign routes and associated access points as needed to identify public lands and disseminate

information.

● Partner with neighboring BLM offices, counties, municipalities and user groups to identify,

plan, implement, and maintain long-distance motorized routes and non-motorized trail

systems.

● Apply route-mitigation techniques when designing and implementing the route system.

● Assess the level of success in managing designated access points and unauthorized routes at

least bi-yearly.

● Conduct condition assessments of designated and unauthorized routes and associated access

points relative to the standards prescribed by the travel management plan.

● Identify use patterns, including the types, frequency, intensity, and distribution of authorized

and unauthorized travel and transportation activities.

● Improve visitor compliance with outdoor ethics through education.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 193

● Identify public-safety issues related to the travel system.

● Publish policies and procedures for travel-system administration.

● Establish the travel system as an asset and consider its values when authorizing land-use

actions and other activities. All land-use authorizations, permits, and other activities would be

required to use designated routes. The BLM would authorize new roads or cross-country use

for land-use authorizations only as a last resort.

● As part of the TMP implementation, develop fences, signs, gates, and other methods to manage

access, address public safety concerns, and eliminate use of vehicles off of designated routes.

Specific to the SDNM Decision Area.

● Support development and implementation of regional and municipal transportation plans

that protect or provide appropriate legal access to the SDNM and protect its resources and

management objectives.

● Where needed, the SDNM boundary should be identified with appropriate fencing, signs,

and other structures.

● Portions of the SDNM may be closed as needed to accommodate safety, climate, resource

protection, specific projects, or staffing constraints.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Travel Management (TM)
194 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.9. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

2.9.1. AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

(ACEC)

Areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) are sections of public land that require special

management to prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values;

wildlife resources; other natural systems or processes; and to protect life and provide safety

from natural hazards.

Authority to designate ACECs is provided for in FLPMA and in Title 43 CFR, Part 1610.7. Not

only must ACECs require special management; they must meet relevance and importance criteria.

In accordance with FLPMA, to qualify as ACECs areas must have substantial significance and

value, including qualities “of more than local significance and special worth, consequence,

meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern.” These values are considered the highest and best

use for those lands, and protecting them takes precedence over the BLM’s mandate to manage

public lands for multiple uses.

According to law, areas with the potential for designation and associated management

protection actions must be identified during the land-use planning process. In the preferred

action (Alternative E) this plan proposes to designate four new ACECs in the Lower Sonoran,

carry forward one existing ACEC, and withdraw the existing Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC.

Evaluations for all ACECs can be found in Appendix V, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations (p. 1325).

2.9.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action)

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the current Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward. Instead they are restated as new action alternatives where applicable.

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (1989):

● Closes Vekol Valley ACEC to recreational off-road vehicle use in accordance with 43 CFR,

Part 8340, and Subpart 8342. (RR-08)

● Closes the Coffee Pot ACEC to recreational off-road vehicle use in accordance with 43 CFR,

Part 8340, and Subpart 8342. (RR-09)

● Requires the BLM to place special emphasis on the protection of four significant botanical

areas important in studying the original plant communities in the Sonoran Desert: Eagletail

Mountains, Coffee Pot Botanical, Table Top area, and Sierra Estrella area. (SM-17)

● Does not designate the Sierra Estrella area as an ACEC. (SM-18)

● Does not designate Table Top area as an ACEC. (SM-19)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Special Designations August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 195

● Designates two areas within the Lower Gila South Planning Area boundaries as ACECs:

Vekol Valley grassland and the Coffee Pot Botanical area. The purpose is to provide more

intensive management and protection for existing and potential resource values. Management

plans, which are to identify specific resource management practices, are required for each

ACEC. (SM-20)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment) (1990)

(Applies to the three relinquished Sentinel Plain, Sand Tank Mountains, and

Ajo Airport parcels):

● Prohibits woodcutting and collection of dead and down wood in ACECs. (no number)

Table 2.21. ACEC Acres Based on Alternative

ACEC Name Alternative (BLM Acres)

A B C D E

Lower Sonoran

Coffeepot Botanical 8,900 8,900 Not designated

Coffeepot-Batamote Not designated 63,300 77,600 61,300

Cuerda de Lena Not designated 58,500 58,500

Lower Gila Terraces &

Historic Trails

Not designated 82,500 82,500

Saddle Mountain ONA Not designated 48,500 48,500

SDNM

Vekol Valley Grasslands 3,500 Withdrawn from ACEC designation

2.9.1.2. Action Alternatives for Areas of Environmental Concern (AC)

Goal 1: Provide increased protection for cultural resources, outstanding and scenic features, and priority and

special status species while continuing to provide the public access to enjoy these resources.

Applicable

Decision

Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Common to All Unless Otherwise Noted in Specific ACEC Section

LS C D E AC-1.1.1: All public lands within the ACEC would be retained and

available private and state lands would be acquired.

LS C D E AC-1.1.2: Core roadless areas would be maintained for wildlife while new

facilities, including motorized routes, non-motorized trails, and trailheads

that concentrate or increase use in these areas would be avoided.

LS C D E AC-1.1.3: Maintaining and managing the biological, geological, and

cultural resources would be emphasized and given priority.

LS C D E AC-1.1.4: Areas would be managed to protect the natural landscape and

visual values that provide the visitor with an opportunity to appreciate the

character of the area.

LS C D E AC-1.1.5: Opportunities for recreation would be provided with an

emphasis on undeveloped, dispersed recreation, where it is compatible

with protecting the natural and cultural resources.

LS C D E AC-1.1.6: The visual and scenic values of the area would be managed to

maintain the natural character, including designating appropriate visual

resource management (VRM) classes.

LS C D E AC-1.1.7: Treatments of invasive species would be allowed within the

ACECs if they can be designed to have a minor or negligible impact to

resource values within the ACEC.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
196 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide increased protection for cultural resources, outstanding and scenic features, and priority and

special status species while continuing to provide the public access to enjoy these resources.

Applicable

Decision

Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS D E AC-1.1.8: The construction of non-motorized trails would be permitted if

they are consistent with ACEC and resource objectives and do not conflict

with botanical resources or wildlife and T&E management.

LS C AC-1.1.9: All LUAs, including utility-scale renewable energy

development, would be avoided, mitigated, and otherwise managed to be

consistent with management objectives. Recreation developments may be

allowed if necessary to manage public use or provide for public safety.

LS D E AC-1.1.10: ACECs would be exclusion areas for utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration, and multiuse utility corridors

LS D E AC-1.1.11: New major linear LUAs would be excluded outside of the

corridors. Utilities would be required to be installed underground within

the existing multiuse utility corridors to retain the viewshed.

LS D AC-1.1.12: ACECs would be closed to all locatable and leasable minerals

exploration and development and mineral material disposals including

free-use permits. Public lands in the ACECs would be recommended for

withdrawal.

LS E AC-1.1.13: ACECs would be open to all locatable and leasable minerals

exploration and development unless otherwise restricted. (Lower Gila

Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC is open with No Surface Occupancy

and Cuerda de Lena is closed February 1 to September 15).

LS E AC-1.1.14: ACECs would be closed to mineral material disposals

including free use permits, except for the former free use site in the Saddle

Mountain ACEC (see AC-1.1.46).

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC

LS B AC-1.1.15: The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC designation of approximately

8,900 acres would be retained to protect the outstanding botanical diversity

of the native and rare plant communities such as the Acuña cactus (Map

2-16b). All management actions (including remaining open to lands and

minerals actions) would be the same except the ACEC would not be closed

to OHV use.

LS B AC-1.1.16: Livestock facilities would not be developed where they would

increase livestock use within the area.

LS C D E AC-1.1.17: In alternatives C, D and E the Coffee Pot Botanical ACEC

would not be designated. Instead, this area would be incorporated into the

Coffee Pot-Batamote ACEC. (See below.)

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC

LS C AC-1.1.18: An area of approximately 63,400 acres would be designated

as the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC to protect for outstanding botanical

diversity of the native and rare plant communities (including the Acuña

cactus); lesser long-nosed bat, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and desert

bighorn sheep habitat; and other wildlife populations along with unique

landscape and scenic features (Map 2-16c).

LS C AC-1.1.19: The route system would be designated to limit wildlife habitat

fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, and vegetation damage. Motorized

vehicle routes that conflict with maintenance of wildlife habitat and

cultural resources would be closed, limited, or mitigated. New route

construction would not be allowed except for resource protection.

LS C AC-1.1.20: Routes within washes would be prohibited.

LS D AC-1.1.21: The ACEC would be open to leasable exploration and

development but closed to mineral materials disposals including free-use

permits.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 197

Goal 1: Provide increased protection for cultural resources, outstanding and scenic features, and priority and

special status species while continuing to provide the public access to enjoy these resources.

Applicable

Decision

Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS D E AC-1.1.22: Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited in washes that

contain, or are found to contain cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls habitat to

protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season.

LS D AC-1.1.23: Recreational development would be limited to the minimum

required to protect resources and provide for public safety.

LS E AC-1.1.24: Motorized vehicle use would be restricted in washes that

are known to be occupied or found to be occupied, cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls habitat from February 1 to September 15 to protect

pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season. All other

areas would be limited to existing or designated routes.

LS E AC-1.1.25: Livestock facilities could be developed to improve natural

resource conditions by improving livestock distribution. Adaptive

management and best management practices would be utilized to avoid

conflicts with wildlife resources.

LS E AC-1.1.26: The ACEC would be open to leasable minerals exploration

and development however surface disturbance would be minimized

through mitigation measures and special stipulations.

Cuerda de Lena ACEC

LS D E AC-1.1.27: An area of 58,500 acres would be designated as the Cuerda

de Lena ACEC. Its purpose would be to protect the endangered Sonoran

pronghorn; habitat for other wildlife species, including the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl; and to protect cultural resources (Maps 2-16d

and 2–16e).

LS D E AC-1.1.28: In addition to the exclusions addressed in the common to all

section, the ACEC would be closed to the public for general recreational

use during pronghorn fawning between March 15 and July 15 or as

determined annually by the Sonoran pronghorn antelope recovery team.

Minor non-linear LUAs would also be prohibited unless deemed necessary

by the authorized officer. Federal, State and local government employees

and permit holders operating within the scope of their authorizations

would be exempt from the closure.

LS D E AC-1.1.29: Camping would be limited to dispersed and undeveloped

sites.

LS D E AC-1.1.30: Developed recreational sites would be prohibited within the

ACEC except for small, non-intrusive-information, and interpretation

facilities.

LS D E AC-1.1.31: Tertiary, single-track, and reclaimed vehicle routes that

fragment habitat would be closed; however, access would be provided for

administrative use and public safety.

LS D E AC-1.1.32: Routes in washes would be prohibited except to provide legal

access for law enforcement and other authorized use. New travel routes

in washes would be prohibited. New routes would only be considered if

deemed necessary for emergency or other authorized administrative uses.

Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC

LS D E AC-1.1.33: An area of 79,100 acres would be designated as the Lower

Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC.

LS D AC-1.1.34: Additional public use sites would not be allocated.

LS D AC-1.1.35: Scientific research would be permitted only if it is not ground

disturbing.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
198 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Provide increased protection for cultural resources, outstanding and scenic features, and priority and

special status species while continuing to provide the public access to enjoy these resources.

Applicable

Decision

Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

LS D AC-1.1.36: Existing developments and disturbed areas that are damaging

or incompatible with the trail integrity would be evaluated and removed,

rehabilitated or mitigated, or otherwise managed to diminish the overall

disturbance area.

LS E AC-1.1.37: Public use sites would be allocated if they could be designed

to have negligible or minor impacts.

LS E AC-1.1.38: The ACEC would remain open to all leasable minerals

actions but any lease would contain a No Surface Occupancy stipulation.

LS E AC-1.1.39: Portions of the ACEC would be closed to seismic exploration

and mineral material disposals. The remaining portion of the ACEC

would be open to mineral material disposals however surface disturbance

would be minimized where possible through mitigation measures and

special stipulations.

LS E AC-1.1.40: Selected parcels along the historic trails corridor within the

ACEC, would be closed to locatable mineral exploration and development.

LS E AC-1.1.41: Scientific research, including excavation, that enhances

our understanding of the cultural resources would be permitted and

encouraged if approved research design and qualified researcher by BLM

standards.

Saddle Mountain ACEC

LS D E AC-1.1.42: An area of 48,500 acres would be designated as the Saddle

Mountain ACEC.

LS D E AC-1.1.43: Sites containing natural or cultural resources or geological

and wildlife resources would be developed for interpretation and

environmental education when research opportunities and resource values

can be protected.

LS E AC-1.1.44: Vehicle-based camping would be limited to existing or

designated sites..

LS E AC-1.1.45: The ACEC would be open to leasable minerals exploration

and development. Surface disturbance would be minimized where

possible through mitigation measures and special stipulations.

LS E AC-1.1.46: The ACEC would be closed mineral material disposals with

the exception of the former free use permit site (Courthouse Pit; T2N,

R7W, Sec. 31). A new permit could be allowed provided the proposed

disturbance area remains within the previously authorized area.

Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC

LS SDNM C D E AC-1.1.47: The 3,500-acre Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC would be

withdrawn from ACEC status because Monument designation provides

adequate protection for the resources of the grassland.

Administrative Actions

Inventory.

● Perform proactive cultural inventories on ACECs, with a special emphasis on the Lower

Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC and the Saddle Mountain ACEC and thoroughly

document the cultural resources.

Monitoring.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 199

● Continue to work with and support the Arizona Site Steward Program to assure adequate

monitoring of the sites on the ACECs.

● Implement procedures for systematic monitoring of selected cultural sites within the ACEC’s.

Restoration.

● Perform mitigation and / or landscape restoration in priority areas of the ACECs, where

incompatible activities have altered the natural and cultural landscape and visual settings.

Research.

● Complete documentary research and oral histories to gain a better understanding of the

cultural history of the ACEC’s, relates to homesteading, mining, ranching, and prehistoric

archaeological occupations.

Interpretation and Education.

● Develop interpretive materials and facilities for selected sites and topics.

● Provide educational materials and opportunities to the public pertaining to the ACEC

resources.

Tribal Consultation.

● Continue to consult with the Gila River Indian Community, the Ak-Chin Indian Community,

the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Tohono O’odham Nation, the Hopi

Tribe, Fort Yuma – Quechan Tribe, and other interested Indian tribes to identify places of

traditional importance and to collaborate on issues and projects affecting the ACEC’s.

Partnerships.

● Coordinate with partner groups, interest groups, interested individuals, local communities,

and other stakeholders on ACEC issues and projects.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
200 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.9.2. NATIONAL BYWAYS (NB)

The National Byways program was established by the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal

Highway Administration under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and

reauthorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century in 2003. The BLM Back

Country Byway system is a component of the National Byway System and guidance is found in

BLM Handbook H-8357-1. In accordance with the handbook, BLM Back Country and Scenic

Byway designations are approved by the State Director within the parameters established for

the State byway program.

The primary objectives of the program are to showcase the BLM’s multiple-use mission and

potential contributions to local or regional economies through increased travel and tourism.

To be eligible for designation, a road must have attractions that are important on a State and

national basis. Attractions may include historical, recreational, cultural, archaeological, scientific,

and/or natural features. Cooperation with all local, State, and Federal agencies that have

jurisdiction over road segments and legal access for any private land segments is also necessary.

2.9.2.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternatives A (No Action) National

Byways

Decisions are listed in chronological order by plan. The following decisions are extracted from

the existing land use plans and amendments and are listed in chronological order. Because none

of these current land use plans encompass the entire Planning Area, very few of these decisions

are being carried forward as common to all alternatives and are restated as new action alternatives

where applicable.

Lower Gila Resource Management Plan Amendments (2005):

● Scenic corridors and potential back country byways will receive priority evaluation of visual

resources to determine appropriate future classifications. (RR-6)

Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan - Goldwater Amendment (1990):

[Applies to the three relinquished BGR parcels]:

● Protect the visual resource quality on lands adjacent to the highways (I-8 and SR-85) by:

● Establishing portions of these roads as scenic byways in cooperation with the Arizona

Department of Transportation, the USAF, and the U.S. Marine Corps

● Use the VRM process during activity planning to maintain appropriate visual

resource-management objectives established for these byways. (Not numbered)

2.9.2.2. Action Alternatives for National Byways (BY)

Program Goals:

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Byways (NB) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 201

● Goal 1: Provide opportunities for the American public to see and enjoy unique scenic and

historic landscapes on public lands deemed to have State or national significance.

● Goal 2: Promote regional development of eco- and recreational tourism through designation

of BLM National Scenic and Back Country Byways and by managing public lands along

potential byway corridors to protect the quality of scenic values.

Land Use Allocations Summary

Potential byways to be evaluated by alternative are presented in Table 2.22, “Potential Byway

Designations by Alternative” (p. 201) below.

Table 2.22. Potential Byway Designations by Alternative

BLM Miles by Alternative

Proposed Byway A

(No Action)

B C D

E

(Preferred)

Lower Sonoran

Agua Caliente (not paved) 0 21 21 0 21

SDNM

Interstate 8 (paved) 0 21 0 0 21

H-238-Maricopa Road (paved) 0 18 18 0 18

Management Actions & Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Provide opportunities for the American public to see and enjoy unique scenic and historic landscapes

on public lands deemed to have State or national significance.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Use Allocations

Objective 1.1: Identify and evaluate potential roads that meet nomination criteria for BLM National Scenic or

Back Country Byway designation.

LS B C E NB-1.1.1: Approximately 21 miles of Agua Caliente Road would be evaluated

as a potential BLM national back country byway (Maps 2-16b and 2–16c).

SDNM C D E NB-1.1.2: Approximately 18 miles of Highway 238 (Maricopa Road) would be

evaluated as a scenic byway (Maps 2-16c, 2–16d and 2–16e).

SDNM D E NB-1.1.3: Approximately 21 miles of I-8 would be evaluated as a scenic byway

(Maps 2-16d and 2–16e).

Goal 2: Promote regional development of eco- and recreational tourism through designation of BLM

National Scenic and Back Country Byways and by managing public lands along potential byway corridors

to protect the quality of scenic values.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions

Objective 1.1: Maintain open space and the undeveloped natural character of landscapes within the specified byway

corridor. Desert landscapes provide visitors with unique scenic and back country experience while traversing the

diverse Sonoran Desert, including saguaro cactus stands, rugged mountains, and vast valleys. These landscapes also

offer glimpses of traditional western uses, including historic trail corridors, mining, agriculture, and ranching.

LS SDNM B C D E NB-1.1.1: Surface disturbing uses and activities along byways would exceed or

at minimum maintain the visual quality consistent with the established VRM

setting through project design or mitigation.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Byways (NB)
202 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LS SDNM B C D E NB-1.1.2: Protective measures would be provided in wildlife-movement

corridors to protect wildlife. Measures may include setting speed limits,

installing speed bumps or other speed-limiting devices, and installing cautionary

signs.

LS SDNM B C D E NB-1.1.3: No motorized competitive speed events would be authorized on

the byways.

LS B C E NB-1.1.4: Road design and maintenance would be coordinated with the county

to retain the character of the byway and ensure it remains suitable for passenger

car- and truck-based sightseeing. Prescriptions would include:

● No paving

● No widening beyond existing widths unless required for public safety

● Stabilize road surfaces to maintain air quality

● Install speed-limit, directional, and vehicle-safety signs where appropriate.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Byways (NB) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 203

2.9.3. NATIONAL TRAILS (NT)

The National Trails System Act, 16 USC 1241, was enacted in 1968 to bring the national scenic,

historic, and recreational trails into one unified system. The Juan Bautista de Anza National

Historic Trail (Anza NHT) was established in 1990. It is one of 30 national scenic and historic

trails designated by Congress to “provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the

conservation and enjoyment of the nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural

qualities of the areas through which such trails may pass” (P.L. 90-543, as amended through P.L.

109-418). The national historic trails are “extended trails which follow as closely as possible and

practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historical significance” (ibid.).

The National Park Service (NPS) administers the trail but works in partnership with Federal,

state, and local government agencies, as well as private landowners who manage or own lands

along the trail route. Because the Anza expedition moved along the trail on horses and pack

animals more than 200 years ago, no reliable trail signature remains to be seen in the modern era.

Historians have studied the diaries and journals of Juan Bautista de Anza and Father Font and

have determined a wide corridor through which the trail route originally passed. Today we face

the challenge of conserving the natural visual setting along the trail corridor and constructing a

recreational retracement route for non-motorized use in the future.

In the SDNM Presidential Proclamation 7397, the Anza NHT corridor and its natural historic

landscape settings are named as Monument objects to be protected. The Butterfield Overland

Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trail both lie within portions of the same corridor and are

Monument objects as well. These national trails enjoy a special designation that highlights the

importance of the trails as connections to communities and our history as a nation. Protection of

the Monument objects is critical as we strive to share the story through interpretive developments.

2.9.3.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action)

No specific management prescriptions for National Trails are included in the existing LUPs.

2.9.3.2. Management Actions for National Trails (NT) Action Alternatives

Goal 1: Manage the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail corridor through the LSFO through

focused management strategies.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions

Objective 1. 1: Manage the historic trail corridor on the Lower Sonoran to enhance the experience of visitors,

maintain the integrity of the historic trail and associated trail sites, and the visual setting throughout the life

of the plan.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.1: The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would be managed in concert

with the Southern Trail SRMA. Management would be consistent with the

National Park Service (NPS) management plan and in cooperation with the

NPS (Map 2-16a).

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.2: The Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and the adjacent segment of Anza

NHT would be allocated to public use for heritage tourism and interpretation.

LS B C E NT-1.1.3: The Anza NHT corridor would remain open to leasable minerals

exploration and development actions but any proposed action would contain a

No Surface Occupancy stipulation.

LS B C D E NT-1.1.4: The Anza NHT corridor would be closed to all mineral material

disposals.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Trails (NT)
204 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Goal 1: Manage the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail corridor through the LSFO through

focused management strategies.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions

LS D NT-1.1.5: The Anza NHT corridor would be closed to all mineral activities

including locatables, leasables, mineral materials exploration and development

actions including free use permits.

SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.6: The Anza NHT corridor would remain closed to all minerals

actions.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.7: The Anza NHT corridor would be an exclusion area for major

utility-scale renewable energy development and new major linear LUAs. In

the Lower Sonoran, utility development could continue on a case-by-case

basis in existing utility multiuse corridors and only of impacts are determined

to have a negligible to minor effect to resources.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.8: The Anza NHT corridor would be an exclusion area for all minor

linear and nonlinear LUAs except as described in the Lands & Realty section

(See Section 2.8.1, “Lands & Realty (LR)” (p. 118)). LUAs would be

mitigated to be consistent with management objectives and prescriptions, and

only if impacts are determined to have a negligible to minor effect to resources.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.9: Cultural sites along the NHT would be identified and developed

as allocated in the appropriate use categories and according to management

actions and prescriptions identified in the Cultural & Heritage Resources

section for all use categories. (See Section 2.7.3, “Cultural & Heritage

Resources” (p. 52))

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.10: Recreation opportunities would be provided consistent with the

ANZA NHT. Facilities would be developed and placed outside the corridor

when feasible to protect resource values, provide for visitor safety, and support

selected use opportunities. Facilities would be developed within the trail

corridor only when needed to protect trail integrity and resources.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.11: The management corridor would be managed in concert with the

Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails SCRMA, the Sonoran Desert SCRMA

and the Anza Historic Trail RMZ as identified in the Cultural & Heritage

Resource and Recreation Management sections (See Section 2.7.3, “Cultural

& Heritage Resources” (p. 52) and Section 2.8.4, “Recreation Management

(RM)” (p. 158)).

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.12: The historic landscape and visual values would be protected to

provide the visitor with an opportunity to appreciate the historic character

of the area.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.13: Vegetation would be rehabilitated and restored consistent with

the natural resource restoration objectives to restore or maintain the integrity

of the landscape.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.14: A strategy would be developed to encourage scientific and

historical research as appropriate with management prescriptions and only if

designed to have a negligible or minor affect to resources.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.15: Scientific and historical studies of cultural landscapes, sites,

historic trails, and other resources, including excavation, would be allowed by

qualified researchers on a case-by-case basis and with written authorization

from the BLM.

LS SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.16: Heritage tourism would only be allowed at the Painted Rock

Petroglyph Sites and along the Anza NHT auto route when such use is

compatible with protecting the cultural and historical resources and visual

values.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Trails (NT) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 205

Goal 1: Manage the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail corridor through the LSFO through

focused management strategies.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions

LS SDNM B C E NT-1.1.17: The Anza NHT auto route would be marked and promoted as

appropriate and consistent with Cultural & Heritage Resource and Travel

Management actions designations and prescriptions identified in this plan.

(See Sections Section 2.7.3, “Cultural & Heritage Resources” (p. 52) and

Section 2.8.5, “Travel Management (TM)” (p. 180))

LS SDNM D NT-1.1.18: The Anza NHT auto route would be marked, but not promoted,

as appropriate and consistent with Cultural & Heritage Resource and Travel

Management actions designations and prescriptions identified in this plan (See

Section 2.7.3, “Cultural & Heritage Resources” (p. 52) and Section 2.8.5,

“Travel Management (TM)” (p. 180)).

SDNM B C D E NT-1.1.19: The management corridor of the Anza NHT within the SDNM

would be managed to retain, and restore where appropriate, the physical

integrity of the sites and trails through inventory, evaluation, rehabilitation

and restoration of vegetation.

Administrative Actions:

Inventory.

● Perform field inventories, document, and map historic trail resources and associated cultural

resources along the Anza NHT.

● Perform recreational inventories along the Anza NHT to identify high potential sites and

segments. Make determinations of suitability for installation of recreational trail tread and

interpretive developments.

● Perform viewshed analysis on selected Anza NHT segments with priority given to high

potential route segments.

● Collect GPS data to BLM standards on the Anza NHT resources and use GIS mapping (BMP).

● Identify and apply for rights-of-way on selected areas of the Anza NHT corridor.

Monitoring.

● Perform condition assessments on selected segments of the Anza NHT, with a priority on

the high potential route segments.

● Identify important access routes into the Anza NHT.

● Implement procedures for systematic monitoring of the Anza NHT management corridor,

including associated sites and trail resources.

Restoration.

● Perform mitigation and/ or landscape restoration in priority areas along the Anza NHT, where

incompatible activities have altered the historic landscape and visual setting of the trail.

Research.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Trails (NT)
206 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Perform archival research on the history and subsequent uses of the Anza NHT.

● Establish collaborative partnerships with academic institutions, professional and non-profit

organizations, individual scholars, tribes, and other entities to perform research on Anza

NHT related topics.

Interpretation and Education.

● Develop interpretive materials and facilities for selected sites.

● Provide educational materials and opportunities to the public pertaining to the Anza NHT

● Identify auto tour route segments and mark with official NPS Anza NHT auto route signage.

Tribal Consultation.

● Continue to consult with the Gila River Indian Community, the Ak-Chin Indian Community,

the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the Tohono O’odham Nation, the Hopi

Tribe, Fort Yuma – Quechan Tribe, and other interested Indian tribes to identify places

of traditional importance.

Partnerships.

● Coordinate with partner groups, interest groups, interested individuals, local communities,

and other stakeholders on Anza NHT issues and projects.

● Consult and collaborate with the NPS, the administrator of the Anza NHT.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

National Trails (NT) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 207

2.9.4. FRED J. WEILER GREEN BELT RESOURCE

CONSERVATION AREA (GB)

The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt along the Gila River was established as a resource conservation

area (RCA) in 1970 and allocated for management of wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources.

The parts of the green belt that fall within the Planning Area include 45,978 acres of the Gila

River channel and floodplain from Sierra Estrella Park on the east to the Planning Area boundary

on the west. Approximately 20,000 additional acres fall within the BLM’s Yuma Field Office for a

total of approximately 63,000 acres in the green belt. Only the acres that fall within the Planning

Area will be discussed further in this document.

Within the area now known as the Green Belt, Public Land Order 1015 (PLO 1015) withdrew

6,896 acres of land from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to the USFWS in 1954. At this

time, the USFWS entered into a cooperative management agreement with the AGFD to manage

these withdrawn lands for wildlife, notably waterfowl and migratory birds. These lands were

segregated from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws

but not the mineral leasing laws. Grazing and existing withdrawals for power purposes were

specifically exempted from the segregation.

In 1967, approximately 63,000 acres in the Gila River floodplain, including the PLO 1015 lands,

were studied, and it was determined that they would be retained under the Classification for

Multiple Use Act of 1964. A classification for multiple use was placed on the subject lands,

segregating the 63,000 acres from appropriation under the public land and mining laws. Mineral

leasing, however, was not excluded. The multiple-use classification was established to allow for

the management of nesting areas for white-winged dove, mourning dove, and songbirds; public

recreation; historical significance; and flood and erosion control. In 1970, the 63,000 acres were

designated as the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area.

Since the Green Belt was designated in 1970, the AGFD has continued to manage the PLO

1015 lands within the Green Belt as part of their Lower Gila River Wildlife Management

Area Complex. However over the past 30 years new laws have been enacted, along with

the implementation of new policy and guidance, and the cooperative agreements between the

BLM, USFWS and AGFD have not been updated accordingly. The jurisdictional management

responsibility remains unclear for certain resources and uses, such as cultural resources and travel

management. The BLM believes that management of some of these still belong to the BLM and

certain management decisions have been made in this Draft RMP with that assumption. Between

the writing of the draft and the proposed RMP, a legal opinion will be requested from the Federal

Solicitors Office and any proposed management actions that need to be changed will be done so in

the proposed RMP. The BLM will work in cooperation with the AGFD to ensure that access to,

and management of, their wildlife management complex will not be impacted by designations or

management actions in the final RMP.

2.9.4.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action)

No specific management prescriptions the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt RCA are in existing LUPs.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource

Conservation Area (GB)
208 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2.9.4.2. Management Actions for Resource Conservation Area (RCA) Action

Alternatives

Goal 1: Ensure that the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt is a productive and functioning riparian system supporting

healthy, diverse, and abundant populations of wildlife and riparian dependent wildlife and plant species with

an emphasis on migratory birds.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS B C D E

Management Actions

Objective 1.1: Manage the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt to support migratory birds and other native wildlife and

plant species.

LS B C D E GB.1.1: The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt would continue to be managed as a

Resource Conservation Area (RCA) as designated in 1970 (63,000).

LS B C D E GB-1.2: The Green Belt would be managed consistent with the Lower Gila

Terraces and Historic Trails SCRMA.

LS B C D E GB.1.3:: The use of mechanical, chemical, and biological treatment methods

would be coordinated with AGFD and USFWS to remove invasive plants such

as tamarisk in the Green Belt for the purpose of restoring ecological conditions

and function and reducing fuel hazards.

LS B C D E GB.1.4: The Green Belt would be managed with an emphasis on protection and

restoration, and treatments would focus on reestablishment of willows and

cottonwoods, as well as other riparian vegetation, to support migratory game

birds and other wildlife species.

LS B C D E GB-1.5: The existing withdrawal for locatable mineral entry and all public land

laws within the PLO 1015 portions of the Green Belt would remain in effect.

LS B C D E GB-1.6: The Green Belt would be closed to mineral leasing and mineral

material disposals including sales and free use permits. The three inactive free

use community pits (Buckeye Hills in T1S, R3W. Secs. 20 &30; T1S, R4W,

Sec. 25) would be terminated, and the former free use site (Narramore Pit in

T1S, R3W, Sec. 24) would not be available for reauthorization.

LS B C D E GB-1.7: The Green Belt would be an exclusion area for utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration, and multiuse utility corridors.

LS B C D E GB-1.8: The Green Belt would be an avoidance area for minor LUAs and

utility-scale renewable energy development and exploration, and multiuse

utility corridors.

LS B C D E GB-1.9: The Green Belt would be an exclusion area for utility-scale renewable

energy development and exploration and major linear LUAs (multiuse utility

corridors).

LS B C D E GB-1.10: The portions of the Green Belt outside of the PLO 1015 lands would

be an avoidance area for minor linear and nonlinear LUAs. Permits would be

approved on a case-by-case basis if management objectives of the area are

mitigated.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation

Area (GB) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 209

2.10. TRIBAL INTERESTS, PUBLIC SAFETY, & SOCIAL

AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

2.10.1. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & PUBLIC SAFETY

There are many Federal, state and local laws and regulations, in addition to bureau policies and

guidance which govern public safety, hazardous materials and solid wastes. Federal laws and

regulations include:

● The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA; 42

USC 9601 et seq.);

● Federal Aid Highways Act (23 USC 317);

● Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088, October 13, 1978);

● Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (EO

12856, August 3, 1993);

● Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act (7 USC 136); Pollution Prevention Act (42

USC 13101 et seq.);

● Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.);

● Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.);

● Superfund Implementation (EO 12580, January 23, 1987) and

● Toxic Substances control Act (15 USC 2601 et seq.)

The BLM has to address many public health and safety concerns within the LSFO-SDNM. The

primary concerns in the Planning Area are: Abandoned Mines, Unexploded Ordnance (UXO),

International Border issues and Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste. See Chapter 3, Affected

Environment (p. 251) for a full discussion of these issues. The BLM will continue to respond to

all known, or reports of, illegal activities related to these issues and evaluate all proposed actions

to minimize impacts to public health and safety and future occurrences of hazardous materials and

dumping on public lands.

2.10.1.1. Existing Management Decisions, Alternative A (No Action) for

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Since most actions are governed by existing laws and regulations, there were no valid existing

management decisions from previous land use plans.

2.10.1.2. Action Alternatives for Hazardous Materials & Public Safety (PS)

Program Goals

● Goal 1: Manage hazards and public use to protect public health and safety.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Tribal Interests, Public Safety, & Social and

Economic Conditions
210 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Land Use Allocations Summary

Not applicable.

2.10.1.3. Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Goal 1: Manage hazards and/or public use to protect public health and safety.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 1.1: Identify naturally occurring or manmade public safety hazards on public lands and take

appropriate action to protect public health and safety.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-1.1.1: Priorities for remediation of physical safety hazards will be set

using the following criteria:

● Where a death or injury has occurred;

● Where site is on or in immediate proximity to a recreation site or a known

high use area;

● Where a formal risk assessment has determined a high or extremely high

risk level.

● The site is eligible for listing in the Abandoned Mines Cleanup Module

of Protection and Response Information System

LS SDNM B C D E PS-1.1.2: Priorities for remediation due to water quality issues will be set

using the following criteria:

● The State has identified the watershed as a priority based on: water laws or

regulations, threat to public health or safety, threat to environment;

● The project is a collaborative effort among multiple agencies or

jurisdictions.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-1.1.3: Post signs to identify hazardous situations when warranted to protect

public safety. Emphasize the risks to visitors of entering public lands and

taking responsibility for their own safety.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-1.1.4: If illegal activities threaten the safety of the public or BLM

employees, or damage Monument objects, areas can be closed to access by the

authorized officer. The area can be closed for up to 90 days pending a study or

review of the level of impacts and longer term actions may be necessary to

provide public safety

LS B C D E PS-1.1.5: The Sentinel Plain area south of I-8 is restricted to entry by permit

only to protect the public from possible unexploded ordinances.

SDNM B C D E PS-1.1.6: The Sand Tank Mountains south of I-8, formerly known as “Area

A,” is restricted to entry by permit only.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 211

Goal 2: Protect public safety by dealing appropriately with all hazardous materials and solid wastes on public

lands.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 2.1: Investigate all reported hazardous-materials and solid-wastes sites. Plan necessary

containment and/or cleanup responses on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible upon report.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.1: Establish priorities for investigating releases and

planning/implementing responses based on the order in which releases are

discovered unless other factors, such as the immediacy of the public-health

threat, elevate the response urgency.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.2: Identify the probable scope of needed containment and clean-up

efforts.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.3: Rank all sites according to relative priority for treatment planning

and action. Priorities to consider include:

● High levels of heavy metals in waste,

● Ground- or surface-water quality degradation,

● Ongoing, active resource damage,

● Safety hazards near established recreation areas or other areas frequented

by public land users,

● Other site-specific factors

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.4: Inspect mining and milling sites to determine appropriate

management for hazardous materials.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.5: Conduct active investigations to identify potentially responsible

parties and recover planning, containment, cleanup, monitoring, investigation,

and enforcement costs associated with spill/release responses.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-2.1.6: Complete site-specific inventories when lands are being disposed or

acquired. It is departmental policy to minimize potential liability of the DOI

and its bureaus by acquiring property that is not contaminated unless directed

by Congress, court mandate, or as determined by the Secretary.

Goal 3: Minimize or eliminate the potential for intentional or accidental releases of hazardous materials or

wastes and solid waste.

Applicable

Decision Area

Applicable

Alternative

LS SDNM B C D E

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Objective 3.1: Pursue locations of solid waste and wildcat dumpsites. Remove hazardous materials and solid

waste, remediate, and, if appropriate, restore sites.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-3.1.1: Investigate all reported hazardous-materials and solid-waste sites.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-3.1.2: Establish a reporting system and encourage other agencies and

citizens to report suspected spill and dump sites or suspected dumping

activities.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-3.1.3: Establish an inventory of known historic and active mining sites

and other areas on public lands where hazardous materials or solid wastes

are known or suspected to be present.

LS SDNM B C D E PS-3.1.4: Evaluate all BLM actions (including land use authorizations, mining

and milling activities, and unauthorized land uses) for their potential to prevent

production or dumping of hazardous or solid wastes on public lands.

Minimize releases of hazardous materials through compliance with current

regulations.

Identify appropriate mitigation for activities associated with all types of

hazardous materials and waste management and all types of fire management.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety
212 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Administrative Actions

● Provide public safety information through BLM visitor-use brochures, websites, the

BGR/Cabeza Prieta NWR/Sand Tank Mountains visitor-entry permit system, and various

direct contacts with members of the public. Include information on hazards associated with

abandoned mines, recreational shooting, unexploded ordnance, smuggler and undocumented

alien (UDA) traffic, other criminal activities, natural resource conditions, or other conditions.

● Post signs in the field to identify certain hazardous situations when warranted to protect public

safety. Emphasize visitor acceptance of the risks of entering public lands and responsibility

for their own safety.

● To reduce human-caused fires, the BLM will undertake education, enforcement, and

administrative fire-prevention measures. Education measures will include various outreach

efforts, including a signing program, information as to the natural role of fire within local

ecosystems, and participation in fairs, parades, and public contacts. Enforcement will be

accomplished by providing training opportunities for employees interested in fire cause

determination. Administration includes expanded prevention and education programs with

other cooperator agencies.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 213

2.11. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, EDUCATION & PUBLIC

OUTREACH

2.11.1. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

The BLM will partner with agencies and the academic and scientific community to develop a

strategy for orderly scientific research of public lands. Scientific research will be evaluated

and approved on a case-by-case basis. A priority will be placed on research likely to enhance

management and understanding of public land resources and public uses. Researchers will be

required to coordinate with the BLM, including providing a research plan, on proposed research

and provide reports and supporting data that describe the outcome of the research.

Approved scientific research will contribute to management of natural and cultural resources and

achieving desired future conditions. The collection of any objects in the Monument is authorized

only by permit for scientific research or use to ensure compatibility and reporting of results. A

reasonable amount of disturbance to soils and/or vegetation may occur during approved research

activities in order to meet the research goals. Effects of disturbance are likely to be transient or

may require mitigation or rehabilitation of sites.

Collaborative research partnerships will be established with interested organizations, such as

local scientific museums or organizations, agencies, academic institutions, professional and

nonprofit organizations, vocational organizations, and other entities, for an orderly process of

research, recordation, and education about public land resources and uses. These partnerships

will support survey, evaluation, recordation, mitigation, protection, and management of various

resources, including biological, cultural, scenic, paleontological, geologic, and caves, and public

uses including recreation, grazing, mining, and others.

By developing a strategy to encourage scientific research and inventory, the understanding of

resources and management needs will improve. A priority will be placed on the development

and implementation for inventory, recording, and evaluation of the Monument, ACECs, and

other sensitive areas and resources.

Increased monitoring of public use, vegetation and wildlife habitat, cultural sites, and other

resources, with particular focus on sensitive resources and easily accessible and regularly visited

areas, would help to ensure the integrity of resources are maintained. Monitoring of public

uses, wildlife, and other resources would be enhanced by the use of volunteers, scientific and

academic organizations, and other interested groups.

2.11.2. INTERPRETATION, ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

& OUTREACH

The BLM will work with partners in agencies, academia, and other organizations to develop an

effective environmental education and outreach strategy to enhance public understanding and

appreciation of public land resources, and help the BLM achieve its mission and the desired

outcomes of this DRMP.

The BLM will support existing educational and interpretive programs and initiatives such as

Project Archaeology, Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly!TM, Project Learning Tree, and other proven

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Scientific Research, Education & Public Outreach
214 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

national, State, regional, and local programs. An emphasis will be placed on reuse of existing

educational materials.

Additionally, the BLM will work with partners to pursue interpretation and environmental

education opportunities, outreach, development, and implementation of on site and off-site

programs for adults and children. The office will work with willing staff from schools, school

districts, and other learning institutions to develop curricula that incorporate various learning

styles in program design and delivery and focus on the BLM’s mission.

To help disseminate information to the public, websites, brochures, maps, access guides, and

information sheets would be developed. BLM personnel would also participate in public events,

such as fairs and open houses, with information and displays showing public land management.

Information would emphasize Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly!TM practices.

Topics may include:

● Resource protection and management,

● Recreational access,

● Use etiquette,

● OHV rules and regulations,

● Public safety,

● Fire,

● OHV and special recreation vehicle information,

● Other information as needed.

2.11.2.1. Resources Education

Throughout the area, (with particular focus sensitive resource areas, including the Monument,

ACECs, WHAs, SCRMAs, and T&E species habitat), emphasis would be placed on resource

importance through interpretation, education, signing, and/or brochures.

A public education program would accomplish the following:

● Provide information about resources and their importance,

● Provide information directly related to procedures to be followed if sensitive resources are

found,

● Provide safety information to the public and identify any resource protection actions required

for public use,

● Specify any pertinent fines for resource damage.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Interpretation, Environmental Education & Outreach August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 215

2.11.2.2. Public Uses and Visitor Information

Visitor information would be developed to guide recreational uses in the Decision Areas.

Information could include identifying recreational opportunities, locations where certain uses

are or are not appropriate, an appreciation and respect for other public land users and uses, and

methods to avoid conflict.

2.11.2.3. Public Safety and Fire Education

Educational material would be available regarding public safety, definitions of hazardous materials

and solid wastes, and regulations controlling the use and disposal of hazardous materials and solid

wastes on public lands. Methods to disseminate information may include brochures at recreational

sites, websites, signs at known or likely dumping sites, BGR/Cabeza Prieta NWR/Sand

Tank Mountains visitor entry permit system, and various types of direct contact with visitors.

Information on hazards associated with abandoned mines, recreational shooting, unexploded

ordnance, smuggler and UDA traffic, natural resource or other conditions also may be included.

To protect public safety, when warranted, signs will be posted to identify certain hazardous

situations.

Visitor acceptance of the risks of entering public land and responsibility for their own safety

would be emphasized.

The BLM will undertake education, enforcement, and administrative fire prevention mitigation

measures to reduce human-caused fires. Education measures may include various media,

including signs, information on the natural role of fire within local ecosystems, participation in

fairs or parades, and other public contacts. Enforcement would be accomplished by providing

training opportunities for employees interested in fire caused determinations. Administration

includes expanded prevention and education programs with other cooperating agencies.

2.12. IMPLEMENTATION, ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT &

MONITORING

2.12.1. IMPLEMENTATION & PARTNERSHIPS

Many LUP decisions are implemented or become effective upon approval of the RMP’s record

of decision (ROD). These decisions include:

● Goals and objectives,

● Land use allocation decisions,

● All special designations, such as ACECs.

Management actions that require more site-specific project planning would require further

environmental analysis. Decisions to implement site-specific projects are subject to administrative

review when such decisions are made.

To succeed in achieving the goals, objectives, and actions of this plan, the BLM, along with other

agencies, organizations, and the public, must make a long-term commitment of working together.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Implementation, Adaptive Management & Monitoring
216 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Implementation of this plan will require the involvement of many partners. The BLM invites

citizens to help the implementation of this plan and achieve the goals laid out. The 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 community-based citizen working groups. The 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 public lands.

To succeed in achieving the goals, objectives, and actions of this plan, the BLM, along with other

agencies, organizations, and the public, must make a long-term commitment of working together.

Implementation of this plan will require the involvement of many partners. The BLM invites

citizens to help the implementation of this plan and achieve the goals laid out. The 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 community-based citizen working groups. The 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 public lands.

● Motorized route and non-motorized trail maintenance and monitoring;

● Development, maintenance, and monitoring of recreational facilities;

● Development of interpretive materials;

● Restoration of wildlife habitat;

● Monitoring of biological and cultural resources;

● Prevention and restoration of areas impacted by litter/dumping;

● Development of community support;

● Delivery of environmental and resource education.

Collaborative efforts may help ensure consistent management between partners, enhance the

public experience, maintain open space, provide use opportunities, and protect natural and

cultural resources. By engaging a diverse group of stakeholders in a collective effort to conserve

and manage the ecological, cultural, open space, recreation, and other use values, resources

can be sustainably managed for the long-term, and the area remain a place where people want

to live, work, and recreate.

2.12.2. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management is a formal, systematic, and rigorous approach to learning from the

results of management actions, accommodating change, and improving management. It involves

synthesizing existing knowledge, exploring alternative actions, and making explicit forecasts

about their results. Management actions and monitoring programs are carefully designed to

generate reliable feedback and clarify the reasons underlying results. Actions and objectives

are then adjusted based on this feedback and improved understanding to try to achieve the

desired outcomes. In addition, decisions, actions, and results are carefully documented and

communicated to others so that knowledge gained through experience is passed on, rather than

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Adaptive Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 217

lost when individuals move or leave the organization. Desired outcomes (goals and objectives),

as well as the boundaries of land use allocations or special designations are not adaptable and

require an RMP amendment to change. Actions to achieve the desired outcomes may be adapted

to achieve the desired outcomes. Implementation or activity level decisions also may be adapted.

This DRMP recommends an adaptive management strategy. This process is flexible and generally

involves four phases: planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. As the BLM works

with partners to obtain new information, it is able to evaluate monitoring data and other resource

information to periodically refine and update management decisions and actions. This allows for

the continual refinement and improvement of management prescriptions and practices.

2.12.3. MONITORING & PARTNERSHIPS

Monitoring of actions related to implementing LUPs is an important part of adaptive management

because it provides information on the relative success of strategies. Monitoring is the collection

and analysis of repeated observations to track the status of a variable or system, and can be used

to determine whether management actions are being implemented as written (implementation

monitoring) or to evaluate success in achieving desired outcomes (effectiveness monitoring).

Adaptive management relies on monitoring that is sufficiently sensitive to detect relevant

ecological changes. Ongoing monitoring helps to adjust management decisions and strategies

related to implementing LUPs. The BLM monitors many activities and events; grazing utilization

and vegetation trends are measured to support decisions on allotment Standards and Guidelines

evaluations. OHV events are monitored to determine if permit stipulations are followed and

necessary site rehabilitation undertaken.

This DRMP recognizes that many monitoring needs will require further design and planning.

There are several ways to design an effectiveness-monitoring program. Model-based approaches

rely on a small number of sites to represent an ecosystem class; however, it can be exceedingly

difficult to find these, and it sometimes is difficult to draw broad conclusions from those sites.

Design-based approaches rely on a carefully planned sampling. In this approach, the sample size

must be large enough to make reliable references, which may be costly. A significant challenge

in designing a program to monitor ecological conditions is integrating habitat monitoring with

the species of special interest. Additionally, the BLM faces the challenge of monitoring uses on

public lands. The BLM invites citizens and partners to help it develop an effective monitoring

and evaluation plan for implementation decisions on public land resources, local communities,

and users.

2.13. REQUIREMENTS FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

ANALYSIS

This Draft RMP/EIS is a programmatic statement describing the impacts of implementing the

LUP decisions and management actions described for the Planning Area.

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 is required.

Individual management actions or projects requiring more site-specific project planning require

more environmental analysis.

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Monitoring & Partnerships
218 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 LUP. In addition, the BLM will ensure that the environmental review process

includes evaluation of all critical elements to include cultural resources and T&E species, and

completes required USFWS Section 7 consultations and coordination with 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 supplement 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.

2.14. INTERRELATIONSHIPS

The BLM conducts many activities that require coordination between itself and State or other

Federal agencies. Coordination has been ongoing throughout this planning effort. Coordination

is required when implementing LUP decisions through project development and site-specific

activities.

As a part of this planning effort and implementing on-the-ground activities, the BLM conducts

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS, as prescribed under the ESA. In 2003, the BLM and

USFWS finalized a consultation agreement to establish an effective and cooperative Section

7 consultation process. The agreement defines the process, products, actions, schedule, and

expectations of the 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 disclose all expected

environmental effects, conservation actions, mitigations, 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 listed or candidate species would initiate more site-specific consultation

on those actions.

Consultation with the Arizona SHPO is also conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the

NHPA. The BLM’s actions would also comply with other Federal environmental legislation,

existing programmatic environmental analyses, LUPs, and vegetation treatment documents,

such as the Clear Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and with State and local

government regulations (Appendix B, Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003)).

The Sikes Act (16 USC 670 et seq.) authorizes the 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 land

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.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Interrelationships August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 219

The BLM must also coordinate with suitable State agencies in managing State-listed plant and

animal species when the State has formally made such designations.

The BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitats on public lands, while AGFD is

responsible for managing wildlife populations and game harvest. Proclamation 7397 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.” Continued efforts would be

made to coordinate with AGFD 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 MOU. In addition, an MOU has been signed giving

AGFD cooperating agency status on RMP efforts in Arizona. To further promote interagency

coordination, a cooperative agreement was signed between the agencies, establishing a liaison

position in the AGFD. This liaison is assigned coordination responsibility on all ongoing LUPs

and spends a portion of his/her 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 ADOT, county departments of transportation, and

city transportation departments. Coordination efforts will be consistent with MOUs (e.g., ADOT,

BLM, or FHWA MOUs) or other documents in effect at the time of the project. When these

agencies plan and develop roadways that cross public lands, the BLM is involved in their design

and contributes to environmental impact analysis. In that process, the BLM would coordinate

with the responsible agency to develop design features that minimize the fragmenting effect of

the planned roadway. It would work with the responsible agency to evaluate and incorporate

safe and effective wildlife crossings to ensure long-term species viability and maintain habitat

connectivity. Where planned roadways potentially fragment other resources, such as but not

limited to recreation routes, grazing allotments or mining operations, the BLM will work with the

responsible agency to provide continued connectivity for those purposes as well. The BLM also

would work with the agency to provide continued safe access to public land from any developed

roadway for recreation and other public uses.

2.15. COMPARISON OF IMPACT INTENSITIES

In an effort to demonstrate the intensity of an impact, a range of qualitative terms have been

created to summarize impacts from one management program on another. Some programs

have specifically defined these terms for their managed resource or resource use with clearly

outlined thresholds. Program specific intensity definitions can be found in the beginning of

each program’s impacts analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences (p. 371), while

the general definitions of these terms can be found in Section 4.1.5, “Qualitative Terms for the

Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375). Table 2.23, “Comparison of Impact Intensities” (p. 219) compares

the intensities by alternative. For impacts that reach the major intensity level, a summary of

those impacts is provided within the tables.

Table 2.23. Comparison of Impact Intensities

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

IMPACTS ON AIR RESOURCES

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
220 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Negligible

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor; SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

to Moderate

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 221

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

IMPACTS ON CAVE RESOURCES

No caves and cave resources have been identified in the Decision Areas, though Paleozoic

limestone outcrops and lava tubes do exist.

IMPACTS ON CULTURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Vegetation Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
222 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Minor to Major; SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate; SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Limited paleontological resources have been found in the Planning Area; therefore impacts

on these resources are not discussed in detail.

IMPACTS ON PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 223

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor.

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor ;

SDNM: Negligible

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major; SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor.

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major.

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minomer

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor; SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
224 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Major;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major ;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: None

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON SOIL RESOURCES

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 225

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major; SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran: Major: Blading of large acreages

for solar energy facilities, estimated at greater than

150,000 acres over the life of the plan, is likely

to disrupt drainage patterns, and cause surface

disturbance and soil compaction over a large enough

area to be a moderate impact. Use of large quantities

of ground water, may be needed for renewable

energy production and may affect soil resources by

causing subsidence in localized areas. Assuming

that the solar energy development proposals to be

built under this plan are mostly the solar energy

concentration facilities, the overall impact of ROWs

for this use would be moderate, although it would

be major in the localized construction area.

SDNM: Minor to Major

Lower Sonoran:

Major (same

impacts as

discussed in

Alternatives B

through C).

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Major (same

impacts as

discussed in

Alternatives B

through C).

SDNM:

Minor to Major

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to Major;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Major: Impacts of mineral

development on soil resources include potential

disturbances including soil displacement and loss

or burial of upper soil horizons. This would reduce

water holding capacity (possibly permanently), loss

of vegetation leading to increased erosion, and new

roads. If a large mine with leach pads, open pits and

tailings piles were developed, major impacts on soils

would occur. Much of the mine footprint would

experience a long-term loss of soil productivity.

SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
226 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran: Major: Overall impacts on soils from travel on mostly unsurfaced roads

would be moderate with some areas of sensitive soils or higher road densities having

major impacts. As road density increases, soil surface and vegetation disturbance,

including disturbance to the 100 foot parking area on each side of the road prism, and

total compacted surface area exposed to erosion during storm water runoff all increase.

SDNM: Minor to Major

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Major: Soils affected by a spill of hazardous materials are usually

removed. Delays in cleanup could result in infiltration of hazardous materials into

groundwater, possibly causing major impacts and costly groundwater treatment.

SDNM: Negligible to Major

IMPACTS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Vegetation Resources

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 227

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Moderate to Major; SDNM: Moderate to Major

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Major;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Minor

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

None

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
228 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor;

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major; SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Characteristics Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate;

SDNM: None

Recreation Management Lower Sonoran: Moderate to Major; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to

Major; SDNM: Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 229

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: None

Soil Resources None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
230 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor; SDNM:

Negligible

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Minor

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON WILD HORSE & BURRO MANAGEMENT

The intent of the existing decisions and proposed alternative decision is to remove all wild horses and burros from

the Painted Rock Herd Area, and any impacts from other program areas on the Wild Horse & Burro program

would be negligible. Therefore, impacts from other resources will not be discussed in detail.

IMPACTS ON WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor; SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 231

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Vegetation Resources

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Major;

SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor; SDNM:

Minor

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major; SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran: Major: In

subject areas with wilderness

characteristics, naturalness

and opportunities for solitude

and primitive and unconfined

recreation could be subject

to major impacts, potentially

completely foregone due to the

development of renewable energy

facilities. These impacts would

be located in the lower elevations

of the Gila Bend Mountains and

Saddle Mountain, with the effects

mainly occurring on the lower

desert plains and bajadas (areas

with 5% elevation slope or less).

Permanent transportation and

associated right-of-way corridors

within or next to lands with

wilderness characteristics could

prospectively cause major

degradation of wilderness

characteristics. These impacts

would mainly be found in

wilderness characteristics areas

within the Gila Bend Mountains

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
232 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

and Saddle Mountain areas,

with road corridors sited in

less mountainous terrain, and

probably impinging on the

same lands subject to the

solar and energy developments

described previously.

SDNM: Moderate

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

IMPACTS ON WILDLAND AND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 233

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Minerals Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
234 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON LANDS AND REALTY MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Negligible

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Minor

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Minor

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Moderate

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 235

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Minor to Major

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor to

Major;

SDNM:

Minor to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Major: Under

Alternatives D,

over half of

the Decision

Area would

be excluded or

avoided to LUA

and utility-scale

renewable

energy

development

and the least

amount of

multiuse utility

corridors would

be allocated,

possibly

increasing the

amount of LUAs

rejected from

being processed

within the

Decision Area.

SDNM: Major:

The entire

Monument

would be an

exclusion area

to all LUAs,

including

utility-scale

renewable

energy

development,

and no multiuse

utility corridors

would be

allocated,

thus forcing

all proposed

applications

for LUAs to be

rejected within

the Monument.

Lower Sonoran: Moderate

to Major;

SDNM: Major: The entire

Monument would be an exclusion

area to all LUAs, including

utility-scale renewable energy

development, and no multiuse

utility corridors would be

allocated, thus forcing all

proposed applications for LUAs to

be rejected within the Monument.

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
236 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor; SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Major:

Alternative D

would be the

most restrictive

alternative to

LUAs, due to

the fact that the

most amount of

acres are closed

to vehicle use,

potentially

increasing

the access

limitations in

certain areas

of the Lower

Sonoran.

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Moderate

to Major;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Major: All

special

designations

would be

exclusion areas

for all LUAs

and would

restrict all uses

to designated

multiuse utility

corridors, thus

increasing the

amount of

rejected LUA

applications

within the

Decision Area.

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 237

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Minor

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major; SDNM: Negligible to Major

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Major;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to Major;

SDNM:

Negligible

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
238 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Major:

Managing

perennial

grazing

allotments

with a

reduction in

the authorized

grazing

preference

could have a

major impact

by reducing

the long-term

viability of

some livestock

operations.

The reduction

in livestock

numbers could

leave some

operators with

herd sizes

too small

to support

their current

operations.

Operators

would have

to acquire

additional

lands in order

to support

a viable

operation.

SDNM: Major

(Impacts

would be

the same as

described

under the

Lower

Sonoran)

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Major: All

allotments

would be closed

to grazing when

current permits

expire. This

would eliminate

livestock

grazing, which

would be a

major impact

to permittees

who would be

required to turn

to other means

to sustain their

herds.

SDNM: Major

(Impacts would

be the same

as described

under the Lower

Sonoran)

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 239

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Travel Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON MINERALS MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate; SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor

to Moderate

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
240 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Recreation Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Travel Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Moderate

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

IMPACTS ON RECREATION MANAGEMENT

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Moderate to Major; SDNM: Moderate to Major

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Major;

SDNM:

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Major; SDNM: Minor to Major

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 241

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

IMPACTS ON TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Air Quality

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Major;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Major;

SDNM:

Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
242 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM: Minor

Soil Resources

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Vegetation Resources

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Moderate

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 243

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Major:

This alternative

creates the

maximum

amount of

solitude and

unconfined

recreation of all

the alternatives

through the

closure of

existing

primitive roads

and trails,

having a major

effect by greatly

restricting

vehicular access

to areas around

the Sand Tank

Mountains,

Javelina

Mountain, and

Margie’s Peak.

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

None

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM: None

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
244 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Moderate to

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Major

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to Major;

SDNM:

Minor to Major

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM: Major:

Allocating

175,700 acres

as limited to

designated

routes and

allocating

310,700 acres

to OHV closed

area would have

a major effect

on the travel

system, by

closing areas

greater than

10,000 acres to

vehicular use.

Conversely,

large areas for

non-motorized

access are

dramatically

increased in

size, having a

major effect

on this travel

mode as well.

As compared to

the No-Action

Alternative,

where 161,200

acres are closed,

this alternative

closes much

more area

to vehicular

access.

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to Major;

SDNM:

Minor to Major

Special Designations

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Major;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Moderate

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 245

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

IMPACTS ON SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Negligible;

SDNM:

Minor to

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: None;

SDNM: None

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate; SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower

Sonoran:

Moderate;

SDNM:

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate; SDNM: Minor

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
246 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate;

SDNM: Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

IMPACTS ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & PUBLIC SAFETY

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wildland Fire Management

Lower Sonoran: Major: Fires kill and remove native vegetation, allowing disturbed

landscapes to be easily invaded by opportunistic non-native invasive plants and weeds

like buffelgrass. This is a potentially severe and permanent impact if Sonoran Desert

fires convert fire-intolerant native desert habitats to non-native fire tolerant grasslands.

In summary, all the actions described can degrade or diminish naturalness over the

long term and are considered major both in scope, scale and severity.

SDNM: Major (Impacts are the same as those discussed in the Lower Sonoran.)

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 247

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Lands and Realty

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Minor;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Minor to Major; SDNM: Minor to Major

Recreation Management Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate; SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Travel Management Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Moderate

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Major; SDNM: Moderate.

IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible

to Moderate;

SDNM: Negligible to Moderate

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor;

SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

August 2011

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities
248 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Wilderness Characteristics

Lower Sonoran: Minor to

Moderate;

SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Moderate;

SDNM:

Minor to

Moderate

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Major; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower

Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM: Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible;

SDNM: Negligible

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Moderate; SDNM: Negligible

Recreation Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible to

Minor;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Moderate; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Travel Management

Lower Sonoran:

Negligible;

SDNM:

Negligible to

Minor

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

IMPACTS ON TRIBAL INTERESTS

Air Quality Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cave Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Paleontological Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Priority Wildlife Species

and Habitat

Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Soil Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Chapter 2 Alternatives

Comparison of Impact Intensities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 249

From: Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Vegetation Resources Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Visual Resource

Management

Lower Sonoran: Minor to Moderate; SDNM: Minor to Moderate

Water Resources Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wild Horse & Burro

Management

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

Wilderness Characteristics Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Wildland Fire Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Lands and Realty Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Livestock Grazing

Management

Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Minerals Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Recreation Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible; SDNM: Negligible

Travel Management Lower Sonoran: Negligible to Minor; SDNM: Negligible to Minor

Special Designations Lower Sonoran: Minor; SDNM: Minor

Public Safety and

Hazardous Materials

Lower Sonoran: None; SDNM: None

August 2011 Chapter 2 Alternatives
Chapter 3. Affected Environment
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 253

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environment within the Lower Sonoran Planning Area that would

potentially be affected by actions proposed under the alternatives described in Chapter 2,

Alternatives (p. 27). While the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is only responsible for

managing BLM-administered public lands (public lands) within the Planning Area (i.e. the Lower

Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument [SDNM] Decision Areas), proposed decisions

may affect environmental components outside the Decision Areas. Therefore, unless indicated

otherwise, discussion and analysis in this section encompasses the Planning Area as a whole.

The environmental components potentially impacted consist of resource and management

activities listed below. The foreseeable environmental effects of the alternatives on these

same resource and management activities are described in Chapter 4, Environmental

Consequences (p. 371).

Resources Resource Uses

Air Quality Lands and Realty

Cave Resources Livestock Grazing Management

Climate Change Minerals Management

Cultural and Heritage Resources Recreation Management

Geology Travel Management

Paleontological Resources Special Area Designations

Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management National Landscape Conservation System

Soil Resources Administrative Designations

Vegetation Resources Other Special Designations

Visual Resources Social and Economic

Water Resources Tribal Interests

Wild Horse & Burro Management Hazardous Materials and Public Safety

Wilderness Characteristics Social and Economic Conditions

Wildland Fire Management

The data and descriptions of these categories are drawn from the Analysis of the Management

Situation (AMS) (BLM 2005) and subsequent, completed resource assessments on several of the

environmental components occurring within the Planning Area. The AMS is available for public

review at the BLM’s Phoenix District Office.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Introduction
254 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.2. RESOURCES

3.2.1. AIR QUALITY

3.2.1.1. Clean Air Act Land Classifications

The BLM’s role in air-resource management is to ensure that agency activities comply with

applicable air-quality standards and that BLM-authorized leases and permits include conditions

and stipulations that require compliance with applicable air quality rules and standards.

This is done through interagency coordination, participation in State implementation plans,

environmental impact analyses as required by NEPA, and adaptive management practices as

outlined in BLM Handbook H-1601-1.

Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), national parks 6,000 acres or larger and wilderness areas

5,000 acres or larger existing in 1977 were designated as Class I. The class 1 designation gives

Federal land managers the opportunity to impose the strictest rules protecting air quality. The

Planning Area includes one wilderness area with a Class I air quality designation, Superstition

Wilderness, located east of Phoenix. Undeveloped, remote areas deserving of natural or scenic

resource preservation could be designated as Class II. Other wilderness areas and national parks,

including those designated after 1977, are classified as Class II, and land managers are limited to

less strict protection of air quality. State and local air quality planning and permitting agencies give

such places special consideration under the CAA through Prevention of Significant Deterioration

criteria even though they do not qualify as Class I. Within the Planning Area, nine wilderness areas

have been designated Class II for air quality. These include three areas containing designated

wilderness outside the Decision Areas (Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and Four Peaks wildernesses), three within the Lower Sonoran

(Woolsey Peak, Signal Mountain, and Sierra Estrella wildernesses), and three within the SDNM

(Table Top, North Maricopa Mountains, and South Maricopa Mountains wildernesses).

The CAA requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants harmful to public health or the environment. It also

establishes two types of national standards: primary standards to protect health and secondary

standards to protect welfare. The EPA sets NAAQS for six principal or “criteria” pollutants. The

pollutants are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one-hour ozone (O3), sulfur

dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter smaller than 10 micrometers in effective diameter (PM10).

Geographic areas are designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each of the

criteria pollutants with respect to NAAQS. An area is designated as “attainment” if pollutant

concentrations meet the NAAQS, “nonattainment” if pollutant concentrations exceed the

NAAQS, or “unclassified” if the status of attainment has not been verified through data collection.

For planning and permitting purposes, unclassified areas are treated as attainment areas. All

counties making up portions of the Planning Areas, with the exception of Yuma County, contain

some areas that are designated as nonattainment with respect to specific criteria pollutants that

include PM10, SO2, CO, and O3 (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality [ADEQ] 2006).

The air-pollution nonattainment areas are shown in Map 3-1: Air Pollutant Nonattainment Areas.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 255

3.2.1.2. Emission Sources

Diverse emission sources within the Planning Area collectively affect air quality on a local and

regional scale, including major, minor, non-permitted, mobile, and fugitive emission sources. For

permitting purposes, a major source is defined as an emission that has the potential to emit 100

tons or more per year of any single criteria pollutant, 10 tons per year of any single hazardous

air pollutant, or 25 tons per year of any combined hazardous air pollutants. Major sources

include industrial facilities such as gas-fired power plants, natural gas pipeline compressor

stations, landfills, mineral processing facilities, and various manufacturing plants with large fuel

combustion equipment or use substantial quantities of volatile organic materials, typically in

application of finishes and coatings.

A minor source is defined as an emission that has the potential to emit pollutants at a level greater

than the “significance” threshold, but less than a major source. The significance threshold

provides an emission baseline for criteria pollutants that determines which facilities must obtain

permits. Minor sources include industrial and commercial facilities of many kinds, especially

in the more developed portions of the Planning Area. Although minor emission sources vary

outside the metropolitan Phoenix area, common sources are rock-product plants that produce

crushed and screened materials, and hot-mix asphalt and concrete plants. These plants can be

found in the Lower Sonoran and are often portable, which means that they can be moved as the

local demand for their product moves. The primary emissions from these sources are particulate

matter; however, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) can also be significant if any equipment operates using

fuel-fired generators.

Many small, stationary emission sources, such as agricultural operations and large-scale

construction projects, do not produce air pollution levels that would substantially affect regional

air quality, and are not required to have an operating permit. Such sources may occur in the

Decision Areas on occasion. However, emissions from these facilities, mostly in the form of

particulates, can affect local air quality due to the arid soil conditions. While non-permitted

sources are not tracked as closely as permitted sources, these must also comply with applicable

Federal, State, and local regulations.

Vehicle travel on paved roads, especially in the metropolitan Phoenix area, represents the largest

single emission source in and surrounding the Planning Area. When CO from vehicle emissions

combines with the extreme desert heat, O3 is created. Other major contributors in the Planning

Area include traffic on interstates and other major thoroughfares, including Interstates 10, 17,

and 8 (I-10, I-17, and I-8); U.S. Highways 60 and 89 (U.S. 60 and U.S. 89); and State Highway

87 (SR 87). In a similar fashion, railroad corridors can be significant emissions contributors in

the Planning Area’s central portions. Particulate matter carried onto paved roadways from wind

and rain events and soil tracked onto highways by vehicles entering from unpaved roads are

common sources of PM10 pollution.

Most vehicle routes in the Decision Areas are unpaved. Travel on unpaved routes results in

particulate emissions, or fugitive dust. Although fugitive dust is not included in air quality

evaluations, it can affect local air quality, especially in areas of concentrated travel on unpaved

roads and during periods of high winds.

The largest source of particulate matter emissions in the Planning Area is surface-disturbing

activities, including construction, mining, and off-highway (recreation-related) travel, all of

which occur in the Decision Areas. State and local nonpoint-source rules guide these activities.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
256 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Maricopa County recommends best management practices (BMPs) such as applying water or

chemical dust suppressants to reduce particulate matter emissions.

The northern part of the Lower Sonoran is most likely to be affected by automobile emissions,

including CO, CO2, SO2, and PM10 due to road density and proximity to the Phoenix metropolitan

area. Such emission sources could also affect the northern-most portion of SDNM. Traffic on

I-8 and State Highways 85 and 238 (SR 85 and SR 238), as well as the railroad corridor, are

significant contributors of emissions in the Monument's central and southern portions. Travel on

unpaved roads also results in fugitive dust emissions.

3.2.1.3. Quantifiable Indicators

Quantifiable indicators associated with air quality include criteria air pollutants, conditions, and

observed levels of visibility. Criteria air pollutants associated with NAAQS, as identified in the

CAA and regulated by the EPA, include NO2, CO, SO2, O3, PM10, and particulate matter less

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Visibility varies with the levels of criteria air pollutants in

the atmosphere.

Pollutants

A review of air monitoring data required by Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) 49-424.10 indicates

considerable progress has been made in reducing airborne pollutants throughout the state. The

most drastic change has occurred in CO concentrations in the highly urbanized areas of Tucson

and Phoenix. Such concentrations, which regularly exceeded standards in neighborhoods and

near busy intersections in Phoenix (and to a lesser extent in Tucson), are now well below the

eight-hour CO NAAQS of 9 parts per million (ppm). Ozone concentrations have shown slight

decreases in the metropolitan areas of Tucson and Phoenix, though a very slight increase has

been observed in some rural areas. In comparison with CO, O3 concentrations may prove to be

more difficult to curb due to its relatively high background levels. Trends in PM10 are quite

variable and location dependent. Long-term trend sites in Phoenix show a slight decrease in PM10

concentrations for most areas, though there may be localized, unimproved areas. The Tucson

metropolitan area, on the other hand, has seen a general increase in PM10 concentrations, but their

magnitude is significantly less than in Phoenix. Monitoring of PM2.5 is a new program begun in

the late 1990s. While there is insufficient data to assess PM2.5 trends confidently, the variability in

concentration of these fine particles over time appears to be relatively constant, with Phoenix and

Nogales, Arizona, having the greatest magnitudes.

A substantial number of air-quality monitors, scattered in and around the Planning Area, measure

and record ambient air concentrations for criteria air pollutants (i.e. CO, NO2, O3, SO2, PM10,

and PM2.5). In 2004, all monitors with recorded data indicated compliance with the NAAQS for

all pollutants except O3 (8-hour standard) and PM10 (24-hour and annual standards). Such data

allow a review of historic trends for certain pollutants. Data trends for criteria air pollutants

measured and recorded at various monitors were evaluated based on data obtained from annual

Air Quality Reports issued by ADEQ.

A small portion of the SDNM, about 3,500 acres downwind from the City of Phoenix, is within

the nonattainment area of the Maricopa Intrastate Air Quality Control Region. The 3,500 acres

encompasses sections of Woolsey Peak, North Maricopa Mountains, and the Sierra Estrellas. It

should be noted that ozone production in the lower atmosphere is mostly an inner-city condition.

Ground-level ozone is caused by, among other things, motor-vehicle exhaust, industrial

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 257

emissions, and gasoline vapors, as well as natural sources that emit nitrogen oxides and volatile

organic compounds.

A portion of the Monument is within the area designated by Maricopa County as “Area A”

for PM10. All projects and program components within this area must comply with Section

176 (c) of the CAA, as amended, and regulations under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

part 93 subpart W, concerning conformity of general Federal actions to the applicable State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for nonattainment and maintenance areas. Under those authorities, “no

department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, support in any

way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve any activity which does not

conform to an applicable implementation plan.” Therefore, a Federal agency must determine that

a Federal action conforms to the applicable implementation plan before it is done.

For all pollutants, PM10, SO2, CO, and O3, no standards were violated in the Planning Area’s

western region, which encompasses most of the Lower Sonoran (e.g. Ajo Block and Saddle and

Gila Bend Mountains). Most areas where standards are exceeded are in the immediate vicinity

of, and to the northeast of, metropolitan Phoenix (see Map 3-1: Air Pollutant Nonattainment

Areas), which includes the northernmost portion of the Lower Sonoran. Trends here have

been variable. The Ajo and Globe-Miami areas historically were designated nonattainment for

SO2, primarily due to emissions related to the large copper mines; however, in 2004, Ajo was

re-designated as in attainment, and Miami-Globe has been recommended for attainment status.

The Ajo PM10 nonattainment area has been recommended for attainment because it has not

exceeded the standard since 1998 (EPA 2006; EPA 2007; ADEQ 2007; Maricopa County Air

Quality Department [MCAQD] 2006)

Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Sulfur Dioxide. With few exceptions in the

Planning Area, CO-monitoring data indicate a general decrease in pollutant levels since 1997,

with none exceeding air quality standards. In January 2005, the Phoenix metropolitan area was

in attainment with CO standards. Nitrogen dioxide showed a general increase for hourly and

daily measurements from 1998 to 2000, then decreases in pollutant levels since 2001. Overall,

the annual pattern of emissions has remained steady and within standards. Sulfur dioxide shows

variable 3-hour and daily concentrations, but overall concentrations are steady or decreasing and

within standards. The Ajo and Globe-Miami areas historically were nonattainment areas for SO2,

primarily due to emissions related to the mines; however, in 2004, Ajo was re-designated in

attainment, and Miami-Globe has been recommended for attainment status.

Ozone. Ozone is measured under a 1-hour and an 8-hour standard. In May 2005, EPA changed

the Phoenix metropolitan area designation to attainment of the 1-hour ground level O3 standard.

This change was based on not exceeding the 1-hour O3 standard for the prior eight years. For O3

on an 8-hour average, the 3-year average of the fourth highest value recorded must be below 0.08

ppm. Nine monitors exceeded this value in and around the Planning Area, with values ranging

from 0.08 to 0.085 ppm; the majority are located in the metropolitan Phoenix area. In January

2005, the EPA designated the Phoenix metropolitan area as nonattainment for the 8-hour O3

standard. Air-quality agencies are now working on control measures that are more stringent to

attain the O3 standard (EPA 2006; EPA 2007; ADEQ 2005; ADEQ 2007; MCAQD 2006).

In the Phoenix metropolitan area and the northeast portion of the Planning Area, O3 levels have

been variable with no prominent trends since 1998. The Gila Bend Mountains and Saddle

Mountain area has had a decreasing trend in O3 over this same period.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
258 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is monitored for both PM10 and PM2.5. In both sizes,

the Phoenix area, including much of Maricopa and Pinal counties, are exceeding standards.

The 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is 150 μg/m3; the annual PM10 NAAQS is 50 μg/m3. In 2004, the

24-hour standard was exceeded 41 times at 12 sites in the metropolitan Phoenix area, and five

sites exceeded the annual standard. Primary pollution sources contributing to this nonattainment

are windblown dust from construction sites, agricultural fields, unpaved roads and parking lots,

and disturbed vacant lots.

Based on 1997 air quality standards, the entire state of Arizona is in attainment of the PM2.5

standard. In 2006, however, the EPA created standards that are more stringent and expects to

issue new designations in 2010 based on data collected in 2007-2009 (EPA 2007). As a result,

the ADEQ and county departments of environmental quality have been looking closely at PM2.5

emissions. Air-quality agencies are working on control measures that are more stringent to

decrease particulate matter, both PM10 and PM2.5, with a goal to decrease PM2.5 emissions by 5

percent per year.

For all pollutants, no standards were exceeded in the Planning Area’s western region, which

encompasses most of the public lands, including the SDNM, Ajo Block, Saddle Mountain, and

Gila Bend Mountains. Most exceeded-standard areas are in the immediate vicinity of, and to the

northeast and southeast of, the metropolitan Phoenix area. Emission sources located within or

near the Decision Areas could potentially contribute to exceeding the PM10NAAQS standard,

although insufficient data is available to identify specific causes or sources except (in some

cases) high winds.

For PM10, annual averages have been stable in most locations since 2000; however, hourly

and daily standards occasionally have been exceeded. Rolling three-year data for the annual

PM10 standard analyzed by the EPA show that for the years 2001 through 2006, the Phoenix

nonattainment area averages 62 μg/m3, while the standard is 50 (EPA 2006). The 24-hour

PM10 NAAQS is 150 μg/m3. EPA data analysis shows that the rolling three-year data indicates

an average of 256 μg/m3 (EPA 2006). In October 2010, the EPA proposed a new PM10

nonattainment area comprised of western Pinal County.

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter is collected in only a few locations and

shows no clear trend except that concentrations have been relatively stable. Neither EPA current

evaluations nor future projections indicate that any areas in Arizona will be out of compliance

with the new PM2.5 standards. The Ajo PM10 nonattainment area has been recommended for

attainment status because it has not exceeded the standard since 1998 (EPA 2006, 2007; ADEQ

2007; MCAQD 2006).

Visibility Conditions

Visibility and regional haze conditions in the Planning Area are a function of the nature and

emission height of certain air pollutants and meteorological conditions. The Cooperative

Institute for Research in the Atmosphere operates a network of monitoring stations and publishes

Integrated Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data to identify and

evaluate patterns and trends in regional visibility. Data pertaining to the Planning Area show that

visible haze patterns measured in the Sonoran Desert characterize typical sites in the Southwest.

The monitoring results revealed:

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 259

● Fine and coarse particulate concentrations were the largest contributors to poor visibility in

the spring, then summer and fall, and lowest in the winter.

● Contributions to visibility degradation consisting of sulfates, organics, and soil in the fine

particulate mass measurements were highest in the summer, and then fall, spring, and again

lowest in the winter (IMPROVE 2000).

Based on the above observations, the haziest days in the Sonoran Desert occur in the summer and

the best visibility occurs in the winter.

In 2004, the visibility conditions at the Tonto National Monument IMPROVE monitor, which is

located northeast of the Superstition Class I Wilderness Area, were 110, 155, and 220 kilometers

for the worst, typical, and best visual range values, respectively (Visibility Information Exchange

Web System [VIEWS] 2006). For example, on the worst days, someone could identify a dark

object against the horizon up to 110 kilometers away. Downtown Phoenix visibility also has been

measured in recent years. Preliminary data from 2004 and 2005 indicates that approximately 50

percent of the days were considered good or excellent and 50 percent were considered fair, poor,

or very poor (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2006). In recent years, Phoenix

area parks had five cameras installed to monitor visibility conditions, including Superstitions

Mountains and Estrella Mountain County and South Mountain parks within the Planning Area.

These could be used to assess visibility trends in the future. Limited trend data is available

on visibility in the Planning Area, due primarily to a single IMPROVE monitor located to the

northeast of Phoenix. Based on data available from 1991-2001, there was an improvement in

visibility and standard visible range. Visibility distances on the worst days ranged from 87 to 103

kilometers and on the best days from 176 to 199 kilometers (VIEWS 2003a, 2003b). Actions to

decrease O3 and particulate matter are likely to improve visibility.

Meteorological Conditions

The Planning Area is typical of the Sonoran Desert (i.e. warm and dry), and air quality is closely

linked to an area’s meteorological conditions.

● Average annual maximum temperatures vary across the Planning Area. Long-term data

indicates an average annual maximum temperature of 89oF in the western portion to 76oF at

the eastern edge, and from 79oF in the north to 84oF in the south. Minimum temperatures

range from 56oF in the western side to 47oF in the east, and from 61oF in the north to 59oF in

the south (Western Regional Climatic Center [WRCC] 2006a). Average monthly temperatures

in the western part of the Planning Area, where most of the Decision Areas’ lands are located,

range from the mid 40s in the winter to the mid 90s in the summer.

● Annual average mean precipitation levels range from 6-16 inches west to east, with rainfall

ranging from 6-10 inches in the west and south, and higher rainfall levels to the northeast

(WRCC 2006a). Precipitation is almost entirely in the form of rain and is unevenly distributed

throughout the year, with, on average, more rain in July and August during the summer

monsoon season.

● The average annual wind speeds range from 5.5 to 7.7 miles per hour (mph), with the average

monthly wind speed ranging throughout the year from 4.0 to 8.9 mph (WRCC 2006b).

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Air Quality
260 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

These climate and meteorological factors often contribute to the generation of fugitive dust,

especially from vehicular travel on unpaved roads, earthmoving activity, and mineral material

handling.

3.2.2. CAVE RESOURCES

The BLM is required to comply with the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act (FCRPA)

regarding caves in the Planning Area. Caves on Federal lands are managed under 43 CFR, Part

37. These regulations provide guidance for identifying, nominating, evaluating, and designating

significant cave resources. According to FCRPA, a cave is “any naturally occurring void, cavity,

recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or

within a cliff or ledge and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not

the entrance is naturally formed or manmade. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or

other feature, which is an extension of the entrance.”

The Planning Area contains Paleozoic sedimentary deposits and Tertiary volcanic rocks known

to contain caves elsewhere in Arizona. While Paleozoic limestone occurs in the Sand Tank

Mountains, no caves or cave resources have been found in the Decision Areas; however, two

lava tubes are known to occur in Sentinel Plain. Small rock overhangs and shallow openings

are present in some rock units; however, these are not deep enough to meet the criteria to be

considered a cave. Two lava tubes have been identified in the Decision Areas as cave resources.

There may be additional undocumented caves located in geologically suitable areas. Any newly

discovered caves would be evaluated for scientific, educational, and recreational value according

to the FCRPA.

3.2.3. CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate is the composite of a region’s generally prevailing weather conditions throughout the

year, averaged over a series of years. Historical weather patterns within the Planning Area are

characterized by mild winters, hot summers, and low levels of rainfall consistent with the Sonoran

Desert’s arid climate. Temperatures in the Planning Area show a consistent warming trend since

recording began in 1896 (National Weather Service Forecast Office 2009), and recent warming

in the Southwest has been “among the most rapid in the nation” (United States Global Change

Research Program 2010). Across the West, the increase in average temperature during the past

five years has been 70 percent higher than in the world as a whole (Saunders, et al. 2008). In

Arizona, average-temperature increases during winter and spring months have been greater

than during the summer or fall, and increases in daily minimum temperatures have been more

common than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Winter minimum temperatures in the

Sonoran Desert now are higher, and freeze-free periods are longer, than at any time during the

20th century, a trend likely to continue into the future (Weiss and Overpeck 2005). Climate

models’ projections for the future of the western U. S. consistently show higher temperatures

to come. Increases of 3.6oF (2oC) in both summer and winter are likely by 2050, as are annual

increases of 7.2-9oF (4-5oC) by 2099 (Garfin, Crimmins and Jacobs 2007).

3.2.3.1. Emission Sources

Ongoing scientific research has identified the rise of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions as a

major contributor to this increase in the global average temperature. Evidence that GHGs affect

climate is “unequivocal,” according to hundreds of scientists working with the United Nations

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cave Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 261

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007). GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2),

methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), water vapor, and several trace gases. Through complex

interactions on a regional and global scale, they cause average temperatures at the Earth’s surface

to rise, primarily by decreasing the amount of heat energy radiated back into space. Although

GHG levels and corresponding variations in climatic conditions have varied for millennia,

industrialization and burning of fossil carbon sources have caused GHG concentrations to

increase significantly and contribute to overall climatic changes, typically referred to as global

warming or climate change.

Some GHGs, such as CO2, occur naturally and are emitted into the atmosphere through both

natural process and human activities, while others are created and emitted solely through human

activities. The GHGs that enter the atmosphere due to human activities include CO2 from

the burning of fossil fuels, solid waste, and trees and wood products; CH4 emitted during the

production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, as well as by livestock, deforestation,

and agricultural practices; N2O from agricultural and industrial activities and the combustion

of fossil fuels and solid waste; and fluorinated gases that result from a variety of industrial

processes (EPA 2008).

Total U.S. GHG emissions have risen by 14.7 percent from 1990 to 2006. The primary GHG

emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2. It totals approximately 84.8 percent

of all GHG emissions, with the largest source being fossil fuel combustion. According to the

EPA Inventory of U. S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (2008), CO2 emitted in the United

States totaled 7,054.2 teragrams in 2006. These GHG emissions are partly offset by carbon

sequestration in forests, trees, urban areas, and agricultural soils, which, in aggregate, offset 12.5

percent of total U.S. emissions in 2006 (EPA 2008).

3.2.3.2. Global Effects

The Earth’s global mean surface temperature rose 1.3oF (0.74°C) from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC

2007). In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that by the

year 2100, global average surface temperatures would rise 2.0-11.5°F (1.1-6.4°C) above 1990

levels. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change in

the future, and there is evidence of this happening already (IPCC 2007). However, uncertainties

remain as to how climate change will affect different regions. Computer model predictions

indicate increases in temperature will not be equally distributed but are likely to be accentuated

at higher latitudes. Data collected by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2007) indicate

that northern latitudes have exhibited temperature increases of nearly 2.1°F since 1900, with a

nearly 1.8°F increase since 1970.

3.2.3.3. Regional Effects

The average temperature in the Southwest has already increased approximately 1.5oF (0.83oC)

above a baseline period of 1960-1990 and is projected to rise a total of 4.0-10.0oF (2.2oC-5.6oC)

by the end of the century (Justus and Fletcher 2007). It is not possible to predict with certainty the

effects of climate change on local- or regional-scale ecosystems, but climate change is certain

to affect natural and human systems within the Planning Area and is likely to have a large

impact on BLM management strategies. The 2007 U. S. Government Accountability Office

(GAO) Report on Climate Change states, “Federal land and water resources are vulnerable to a

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change
262 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

wide range of effects from climate change, some of which are already occurring. These effects

include, among others:

● Physical effects such as droughts, floods, glacial melting, and sea level rise;

● Biological effects, such as increases in insect and disease infestations, shifts in species

distribution, and changes in the timing of natural events; and

● Economic and social effects, such as adverse impacts on tourism, infrastructure, fishing,

and other resource uses” (GAO 2007, 2).

In the Sonoran Desert, the most likely effects of climate change include:

● Higher average temperatures, particularly at night;

● Scarcer water supplies due to lower overall rainfall and earlier melting of upstream snowpack

resulting in earlier peak stream flows in the Salt, Verde, Gila, and Colorado rivers in spring

and potentially reduced flows in summer;

● Precipitation patterns that are more variable than what is observed currently, including longer,

more frequent droughts and more intense storms bringing increased flooding;

● Higher rates of soil erosion;

● Growth in invasive plant species, particularly non-native annual grasses;

● Increased frequency and intensity of wildfires;

● Shifting habitats for wildlife, including the development of “novel” ecosystems in which

species that have been geographically separate in the past begin to share habitat.

The most important way climate change is likely to affect the Planning Area is by decreasing

already scarce water resources. Drought and flood cycles lasting months, years, or even decades

already are a regular occurrence in the Sonoran Desert. An extended drought has gripped Arizona

since the 1990s, and the total amount of water available for all uses — including wildlife and

plants, ecosystem services, and human needs — is expected to decline as climate change advances

(United States Global Change Research Program 2010).

Currently, yearly precipitation in Phoenix, which is adjacent to the Planning Area, averages 7.63

inches, with wide seasonal variations. Historically, most rain falls during the summer monsoon

and winter rainy seasons, while spring and fall “shoulder” seasons may see no rain at all. The

monsoon season, typically mid-July to mid-September, is defined by a shift in wind patterns that

brings moisture up from the Gulf of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the eastern Pacific.

Average rainfall increases during this time from just over a tenth of an inch in June to an inch or

more in July (0.97”), August (1.03”), and September (0.84”) (National Weather Service Forecast

Office 2009). The other half of the region’s rain typically falls from December through March,

when the winter rainy season brings in storms from the west and northwest. On average, these

storms drop between three-quarters to one inch of rain per month, with December posting the

highest monthly average (0.93”) from 1896-2008 (National Weather Service Forecast Office

2009). However, yearly rainfall is highly variable and rarely fits the “average” pattern (Sheppard,

et al. 2002). Under most climate-change scenarios, storm intensity and attendant flooding are

likely to become more common as the timing, location, and potentially the amount of precipitation

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Climate Change August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 263

shifts (Archer and Predick June 2008). Nonetheless, the effect climate change will have on the

overall amount of precipitation in Arizona is not clear.

The effect that higher temperatures, both observed and projected, will have on the region’s water

supplies is much clearer. Snowpack currently supplies some 70 percent of all water in the West

(Saunders, et al. 2008) and almost all the water to the rivers that flow into the Planning Area.

The timing and capacity of these supplies are dependent on overall precipitation and temperature,

which determines when the snowpack melts. Recent years have seen snowmelt push the timing

of peak stream flows in spring as much as a month earlier than normal, thereby reducing flows

in the summer and fall when demand typically peaks (Saunders, et al. 2008; United States

Global Change Research Program 2010). Reduced stream flows in the summer will leave

ecosystems more dependent on increasingly uncertain summertime rains. Further exacerbating

this vulnerability is the increasing tendency of rain to fall during infrequent, large-scale events

that drain quickly and cause flooding and erosion. Such changes to the hydrologic cycle of the

Sonoran Desert could have massive impacts on the region’s wildlife and vegetation.

Climate change-related shifts from desert to grassland ecosystems will also increase the risk of

wildfire throughout the Sonoran Desert (GAO 2007; Archer and Predick 2008). Higher winter

temperatures and earlier peaks in spring snowmelt runoff already have led to increases in both the

frequency and intensity of wildfires in higher elevations of the Rocky Mountains (Westerling,

et al. 2006). Current conditions in the Sonoran Desert represent the extreme range for many

plant species, and the combination of increasing temperatures and decreasing water availability

is likely to shift the range of many plants and animals northward or even cause them to go

extinct (Saunders, et al. 2008; Weiss and Overpeck 2005). Increasing CO2 concentrations also

lead to fertilization and growth of specific plant species. Such shifts could bring the woody,

herbaceous plants common to northern Mexico into areas now dominated by iconic succulents

such as the saguaro cactus and native grasses (Saunders, et al. 2008; Weiss and Overpeck 2005).

The “novel” ecosystems created by climate change-induced habitat shifts also could lead to

significant management challenges as plants and animals that once were geographically distinct

combine in new ways.

3.2.4. CULTURAL & HERITAGE RESOURCES

Cultural and heritage resources within the Planning Area represent evidence of more than 10,000

years of human occupation of the region. There are many thousands of historic districts, buildings,

and structures within the Planning Area, but the great majority of these are located in urban areas

not managed by the BLM. Most of the cultural resources on public lands are archaeological sites

reflecting both pre-Columbian and post-contact occupation. The BLM estimates that about 80

percent of the sites on public lands reflect aboriginal occupation and 13 percent Euro-American

occupation, with a high percentage of sites of unknown age or cultural affiliation.

Because cultural resources are abundant within the Decision Areas, it is a major challenge to

inventory and evaluate them. Densities of 5-15 archaeological sites per square mile are common.

Available information indicates that between 5 and 6 percent of the Planning Area has been

surveyed for cultural resources, and more than 6,300 archaeological and historical sites have

been recorded (see Table 3.1, “Estimated Extent of Cultural Resources Survey and Recorded

Resources” (p. 264)). Only 4 percent of the Lower Sonoran has been surveyed, with 588 sites

recorded, while 6 percent of the SDNM has been surveyed, with more than 300 sites recorded.

These statistics suggest there could be more than 100,000 archaeological sites within the Planning

Area, with 13,000 in the Lower Sonoran and 5,000 within the SDNM. Because these estimates

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural & Heritage Resources
264 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

are based on incomplete and sometimes ambiguous data collected over many decades, they are

subject to an unknown margin of error; however, they do indicate that only a small percentage of

cultural resources have been found and recorded.

Table 3.1. Estimated Extent of Cultural Resources Survey and Recorded Resources

Planning Area (including Private

Inholdings and Non-BLM Land)

Applicable Decision Areas

(BLM-Administered Public Land Only)

Lower

Sonoran

SDNM

Entire

Planning

Area

Lower

Sonoran

SDNM

Both

Decision

Areas

Size (acres) 8,371,400 496,600 8,868,000 932,000 486,600 1,418,600

Percentage of total area 94% 6% 100% 66% 34% 100%

Surveyed for cultural

resources (acres)

466,578 29,826 496,404 36,804 29,708 66,512

Percentage of all surveys 94% 6% 100% 55% 45% 100%

Percentage of total area

that has been surveyed

5.6% 6.0% 5.6% 4.0% 6.1% 4.7%

Number of recorded

cultural resources

6,038 307 6,345 588 291 879

Density (sites/mile) 8.3 6.5 8.2 10.1 6.3 8.5

Projected number of

resources

99,800 5,000 104,800 12,800 4,800 17,600

SOURCE: AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory (supplemented with additional information from BLM files) 2003

Evaluating the significance of archaeological and historical sites recorded on public lands is an

ongoing aspect of BLM’s cultural resource management program. The criteria for inclusion

in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are used for evaluating the significance

of archaeological and historical sites. Approximately 70 percent of currently evaluated sites

are NRHP eligible, most often under Criterion D of 36 CFR 60, which is an evaluation of the

potential of the site to yield information important in history or prehistory. The BLM also

allocates prehistoric and historic sites to various use categories when developing a management

strategy for cultural resources. These use categories include conservation for future use and

traditional, public, scientific, and experimental uses. If cultural resources lack significant value,

they may be discharged from management. A majority of the currently recorded archaeological

sites within the Planning Area are allocated to the scientific use category.

Other forms of allocation and protection for cultural resources include designation as national

monuments, NHTs, and cultural areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). There are a

total of 322 individual properties and 17 districts within the Planning Area listed in the NRHP.

The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT is one of 19 congressionally designated national scenic and

historic trails in the U.S. and the only NHT within the Decision Areas. Approximately 165

miles of the Anza NHT runs through the Planning Area, with 32.5 miles situated within the

Lower Sonoran and 16.75 miles within the SDNM. The setting of the trail through the SDNM

probably has been altered less since its original use than any other segment of the entire 1,200

mile route (National Park Service [NPS]1996). Historic documents indicate the Anza Expedition

camped 10 times along the Trail within the Planning Area, including one camp in the SDNM.

Although no physical evidence of these camps has been found to date, these locations have public

interpretation potential. In the 1840s, the Mormon Battalion built a wagon road along the same

corridor. In the late 1850s and early 1860s, the Butterfield Overland Stage improved the route,

and subsequently, tens of thousands of immigrants traveled west along this route to California.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural & Heritage Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 265

Factors threatening the historical integrity of cultural resources include disturbance or

destruction by various development projects or land uses, natural erosion, route proliferation,

and unauthorized excavation and artifact collecting by vandals or uninformed recreational users.

Available data indicate that approximately 40 projects, on average, have been reviewed annually

since 1980, and an average of eight sites annually have been affected by development projects.

Some sites were avoided by project modifications, but archaeological data recovery studies were

conducted at an average of five sites annually to mitigate project impacts. Reviews and treatment

plans associated with these data-recovery projects were conducted in consultation with the State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and concerned Native American tribes.

Roughly 5 percent of monitored archaeological and historical sites on public lands are being

damaged by erosion. Intentional vandalism and unauthorized collection of artifacts have damaged

cultural resources, but there is little quantified information about the extent of this threat.

Proliferation of unauthorized travel routes within the Decision Areas has increased over the last

10 years to the point that some cultural resources, formerly considered to be in remote locations

with difficult access, have become quite easy to access by vehicle. In many cases, routes were

discovered leading to sites or cutting through site areas. These additional routes, and the overall

increases in all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use, have led to far higher rates of vehicle damage to many

sites and increased site visitation.

The BLM has responded to these threats with several different strategies. One of the most

successful is providing systematic site monitoring through the statewide Site Steward Program.

Physical protection measures are employed when damage or threats are perceived. Barriers to

limit access and signs to inform visitors about laws protecting sites are installed as needed.

Administrative measures, such as road closures, or special management designations, such as the

Monument, also are used to protect cultural resources. One other way to provide protection to

selected sites is to develop them for public interpretation. Interpretive site development includes

intensive planning and installation of protective measures and interpretive media that enhances

visitor experiences.

An examination of historical inventory data allows for a projection of future cultural resource

work in the Planning Area to be an annual average of 10 to 15 square miles surveyed and 70 to

90 sites recorded. These projections cover roughly the next 10 years. At this projected rate of

coverage, the vast majority of sites in the Decision Areas would still be unrecorded by 2020. Most

previous cultural resource inventory was done for project compliance reviews under Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act. In recent years, some Federal funds have been allocated

to document and research the archaeological and historical sites on public lands, but Section 106

surveys for major development projects (funded by project proponents) will undoubtedly continue

to be the primary source of inventory information in the foreseeable future.

The scope and scale of development projects on public lands and the level of cultural resource

threats they pose, vary widely, but the historical trend indicates an increasing number of projects

on BLM-administered public lands are being reviewed each year. This trend suggests an average

of 60 to 80 reviewed projects on public lands annually within the next 10 to 15 years. Recent

years witnessed a substantial increase over the historical trend, and could indicate an even faster

growth in the level of threats from various developments. The number of resources threatened but

avoided by projects each year has fluctuated considerably from year to year. The historical trend

suggests 10 to 20 sites threatened annually, but avoided by project modifications over the next

10 to 15 years. Similarly, the number of archaeological sites studied to mitigate project impacts

is increasing, and could double to about 10 sites annually over the next 10 to 15 years. This

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Cultural & Heritage Resources
266 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

represents a small fraction of the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 archaeological and historical sites

on the Lower Sonoran and SDNM.

Historical trend data indicates that 20 to 30 sites might be protected annually over the next 10

to 15 years through various administrative and physical measures. Installation of physical

measures such as signs, fences, and gates are common responses to specific instances of resource

damage. The historical data indicate annual monitoring of 50 to 80 sites is likely over the next

10 to 15 years.

Over the last decade, the BLM’s cultural resource management program has devoted more

effort to public interpretation, and this trend is likely to receive more emphasis in the future.

Interest in cultural resource-based heritage tourism is expected to increase, particularly within

the Monument.

3.2.5. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Paleontological resources include vertebrate and invertebrate animal fossils, plant fossils, and

trace fossils. The latter are preserved indicators that an animal was present (e.g. footprints,

burrows, borings, and waste droppings). These resources are a fragile and nonrenewable scientific

record of the history of life on earth. Fossils have been found in many parts of Arizona and in

almost all of the geologic deposits from Cambrian through the Quaternary. In the Planning Area,

vertebrate fossils are typically found in unconsolidated Quaternary silt, sand, and gravel deposits

and Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Various invertebrate marine fossils, including coral, trilobites,

brachiopods, cephalopods, and bryozoans have been found in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks.

While paleontological resources in central and south-central Arizona generally are considered less

abundant or less scientifically significant as those found in northern or southeastern Arizona, the

BLM considers any discovery of vertebrate fossils and noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate

and plant fossils as important. Within the Planning Area, such fossils are most likely to be found

during ground disturbing activities in Quaternary sedimentary deposits, while others may also

be found in Paleozoic and Mesozoic deposits. Increased ground-disturbing activities in these

deposits may increase the threat to noteworthy fossils.

No significant paleontological resources are known to occur in either the Lower Sonoran or

SDNM. It is the scarcity of fossils in these Decision Areas that makes subsequent finds that

much more significant. Fossils of mammals, birds, and fish are present but not common in

unconsolidated Quaternary and Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Although not significant or abundant,

invertebrate marine fossils occur in Paleozoic limestones in southwest Pinal and southeast

Maricopa counties, and are found in Cretaceous sedimentary rocks in the Decision Areas.

3.2.6. PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES & HABITAT

In Arizona, the BLM manages habitat for many different categories of priority wildlife species:

● Special status species, including species listed as threatened or endangered, or those proposed

for listing (candidate species) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and BLM sensitive

species (BLM Manual 6840);

● Bats;

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 267

● Migratory birds, including birds of conservation concern;

● Raptors;

● Game species;

● Species for which there is a signed conservation agreement or strategy.

A number of priority animal species inhabit the Planning Area. A priority species list for wildlife

and fish can be found in Appendix J, Wildlife & Plant Priority Species (p. 1235). The BLM

focuses most of its wildlife-management efforts on the habitats of priority species as required

by a variety of laws, regulations, policies, plans, manuals, and agreements. This is especially

the case for species listed under the ESA and candidate species for listing. Because the priority

species label covers many different types of wildlife species, the following discussion on habitat

requirements for priority species is pertinent to most, if not all, wildlife species in the Planning

Area. Therefore, there will not be a separate “general wildlife” discussion in this chapter.

BLM sensitive species are those species that require special management consideration to

avoid listing under the ESA and are designated as sensitive by a BLM state director, usually in

cooperation with the State agency responsible for its management. The BLM sensitive species

designation normally is given to species on public lands whose conservation status can be

significantly affected by BLM management. Instead of maintaining a list of State threatened and

endangered species, the AGFD identifies certain species as “species of greatest conservation

need” (AGFD 2006).

In general, wildlife populations have declined over the last 10 years. This is likely due to

a combination of causes including drought, habitat loss due to urban development, habitat

degradation and fragmentation from roads and other developments, and increased recreational

use. Few species have been tracked closely enough to determine specific trends; however, AGFD

does track game species such as bighorn sheep and mule deer.

Generally, mammal populations are expected to diminish without active management due to

extended drought conditions, urban expansion, and habitat loss and fragmentation. Small mammal

populations are cyclical and become depressed during years of below-normal precipitation when

forage plants, water, and seeds are scarce or less nutritious. Predator populations will eventually

follow and are expected to drop due to fewer prey species and other factors. Human-wildlife

interactions are expected to increase under drought conditions because wildlife could potentially

be forced farther from their home ranges into urban areas to find food and water.

3.2.6.1. Wildlife Habitats

While the BLM keeps abreast of wildlife-population trends and takes appropriate steps to

conserve or improve the habitats that sustain species, responsibility for animal-population

management is delegated to the State, specifically the AGFD. For federally listed species,

population-management responsibility falls to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

which collaborates with State agencies, academics, and other recognized technical experts. The

USFWS also regulates hunted migratory species.

Vegetation resources management provides the foundation for wildlife and habitat management

on public lands. Wildlife typically occupies or avoids habitats in predictable ways based on life

history requirements of individual species. The Planning Area supports a variety of natural

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
268 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

vegetative communities and landscape features that offer a diversity of wildlife habitat types.

While these habitat types correspond with the associated vegetative communities, they are

also defined by a number of distinct landscape features such as rock outcrops and hillsides,

cliffs and taluses, mesquite bosques, and mines. All such features contribute to the diversity

and abundance of wildlife in the Planning Area as they generally provide a microhabitat for

wildlife uniquely adapted to, or dependent upon, these features. To maintain diverse, viable,

and abundant populations of wildlife, a mosaic of biologically and structurally diverse habitat

types is thus necessary.

Habitat Connectivity/Fragmentation

While maintaining patches of diverse habitats is important, ensuring connectivity of these habitat

patches also is important to provide plants and wildlife the ability to move along elevation

gradients and between habitat areas. As climatic conditions change, both wildlife and plants must

be able to adapt to their associated changing niches by expanding and contracting their range;

however, developments related to human population growth such as subdivisions, highways, and

related infrastructure create barriers to wildlife and plant movement, resulting in what is known as

habitat fragmentation.

While the Planning Area includes numerous isolated tracts of public lands that are interspersed

with other Federal, State, tribal, and private lands, most of the public lands consist of large,

consolidated areas that have the potential to provide connectivity between important habitat

patches for various wildlife species, habitats on public lands are fragmented. This is due to the

existing transportation network crisscrossing public lands (including one interstate highway,

several state highways, and numerous paved and unpaved county and secondary roads) and utility

and energy rights-of-way (ROWs). Certain large tracts of public land also are separated from

nearby public lands by population centers, agricultural areas, and other such developments.

Wildlife Movement Corridors

In order to reduce habitat fragmentation and ensure connectivity in important areas, the BLM took

into consideration recommendations from the Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Workgroup (AWLW)

strategy of 2006 to develop movement corridors that maintain habitat connectivity. The AWLW

is a collaborative effort between public- and private-sector organizations formed to address

habitat fragmentation through a comprehensive, systematic approach. Through this partnership

and commitment, a statewide assessment was conducted to identify large blocks of habitat,

potential wildlife-movement corridors between and through these habitats, and factors that could

threaten linkage zones for wildlife. The AWLW took the first step in a process to identify

areas of importance for wildlife movement throughout the State. As a part of the workgroup,

the BLM embraces the ideology of linkage corridors and is proposing movement corridors for

wildlife to migrate from one habitat area to another, especially within priority species habitats

where the BLM has management authority.

Wildlife Water Developments

While most wildlife species within the Planning Area are adapted to drought conditions and

limited sources of permanent water, approximately 45 wildlife-water catchments and spring

developments occur on public lands within the Planning Area. These catchments and spring

developments provide intermittent or perennial sources of water that support wildlife diversity.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 269

Few, if any, new wildlife-water developments have been constructed in the past 10 years as it is

more cost effective to modify and enlarge existing catchments. Modifying and expanding existing

developments reduces the need for maintenance and water to replenish the catchments.

The location of wildlife-water catchments varies depending on the priority wildlife species under

consideration and the distance to other water sources. For example, wildlife-water sources

constructed in lower elevations, primarily for collared peccary (javelina) (Pecari tajacu) and

mule deer (Odocoileus crooki), would be placed primarily in the creosote bush-bursage, palo

verde-mixed cacti, or xeroriparian communities. By contrast, higher elevation water sources

for use by bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) are constructed primarily in the palo

verde-mixed cacti and Sonoran Desert mountain communities or in the creosote bush-bursage

community adjacent to mountains used by bighorn sheep. Numerous livestock waters have

been modified to accommodate wildlife use. Many wildlife species use these water sources

and return to them regularly. Bats also forage over water developments as they are attracted

by the increased abundance of flying insects. Resident bird species may nest and forage in or

near water developments year-round, while migratory bird species may forage and rest in these

areas during their migration.

3.2.6.2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Wildlife Species

This section focuses on species on public lands within the Planning Area that are addressed in

Manual Section 6840 (see footnote1 above) and species listed under the ESA (1973) as threatened

or endangered, proposed for listing (candidate species), species of special concern, and those

within five years of being delisted. Federally listed species were identified through the USFWS

Arizona Ecological Service Office website on June 12, 2009 (USFWS 2009).

Five special status species that occur or potentially occur on public lands in the Planning Area are

federally listed under the ESA: the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae),

Sonoran pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), Sonoran Desert population of

the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii

extimus), and Yuma clapper rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis). Two species occurring or

potentially occurring on public lands are listed as candidate species: the yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus) and the Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis klauberi).

Lesser Long-nosed Bat. The endangered lesser long-nosed bat is a nectar-, pollen-, and

fruit-eating bat that migrates seasonally from Mexico to southern Arizona and southwestern

New Mexico (Arita 1991). The species typically arrives in Arizona in early April, inhabits

mainly desert scrub habitats, and departs in mid to late September. The bats roost in caves,

abandoned mines, and unoccupied buildings at the base of mountains where agave, saguaro, and

organ pipe cacti are present, and fly long distances from their day roosts to forage each night.

Potential foraging habitats, in the form of columnar cacti (e.g. saguaros and organ pipe cacti)

or agave stands, occur in the Decision Areas (Map 3-3: Federally Protected Plant & Animal

Species). There are no documented lesser long-nosed bat roost sites or maternity colonies within

the Decision Areas; however, four known maternity colonies do occur near the Arizona-Mexico

border on lands not administered by the BLM.

The most significant threat to the survival of the lesser long-nosed bat is habitat loss. The species

must have suitable roosts in proximity to adequate food sources both in the southwestern United

States, where the young are born during the summer, and at their wintering grounds throughout

the arid areas of Mexico (USFWS 1995). While many roost sites in the United States and

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
270 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Mexico receive some legal protection and are relatively safe because their locations are remote

and unknown to the general public, even very slight human disturbance to roosts can displace

the species. For example, Fleming (1993) has documented bats temporarily abandoning their

roost after only one brief visit by humans. In Mexico, some roosts are severely threatened by

efforts to control the vampire bat, which is often confused with other species by farmers and

other stakeholders (53 FR 38456).

Threats to food plants also indirectly threaten the lesser long-nosed bat. There is a complex,

mutually beneficial relationship between columnar cacti, agaves, and long-nosed bats (Fleming

et al. 1995). As native vegetation is increasingly removed for development, other projects, and

through grazing, food sources become less and less available near roost sites and along migration

routes. The over-harvesting of agave for the legal and illegal manufacture of tequila is particularly

detrimental to food sources for the lesser long-nosed bat (53 FR 38456).

There is no widespread consensus on the current status of the overall population of this bat

species. Disagreements about the validity of census techniques have kept estimations, even to a

higher order of magnitude, from being made (USFWS 1995). Because surveys in Arizona and

Mexico conducted between the mid-1970s and 1985 failed to document large numbers of lesser

long-nosed bats, it was federally listed as endangered in 1988. Since listing, the species appears to

be much more abundant than previously thought, but is still vulnerable because of its gregarious

roosting behavior. As many as 150,000 adults and sub-adults may forage in southwestern Arizona

on any given summer night. In 1992-1993, a census of 17 roosts in Arizona and Mexico produced

estimates of 200 to 130,000 individuals living in any particular roost (USFWS 1995). Ten years of

monitoring data (1996-2005) from one known maternity roost within the boundaries of the Lower

Sonoran Planning Area (but not on public lands) indicates a general increase in population size.

Sonoran Pronghorn Antelope. The Sonoran pronghorn antelope is listed as a federally

endangered subspecies of the American pronghorn that was found over much of southwestern

Arizona, northwestern Mexico, and southeastern California in the late 1800s. By the mid-1900s,

its numbers and distribution were greatly reduced from historic norms.

Estimates of the Sonoran pronghorn population in Arizona have been collected since 1925.

Although these estimates are not directly comparable because of the variety of methods used and

geographical areas studied, they all indicate that relatively low numbers of pronghorn (50 to 150

animals) were present in southwestern Arizona within an increasingly small area of distribution.

Hunting contributed to the decline of the Sonoran pronghorn before the 1930s but has since been

banned (Wright and deVos 1986).

In more recent years, fragmentation, human disturbance, disease, and loss of habitat have been the

major factors threatening the subspecies. The most significant habitat fragmentation occurs along

the Mexico/United States border, particularly with the installation of the border fence, which

inhibits the population’s movement between the two countries. Sonoran pronghorn management

is further complicated by differing recovery efforts on either side of the border.

The U.S. population primarily is limited to the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BGR), Cabeza Prieta

NWR, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, and public lands in the Ajo area west of SR 85

in the Lower Sonoran. This animal also is found periodically in the Sentinel Plain south of I-8.

Although recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn antelope is an important management priority on

public lands where it occurs, these lands constitute less than 4 percent of this animal’s current

range in the United States (USFWS 2003b).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 271

The area of the Ajo Block in which Sonoran pronghorn occurs lies within the Coyote Flat,

Childs, and Cameron grazing allotments (Map 3-4: Sonoran Pronghorn Classification Areas).

The Cameron allotment is the only allotment on which this species has been observed in recent

years. Although the Ajo Block and Sentinel Plain are both minor components of this animal’s

active habitat, of the two areas, the Ajo Block currently appears to be more important to the

species. In 1997, the USFWS issued a biological opinion (BO) for the Ajo Block allotments

and concluded that the proposed grazing activities were not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of the pronghorn (USFWS 1997). In response to a sharp decline in the U.S. Sonoran

pronghorn population in 2002 and the continuing severe drought conditions, the BLM amended

the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (RMP) in 2004 to close the Cameron allotment

to livestock grazing and acquire range improvements from the permit holder.

Emergency recovery actions were initiated in an attempt to reverse the recent decline in the

status of the U.S. sub-population of the Sonoran pronghorn. The construction of a semi-captive

breeding facility in Cabeza Prieta NWR and of water sources and forage enhancement plots in

the Planning Area are expected to temper the effects of drought. The U.S. population was at an

all-time low in 2002 with drought eliminating all but 22 animals, down from 135 animals the

previous year. In 2008-09, the U.S. Sonoran population was estimated at approximately 68

wild animals with another 73 animals in the semi-captive breeding enclosure. Surplus animals

are released from the pen annually.

While drought was the direct cause of the Sonoran pronghorn antelope’s decline during 2002,

the high level of human activities and disturbance on the U.S. side of the antelope's range has

intensified the effects of drought. The U.S. sub-population of Sonoran pronghorn antelope has

been and is subject to myriad human activities that have the potential to adversely affect the

species and its habitat. Such activities include livestock grazing, recreation, military activities

on the BGR, and an increasing influx of undocumented aliens (UDAs) and smugglers and

corresponding response from the U.S. Border Patrol and other law-enforcement agencies. Further,

the range of the U.S. pronghorn subpopulation is limited by highways, fences, canals, railroads,

vehicle barriers, and towns that act as physical barriers to movement and prevent pronghorn

antelope from accessing foraging areas (USFWS 2003c). Historically, these animals were able to

travel many tens of miles across barrier-free habitat to seek out more favorable forage and water

(USFWS 2003). Livestock and ROW fences can be a significant cause of pronghorn mortality

when they restrict the animals’ movements to procure food and water or to escape predation

(Yoakum 1978). The species have difficulty jumping over or going through fences; however,

fences can be modified to allow safe passage for the pronghorn antelope, as was done within the

Cameron, Coyote Flat, and Why grazing allotments (USFWS 1997).

Bald Eagle. The bald eagle is a large bird with a wingspan of 6 to 7.5 feet. Adults are dark

brown with a white head and tail and a large yellow beak. Immature eagles are dark with mottled

white under the wings and at the base of the tail. The feet of both adults and immatures are

bare of feathers.

The USFWS classified the bald eagle in 1978 as endangered in 43 states (including Arizona) and

threatened in five other states. The species was not listed in Alaska and it does not occur in

Hawaii. In 1995, the species was downlisted to threatened in all recovery regions of the lower

48 states. In 1999, the USFWS proposed to remove the bald eagle from the Federal threatened

and endangered species list nationwide. The USFWS removed the bald eagle from federally

threatened and endangered species list in August 2007, except for the population in the Sonoran

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
272 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Desert of Arizona, south of the Mogollon Rim, where it remains with threatened status. This

includes the bald eagle population within the Planning Area.

In Arizona, bald eagles typically place their nests within a mile of a creek, lake, or river, although

there are some rare exceptions. Nests are placed mostly on cliff edges, rock pinnacles, and in

cottonwood trees; however, nests have been found in artificial structures, junipers, pinion pines,

sycamores, willows, ponderosa pines, and snags.

Within the Planning Area, a pair of bald eagles has successfully nested near the confluence

of the Gila and Salt Rivers in an area referred to as the Pee Posh Wetlands in 2009. These

eagles likely forage up and down the rivers and on the adjacent uplands, including portions of

the Decision Areas.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The southwestern willow flycatcher is a small (5.75 inches),

olive-colored or grayish-brown, neotropical migratory bird that is federally listed as an

endangered species. This flycatcher is a riparian obligate species found throughout the Southwest,

where it breeds in dense riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or wetland areas where trees and

shrubs are adjacent to or near surface water.

Throughout its range, the southwestern willow flycatcher has shown both historic and recent

population declines. Its breeding range once extended across southern California, extreme

southern Nevada, southern Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, southwestern Colorado, western Texas,

and northernmost Sonora and Baja California del Norte (Hubbard 1987; Unitt 1987; Browning

1993). Historically, the southwestern willow flycatcher was widespread in riparian areas

throughout the Southwest. Its current range is similar to the historical range, but the quantity of

suitable habitat within that range is much reduced from historical levels (USFWS 2002).

The most significant factor in the cause of these declines is the extensive loss, fragmentation, and

adverse modification of riparian breeding habitat, particularly cottonwood-willow associations

(Katibah 1984; Johnson et al. 1987; Unitt 1987; USFWS 1995). These losses have occurred in

connection with urban and agricultural development, fire, water diversion and impoundment,

channelization, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use and recreation, replacement of native

habitats by introduced plant species, and hydrological changes resulting from these and other

land uses (USFWS 1993; Tibbitts et al. 1994). Brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird

(Molothrus ater) is another major threat to the southwestern willow flycatcher (Brown 1988;

Sogge, 1995a and 1995b; USFWS, 1993 and 1995; Whitfield and Strong 1995).

In 2002, approximately 1,153 southwestern willow flycatcher territories were located among 243

sites in suitable riparian areas throughout the Southwest (Sogge et al. 2003). Currently, there

are approximately 430 pairs of southwestern willow flycatchers documented at 37 sites within

Arizona. The AGFD has conducted periodic flycatcher surveys along the Gila River within the

Planning Area since 2002. One flycatcher was detected once in 2002 in a thin strip of salt cedar

that was judged to be marginal habitat. No southwestern willow flycatchers have been detected in

the Planning Area since that time (AGFD unpublished).

Critical habitat was formally designated for the species on Oct. 19, 2005, which includes 15

management units totaling 737 miles of river in Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and New

Mexico (70 FR 60886). No critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher lies in the

Decision Areas.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 273

Yuma Clapper Rail. The Yuma Clapper Rail is a chicken-sized bird about 14 inches long. It is

listed as endangered (32 FR 4001, March 11, 1967) without critical habitat. It is a marsh bird

with long legs and a short tail. Its bill is long, slender, and curved downward slightly. Its anterior

coloration is mottled brown with a gray background. Its flanks and underside are dark gray with

narrow vertical white stripes that produce a barred effect.

Associated with dense riparian and marsh vegetation, the Yuma Clapper Rail inhabits freshwater

or brackish stream sides and marshlands under 4,500 feet in elevation. It requires a wet substrate,

such as a mudflat, sandbar, or slough bottom that supports cattail and bulrush stands of moderate

to high density adjacent to shorelines.

Historic occupation is uncertain. Yuma Clapper Rail may have occurred in the marshes of the

Lower Colorado River and its tributaries in Mexico and the United States. There are no records

of the species in U.S. before 1902. A type specimen was taken near Laguna Dam in 1921

in Yuma County, Arizona.

The Yuma Clapper Rail is known to occur along the Colorado River (Yuma, La Paz, and Mohave

counties, Arizona), from Lake Mead to Mexico; on the Gila and Salt rivers upstream to the area of

the Verde confluence (Maricopa and Pinal counties, Arizona); at Picacho Reservoir (Pinal County,

Arizona); and on the Tonto Creek arm of Roosevelt Lake (Gila County). The Yuma Clapper Rail

may be expanding into other suitable marsh habitats in western and central Arizona.

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. The Western yellow-billed cuckoo is a medium sized neotropical

migratory bird considered a candidate species by the USFWS. In 2001, the species was

determined to warrant listing under the ESA but was precluded by other, higher-priority listing

actions (66 FR 38611).

As recently as the 1990s, cuckoo pairs were observed along the Gila River in Maricopa County

(Corman 2005). In 1999, 168 pairs and 80 single birds were located in Arizona, based on

preliminary results from a statewide survey that covered 265 miles of river and creek bottoms

(USFWS 2004). From these results, it is evident that cuckoo numbers in 1999 are substantially

less than some previous estimates for Arizona, including a 1976 estimate of 846 pairs for the

lower Colorado River and five major tributaries (Groschupf 1987). According to information

in the Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) (AGFD 2006), there has not been a single

detection of yellow-billed cuckoos in the Decision Area.

The yellow-billed cuckoo historically ranged from southern British Columbia to northern Mexico

(Bent 1940). Arizona is believed to contain the largest remaining population of yellow-billed

cuckoos. Breeding pairs are found in south, central, and extreme northeast Arizona. Within the

Planning Area, cuckoos may be found in riparian woodlands, particularly along the Salt and

Gila rivers (Corman 2005).

Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation from groundwater pumping, surface-water

impoundment, agricultural and urban conversion, invasive species, and overgrazing are the main

threats to survival of the western yellow-billed cuckoo (USFWS 2001). Fragmentation effects

include the loss of patches large enough to sustain local populations, leading to local extinctions

and the potential loss of migratory corridors affecting the birds’ ability to recolonize habitat

patches (Hunter 1996). Losses have been greatest at lower elevations (below about 3,000 feet)

along the Lower Colorado River and its major tributaries, which have been strongly affected

by upstream dams, flow alterations, channel modification, and clearing of land for agriculture

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
274 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

(Groschupf 1987). Habitat conservation efforts are ongoing in Arizona outside the Planning

Area (USFWS 2004).

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake. The Tucson shovel-nosed snake was listed as a candidate species

in March 2010 (75 FR 16050). It was recently petitioned for listing as an endangered species;

however, its listing is precluded by higher priority actions. The Tucson shovel-nosed snake is a

subspecies of shovel-nosed snakes that is considered regionally vulnerable due to habitat loss,

which has restricted its range (The Nature Conservancy [TNC 2004]). Much of the lowland

valley floor habitat within the species' restricted range has been cleared or severely impacted by

agricultural and urban development. The snake's distribution is currently limited to portions of

Pinal, Maricopa, and Pima counties, with its greatest abundance believed to be west of Mobile in

the SDNM (P. Rosen, personal comm.).

The shovel-nosed snake is found in areas with soft, sandy loams; loose soil; fine, wind-blown

sands (such as in washes); or occasionally on rocky hillsides with pockets of sand among rocks

(Stebbins 1985, Pima County 2001, TNC 2004). The snake requires these deep valley fill soils

for burrowing and nesting. The western shovel-nosed snake utilizes the soil substrate around

creosote bushes as foraging habitat (Pima County 2001). Creosote bushes also serve as escape

habitat (Stebbins 1985, Pima County 2001).

The Tucson shovel-nosed snake was found at sites with soils that have a high percentage (ranging

from 49 to 85 percent) of fine sand, silt, and clay (classified as sandy loams, loamy sands,

gravelly-sandy loams, and silty-sandy loams (TNC 2004). The species was found in areas of the

SDNM that correspond to creosote bush-bursage Desert Scrub and Valley Xeroriparian Scrub

(i.e. ephemeral wash) communities.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise. There are two populations of desert tortoise: the Mojave and the

Sonoran. The Mojave population is federally listed as a threatened species and inhabits the area

north and west of the Colorado River. The Sonoran population includes tortoises south and east

of the Colorado River in Arizona and extends south into Mexico (Arizona Interagency Desert

Tortoise Team 2000. Under Arizona State Law, it is unlawful to collect wild desert tortoises or

release captive desert tortoises into the wild (ARS 17-101).

Only the Sonoran population occurs in the Planning Area, and in December of 2010, the

Sonoran population was added to the USFWS’s candidate species list (FR Vol. 75, No. 239,

page 78094). The Sonoran population is vulnerable to habitat loss and degradation, habitat

fragmentation, genetic contamination, collection, and disease (AGFD 1996). The BLM has a

disproportionate responsibility for the conservation of desert tortoise because the agency manages

the majority of desert tortoise habitat across the species’ entire range (BLM 1990). To address

its management responsibilities, the BLM has developed a management plan for desert tortoise

on public lands and a strategy for carrying out the plan in Arizona, Strategy for Desert Tortoise

Habitat Management on Public Lands in Arizona: A Rangewide Plan (BLM 1990). The BLM

characterizes tortoise habitat on their managed lands into three categories (see Map 3-3: Federally

Protected Wildlife & Plant Species). Category I desert tortoise habitat includes habitat that is

necessary to maintain populations with the highest densities, which are stable or increasing, and

experiences the fewest conflicts with current land uses. Category II habitats may support stable

populations and/or are contiguous with medium to high-density habitat. Category III habitats

are the least manageable and contain medium to subpar habitats; however, these areas do exist

between Category I and II habitats and should be managed for dispersal between Category I and

II habitats. The goal of the BLM is to maintain stable and viable populations with no net loss

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 275

of habitat in Category I and II habitats and to limit population declines to the extent possible in

Category III habitats by mitigating impacts.

The Decision Areas are regionally significant for desert tortoise conservation as they contain

a large portion of the total Category I habitat in Arizona, including a portion of the largest

contiguous Category I habitat (238,790 acres) in the Sand Tank and Sauceda mountains. As

delineated by the BLM, the majority of desert tortoise habitat in the Decision Areas occurs on

rocky slopes where tortoises are free from most human impacts and associated disturbance.

Paved and secondary roads dissect desert tortoise habitat and may represent a mortality risk or

an impediment to movement across otherwise suitable habitat.

Regional trends in land use and other human activities potentially threaten the Sonoran population

of desert tortoise. Sustained urban expansion in the Phoenix and Tucson areas continues to lead to

loss of habitat for the tortoise. In addition to habitat loss, other correlates of human development

potentially affect the desert tortoise in the region, which include tortoise collection, release of

pet tortoises that introduce diseases into native desert tortoise populations, feral animals that

prey on tortoises, and removal of habitat components such as boulders desert tortoises use for

shelter sites. While desert tortoise are long lived, they typically have low recruitment rates. As a

result, increases in mortality rates above natural rates may not be offset (Arizona Interagency

Desert Tortoise Team 2000). The habitat preference for the Sonoran populations of the desert

tortoise consists of palo verde-mixed-cacti vegetation communities on rocky or bouldery slopes

below 4,000 feet in elevation.

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl. The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl is a small, non-migratory

bird approximately 6.75 inches in length. Its diet includes other birds, lizards, insects, and small

mammals (USFWS 2003a). The pygmy-owl is primarily diurnal but can be active at dawn and

dusk, as well. Fledging and dispersal occurs from June through August (Federal Register 2002).

Although the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl was federally listed in 1997 as endangered in the

Arizona portion of its range (62 FR 10730), the USFWS delisted the species in 2006 (71 FR

19425) following litigation. While pygmy-owls are currently not listed, the species has been

petitioned for listing under the ESA. The USFWS issued a 90-day finding on the petition,

finding it was valid and presented substantial evidence that listing of the pygmy-owl may be

warranted (73 FR 31418). The USFWS currently is working on the status review of this species to

determine if listing is warranted. Until such review is completed and a final decision is made, the

pygmy-owl is not protected under the ESA. The species continues to receive Federal protection

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

A significant threat to the pygmy-owl in Arizona is the loss and fragmentation of habitat. The

complete removal of vegetation and natural features, as well as the infrastructure required for

many large-scale residential developments, directly and indirectly influences pygmy-owl survival

and recovery. In addition, livestock grazing may threaten the pygmy-owl through the destruction

or modification of its habitat (BLM 1988).

In 2002, the USFWS issued a BO for the five grazing allotments near Ajo. The opinion

concluded that grazing activities may, but are not likely to, adversely affect the pygmy-owl when

implementing the conservation measures and applying the “Not Likely to Adversely Affect”

criteria identified in the Guidance Criteria for Determinations of Effects of Grazing Permit

Issuance and Renewal on Threatened and Endangered Species (USFWS 1999).

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
276 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.2.6.3. BLM Sensitive and Other Priority Wildlife Species

With the exception of the federally listed and candidate species discussed above, the main groups

of priority species are discussed below. Fish species are not discussed due to the limited amount of

water and suitable habitat available for management on public lands within in the Planning Area.

Reptiles and Amphibians

In addition to desert tortoise, the Planning Area supports a variety of reptiles, including priority

species, due to a diversity of vegetation communities and habitat types. Some reptiles prefer dense

brushy or rocky areas, such as rosy boas (Lichanura trivirgata) and chuckwallas (Sauromalus

ater), whereas others inhabit areas that are more open, such as sidewinders (Crotalus cerastrus)

and desert iguanas (Dipsosaurus dorsalis).

The Decision Area’s general lack of open water severely limits habitat for amphibians, which

require wetland sites or ponds for at least part of their life cycle. These sites are generally

limited to ephemeral rainwater collection areas such as impoundments, including the water

retention dikes in the Vekol Valley; earthen livestock waters; and depressions in rocks. These

areas support priority amphibian species such as the Sonoran green toad (Bufo retiformis), Great

Plains narrow-mouthed toads (Gastrophryne olivacea), and Sonoran Desert toads (Bufo alvarius).

Some portions of the Gila River are perennial and provide habitat for amphibians, including the

non-native bullfrog.

Amphibian populations have seen dramatic declines worldwide. Disease, drought, environmental

pollution, invasive species, and habitat loss appear to be the primary contributors to the decline of

amphibians. Reptile populations are subject to habitat loss, direct mortality from vehicle traffic,

drought, disease, and collection. Specific trend information for reptiles and amphibians is not

available for the Planning Area. Protection of valley bottoms, vegetation structure, and rocky

substrates could potentially maintain healthy reptile and amphibian populations.

Raptors

Golden Eagle. The plumage color of golden eagles ranges from black-brown to dark brown, with

a striking golden-buff crown and nape. The upper wings also have an irregular lighter area.

Immature birds resemble adults, but have a duller more mottled appearance, a white-banded tail,

and a white patch at the carpal joint. Such colors gradually disappear until full adult plumage

is reached in the fifth year.

In North America, golden eagle populations have declined over the past century; however, it is

faring better than populations on a global scale. The main threat is habitat destruction, which by

the late 19th century already had driven golden eagles from some regions they used to inhabit. In

the 20th century, organochloride and heavy metal poisonings were also commonplace, but these

have declined due to tighter regulations on pollution. Within the United States, the golden eagle is

legally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

While golden eagles are uncommon throughout the Planning Area, they have been observed in

many parts of the Decision Areas. There are no documented golden eagle nests in the Planning

Area; however, systematic surveys for nesting golden eagles have not been conducted.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 277

Other Raptors. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Harris’ hawks (Parabuteo unicinctus),

and American kestrels (Falco sparvarius) are some raptors that occur within the Planning Area.

Many raptor species such as golden eagles and peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) use cliff

faces and rocky ledges to roost or nest. Owl species documented include western screech owl

(Megascops kennicottii), great-horned owl (Bubo virgineanus), elf owl (Micrathene whitneyi),

barn owl (Tyto alba), and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl.

Trend information for birds is difficult because of migration timing and patterns, climatological

changes and events, and human-caused effects. Some of these changes may positively affect

one species while negatively affecting another species. Specific trend information, by species,

beginning in 1966 is available in the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS’s) North American

Breeding Bird Survey at http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/.

Game and Other Species of Interest

Small Game Species. In Arizona, small game species include but are not limited to small

mammals, upland game birds, and migratory game birds. Common small-game species on public

lands in the Planning Area include cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii), Gambel's quail

(Callipepla gambelii), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and white-winged dove (Z. asiatica).

Populations of mourning doves in the Western Management Unit, which includes Arizona, have

shown a downward trend since 1966, the year population-trend data collection began (Dolton

and Rau 2006). Quail reproduction in Arizona depends on winter/spring precipitation to produce

abundant forage and insects to sustain the coveys. The lack of precipitation during this critical

time results in low reproduction and decreased population levels.

Furbearers and Predators. Furbearers in the Decision Area include but are not limited to

raccoons (Procyon lotor), ringtail cats (Bassariscus astutus), and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Bobcats

are also grouped with predators along with coyotes (Canis latrans), gray foxes (Urocyon

cinereoargenteus), striped and spotted skunks (Mephitis mephitis and Spilogale putorius), and

badgers (Taxidea taxus).

Big Game Animals. Big game animals found on public lands in the Planning Area include

desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana), javelina (Pecari tajacu), mountain lion (Puma

concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionous crooki), and white-tailed deer (O. virginianus

couesi). See Map 3-4: Sonoran Pronghorn Classification Areas for known mapped habitats.

Bighorn Sheep. Bighorn sheep typically are found in dry, inaccessible mountainous areas in

foothills near rocky cliffs and seasonally available water sources. Bighorn sheep disperse between

mountain ranges and most often are observed crossing during cooler weather (Monson and Sumner

1980). Wildlife movement corridors between mountain ranges are an important habitat and

genetic diversity component for bighorn sheep and other wildlife in the Planning Area. The BLM

participates with the AGFD and other agencies in the ongoing effort of identifying appropriate

linkage corridors to allow the management of multiple resource uses and fragmented land parcels

in such a way as to facilitate movements of wildlife and aid in maintaining genetic diversity

The BLM published an ecosystem-management strategy for desert bighorn sheep habitat on

public lands (BLM 1995). Guidelines set forth in the Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988, 1995)

include providing maximum habitat protection to lambing grounds, migration routes, mineral

licks, and permanent water sources. The guidelines also propose fencing standards requiring

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat
278 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

mitigation plans and surface use stipulations, supporting habitat enhancement projects, research,

and outreach in bighorn sheep habitat.

Domestic livestock, particularly domestic sheep, can transmit certain diseases to bighorn sheep.

The major disease posing a threat is Pasturella, which is a bacterium that occurs in nasal passages

of both bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats. When Pasturella is introduced to big horn

sheep, it can cause respiratory issues such as pneumonia, which can ultimately lead to mortality of

individuals or entire herds.

Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 98-140, Revised Guidelines for

Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats in Native Wild Sheep Habitats, sets forth guidelines

that pertain to the management of domestic sheep and goats in native sheep habitats. This

document outlines mitigation, adaptive management, and best management practices for native

wild sheep populations. Such guidelines include not allowing domestic sheep grazing within 9

miles of wild sheep habitats, which would reduce the potential for disease introduction from

domestic sheep and goats into native sheep habitats and populations.

Migratory Birds

All migratory birds receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, while Executive

Order (EO) 13186 (Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, signed in

January 2001) requires the BLM to evaluate the effects of Federal actions on migratory birds. In

addition, IM 2008-050 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act: Interim Management Guidance) provides

interim guidance to enhance coordination and communication toward meeting the BLM's

responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and EO 13186. Such guidance establishes

a consistent approach for addressing migratory bird populations and habitats when adopting,

revising, or amending land use plans and when making project-level implementation decisions

until a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the USFWS is established.

There are approximately 450 non-game bird species native to Arizona, with about 291 species

documented as breeding in the State. Of the breeding species, 237 are neotropical migrants, or

birds that breed in the United States or Canada and winter to the south, from Mexico to South

America. While a migratory bird inventory has not been completed, 163 of Arizona's neotropical

migrants are known to nest in the Planning Area regularly or irregularly (AGFD 2001a). Such

species depend on quality habitats containing adequate substrate and cover for nesting purposes,

as well as diverse vegetation to supply food for brood rearing. The Decision Areas contain

breeding, nesting, brood rearing, and wintering areas, as well as migration routes that are

important for migratory birds.

Bats

Bat species are considered sensitive species in Arizona and are best protected by conserving

roosting sites and foraging areas. Although little information is available specifically for bats,

a number of bat species occur on or near public lands in the Planning Area. Mines and natural

caves, as well as crevices associated with cliffs, provide potential roosting habitat for bats. Bats

may also roost on trees, beneath loose tree bark, under bridges, and in open buildings. The

big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), cave myotis (Myotis velifer), occult little brown bat (Myotis

lucifugus occultus), California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus), pallid bat (Antrozous

pallidus), western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus), and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) are

most likely to inhabit public lands.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 279

3.2.6.4. Non-native Invasive Animal Species

Invasive species occur throughout the Planning Area and generally can be defined as “alien

species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to

human health” (BLM 1999). Invasive species, which have often been introduced accidentally or

purposely into ecosystems by humans, can be detrimental to the environment by directly causing

harm to native species through either predation or competition (Van Devender et al. 1997). This,

in turn, can affect general ecosystem functions.

Invasive animals, both terrestrial and aquatic, include starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), Eurasian

collared doves (Streptopelia decaocto), crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), bullfrogs (Rana

catesbeiana), Rio Grande leopard frogs (Rana berlandieri), and Mediterranean geckos

(Hemidactylus turcicus). Infestation by some of these species is so great that some native species

are threatened with extirpation due to competition as well as habitat degradation and destruction.

3.2.7. SOIL RESOURCES

Soils are primarily the product of climate, parent material (i.e. underlying bedrock lithology or

alluvium), and landscape. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formally known

as the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), completed five soil surveys that, when combined, cover

most of the Planning Area: Maricopa County, Central Part (SCS 1977); Eastern Maricopa and

Northern Pinal Counties (SCS 1974); Pinal County, Western Part (SCS 1991); Gila River Indian

Reservation (NRCS 1991); and Gila Bend-Ajo Area (NRCS 1997). (See Map 3-6: Soil Types.) A

small part of the Planning Area, principally the Sand Tank Mountains in the Monument, falls

outside these published reports.

Landforms in the Planning Area consist of broad, alluvial basin floors separated by basaltic or

granitic mountains, hills, and rock outcrops, dissected by several major drainages and numerous

ephemeral ones. In the western half, which includes most of the public land managed in the

Lower Sonoran, the dominant basin soils are deep, usually calcareous, sandy loams (Gunsight,

Denure, and Rillito soils). In the eastern and southeastern portions, including areas in the Santa

Cruz Basin, Casa Grande and Mohall soils are more common. Casa Grande soils developed

in sediments deposited along the axis of the Santa Cruz River, with Mohall soils forming on

tributary alluvial fans (NRCS 1991; SCS 1991). Organic material and sodium contents are low in

soils throughout the Planning Area.

Upland parts of the basins are carved by desert washes with soils that are coarse- to

medium-textured and cobbly to gravelly on the surface. Glocker (SCS 1991) notes several fan

surfaces preserved in the area, which have some of the oldest soils in the Planning Area. Soils

located higher on broad alluvial fans often derive directly from upslope bedrock, and underlain

by a caliche (hardened calcium carbonate) layer (i.e. Cipriano). Farther down on the alluvial

fan, soils, such as Denure and Dateland, often occur with loamier texture in the upper horizons

and less distinct carbonate layering.

Several large desert ephemeral (i.e. xeroriparian) washes divide the Planning Area. Deep,

stratified sands, silts, and cobbles underlie the channels and floodplains with textures dependent

on flow regimes. Some cobbly reaches along the Gila and Salt rivers are relics of the period

before upstream dams diverted the rivers’ perennial flows. More loamy soils exist on the higher

floodplains. In the areas inundated by Painted Rock Dam, silt and clay layers of desiccation

and salt accumulation are found, and, in some places, these layers are scoured by subsequent

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources
280 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

flood events. Terrace soils that parallel the main channel of these rivers on one or both sides are

coarse, gravelly, and stratified with low organic content (less than 1 percent), and recently active

sediments overlaying older, valley alluvium or bedrock. Dunes are occasionally found where

fine sand and consistent winds are common.

Current soil conditions are evaluated on grazing allotments, which make up a large percentage

of the Decision Areas. Quantitative soil-resource data is available from the NRCS soil surveys.

Some additional quantitative and qualitative data are collected for the Arizona Standards for

Rangeland Health grazing-allotment evaluations. These data estimate the current condition and

trends of soil resources based on periodic measurement of surface condition indicators. Five

indicators for which some observations have been made include:

● Total vegetative canopy cover: These data are collected on line transects that are usually

established as permanent monitoring sites, called key areas, in two or three key areas of each

grazing allotment. The land health standard for cover has been set as the percent cover that is

appropriate for each ecological site. Nearly all allotments are meeting land health standards

showing that the percentage of canopy cover is sufficient to protect most of the soil surfaces in

the Lower Sonoran and SDNM from accelerated erosion. This conclusion is supported by

direct observation of existing erosion in the Decision Areas, which currently shows slight

erosion in all but a few severely disturbed surfaces, such as roads, ROWs, and at livestock

watering sites.

● Bare ground: Other cover data that is collected at key areas to factor into soil stability

includes percentage of gravel and stone cover, litter presence, and cryptogams (biotic crusts),

all of which help prevent soil erosion, and bare ground. Bare ground is an important measure

of erosion potential. The proportion of bare ground on arid ecological sites is relatively

high even on sites that are meeting standards. These sites may produce comparatively high

runoff during precipitation, but rates of surface erosion are not abnormal or accelerated.

As in the case of the cover indicator, most of the Decision Areas are meeting standards,

which is consistent with observations that, except on or near roads and other major surface

disturbances, little accelerated erosion is occurring in the Decision Areas.

● Density of unsurfaced roads: The average density of unsurfaced roads (i.e. roads without

asphalt, gravel, or long-lasting palliative) is relatively low in both Decision Areas: below 1.2

miles of road per section throughout most of the Decision Areas. Road density is much

greater within a few areas, such as Buckeye Hills and other northern areas of the Lower

Sonoran and the area near the west end of the Anza Trail in the SDNM that have a density

of 1.4 miles per section or higher.

● Miles of roads or other disturbances that are on soils sensitive to wind or water erosion:

About 20 percent of the roads in the Decision Areas that are currently open are on soils that

are classified by NRCS as sensitive to wind and water erosion. Some water erosion has

already been observed on or near roads that have channeled runoff in the north portion of the

Lower Sonoran and north of SR 238 in the SDNM. Eighty-eight miles of roads have been

temporarily closed to motorized vehicle traffic due to the risk of wind and water erosion from

roads with fine-textured surfaces that have been damaged by the disturbance of traffic.

● Area of protective desert pavement or biological soil crusts that have been disturbed:

Desert pavement and biological soil crusts are located throughout both Decision Areas. They

are very effective in preventing soil erosion, but are quite vulnerable if disturbed. Fine

material that sifts below desert pavement is easily displaced by wind or water if the protective

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 281

layer on the surface is disturbed. Similar effects occur when biological soil crusts are

disturbed. Due to the lack of data on the total area covered by desert pavement or biological

soil crusts in the Decision Area, this indicator is qualitative in nature.

Desert pavement, found in parts of the Planning Area, is a dense surface layer of rounded

stones, sometimes coated with desert varnish and underlain by a porous, skeletal layer of

wind-transported silt or fine sand. The formation of desert pavement appears to be the result of

surface heaving, which allows wind-deposited, fine-grained particles to sort downward and

exposes the coarser layer (McFadden et al. 1998).

Biological soil crusts, also known as biotic crusts or cryptogamic soils, are found throughout the

Planning Area and can be composed of cyanobacteria, green algae, lichen, mosses, microfungi,

and other bacteria (Belnap et al. 2001). In the Sonoran Desert, these crusts most commonly

include heterocystic cyanobacteria, gelatinous lichen, squamulose lichen, and short mosses and

are most often present in areas with flat topography (unlike cooler, higher-elevation basin and

range deserts). These soils represent a critical component of the arid West’s ecology because they

tend to fix nitrogen and contribute to the sparse nutrients available to desert plants.

Both biotic crusts and desert pavement provide protection against wind and surface-sheet erosion.

Biological soil crusts appear to be indicators of rangeland health (Cameron 1960; Kade and

Warren 2002) and may require considerable time to revegetate (Kade and Warren 2002). Little

study or mapping of either desert pavement or biological soil crusts has occurred in the Sonoran

Desert. Disturbed areas are most often found in close proximity to livestock waters, where the

livestock generate heavily used trails, and in areas where intense cross-country off-highway

vehicle (OHV) use creates new routes. Available trend data show generally static conditions

for desert pavement and biological soil crusts.

Soil disturbance and compaction are present in long-term use areas, including

livestock-congregation sites, roads, and parking areas. Larger areas of accelerated erosion and

sedimentation are mainly in the Vekol Valley south of I-8. Historical uses, such as construction

of water-spreading dikes in areas with higher erosion hazards, created these effects. While uses

that could cause soil resource degradation have increased in the Planning Area over the last 20

years, protective and restoration practices have generally kept pace. On the other hand, ongoing

drought and intensive dispersed uses, such as illegal off-road travel, continue to threaten soil

resource conditions, as indicated by BLM grazing allotment records, NRCS ecological site

guides, NRCS range health reference sheets, and NRCS soils surveys. If the current regional

drought continues, impacts from recreation, livestock grazing, and other ground-disturbing uses

could be compounded. Similarly, if urban demands for water increase on lands adjacent to the

Decision Areas, soil loss could worsen.

Based on best-available data and analysis in the allotment evaluations, accelerated soil erosion

occurs infrequently. Water-erosion hazard is highest on the coarse-textured, steeper soils found in

the granitic soils in the western and southwestern portions of the Planning Area. Wind-erosion

hazards are highest on the fine-textured, irrigated soils of the major drainages. Except for data

collected on allotments, very little soil condition data is collected that could be used to indicate

trends.

Table 3.2, “Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Area Soils (BLM Land)” (p. 282) identifies major

soil associations and erosion potential, while Map 3-7: Soil & Erosion Potential shows areas of

wind-erosion potential. These are typically areas of Mohall, Dateland, Denure, Indio, and Casa

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Soil Resources
282 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Grande soils. Younger soils with silty surfaces and little cover, often occurring on drainage

floodplains in the Planning Area, are the most susceptible to wind erosion.

Table 3.2. Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Area Soils (BLM Land)

Map Name Texture Slope %

Water

Erosion

Potential

Wind

Erosion

Potential

Elevation of

Occurrence

Acres % of

Total

Scattered Parcels

Hyder-CoolidgeCipriano-Cherioni

basalt flow,

colluvium,

cobbly

1%-65% moderate slight 430-4,400 389,700 28%

GunsightRillito-DenureChuckawalla

gravelly,

sandy loam 1%-40% moderate/high slight 430-3,100 477,500 34%

Mohall-DenureCoolidgegravelly,

sandy loam 0%-8% moderate/high high 350-2,400 228,500 16%

Rock outcropQuilotosaMomoligranitic

colluvium,

stony

3%-55% severe slight 800-2,800 216,600 15%

Rock outcropQuilotosa-HyderGachado

extremely

gravelly sand

5%-65% severe slight 1,150-3,100 38,500 3%

Denure-Dateland loam 0%-8% slight moderate 1,140-2,000 34,000 2%

Why-WelltonGunsightGrowler-Denure

loam 0%-7% very slight moderate 550-800 9,900 1%

Spudrock-Rock

outcrop-Cellar

no data 25%-60% moderate/high no data 3,300-5,200 3,700 <1%

Tremant-PinamtEbon

gravelly loam 0%-12% moderate/high no data 1,400-2,600 2,600 <1%

Pinaleno - Eba no data 5%-30% moderate/high no data 3,650-3,900 200 <1%

Soils in the SDNM have many soil series and associations in common with the Lower Sonoran.

On the other hand, there is a significant difference between the geology of Oatman Mountains

and Sentinel Plains in the Lower Sonoran and that of the Maricopa Mountains in the Monument.

The dominant bedrock parent material in the Lower Sonoran is basaltic, while in the SDNM,

granitic parent material predominates with gneiss (metamorphic rock) mixed in. The vegetation

communities are similar desert shrub types, and the potential use and management is also similar,

but granitic material is often more prone to water erosion. Rutting and roadway damage from

vehicle use in the area between the North and South Maricopa Mountains is consistent with

the more fragile soil types.

3.2.8. VEGETATION RESOURCES

The Planning Area lies within two different Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs), as defined

by the NRCS’s soil surveys. They are the Sonoran Basin and Range and Arizona Mogollon

Chaparral. An MLRA is a broad geographic area characterized by a particular pattern of soils,

climate, water resources, vegetation, and land use. Each MLRA has subdivisions based on

precipitation zones in which rangeland and forestland occur, and is further divided into ecological

sites. The most common ecological sites within the Planning Area are identified in the plant

community descriptions below.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 283

Public lands support a variety of upland vegetation communities and a riparian plant community

along the Gila River. These vegetative communities are determined in large part by site-specific

topography, soil type, and climatic conditions. Vegetative community classifications follow the

USGS's Gap Analysis Program (GAP) vegetation community map system.

3.2.8.1. Vegetation Communities

Eight vegetation communities are found on the Decision Areas. These are detailed in Table 3.3,

“Vegetative Communities on Public Lands in the Planning Area” (p. 283)and illustrated on Map

3-8: Vegetative Communities. Although boundaries between vegetative communities are not

precise, as several types or developmental stages may be found in any vegetative community, the

grouping system can be used to describe vegetation over vast regions, such as the Planning Area.

Table 3.3. Vegetative Communities on Public Lands in the Planning Area

Acres and Percent of Vegetative Community

Total on Public Lands Applicable Decision Areas

Vegetative Community Acres Percent Lower Sonoran SDNM

Creosote Bush-Bursage 777,300 54.87% 597,700 179,600

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti 615,300 43.43% 312,000 303,300

Riparian (within Fred J. Weiler Green Belt) 447 0.03% 447 0

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite Upland Scrub 3,800 0.27% 3,400 400

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub

(Woodlands)

3,800 0.27% 1,800 2,000

Mogollon Chaparral 1,500 0.11% 1,400 100

Desert Grassland 1,054 0.07% 0 1,054

Desert Washes (Xeroriparian), Linear Inclusion

of Other Vegetation Communities

2,628 miles1 N/A 1,658 miles1 970 miles1

Total public lands in Planning Area 1,416,6002 99.05% 930,2002 486,4002

1Data Source: USGS 1:100,000 scale topographic quadrangles. Desert washes are measured in miles, not acres, so

are not included in area totals. Vegetation community mapping is currently not available at a high enough resolution

to distinguish desert wash communities from dominant vegetation communities surrounding them.

2Totals do not add up because some plant communities are too small to be included in this list.

Creosote Bush-Bursage

The creosote bush-bursage is considered a subgroup of the Sonoran desert scrub vegetative

community. It covers a greater percentage of Planning Area public lands than all other vegetative

communities combined (55 percent). Occurring at elevations from 400 to 3,000 feet above sea

level, it is the most arid of the vegetation communities, consisting primarily of creosote bush and

white or triangle leaf bursage (Shreve 1951; Brown 1994). This vegetative community is most

associated with the limy fan, limy upland deep, and sandy loam deep ecological sites in the 2-inch

to 7-inch, 7-inch to 10-inch, and 10-inch to 13-inch precipitation zones.

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetative community is another subgroup of the Sonoran desert

scrub community and is the second most prevalent on public lands in the Planning Area,

covering 44 percent. It is found at elevations from approximately 1,500 to 4,500 feet above sea

level. Compared to the creosote bush-bursage community, this community is found in areas

with different soil types, higher rainfall, and higher elevation gradients and contains a greater

diversity of plant and wildlife species. Vegetation in the community consists of extensive stands

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
284 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

of saguaro cacti interspersed with cholla, barrel cacti, palo verde, brittlebush, creosote bush,

ocotillo, mesquite, cat claw acacia, and ironwood (Shreve 1951; Brown 1994; Marshall 2000).

This vegetative community is most commonly associated with the Limey upland, Granitic hills,

Volcanic hills, and Basalt hills ecological sites in the 2-inch to 7-inch, 7-inch to 10-inch, and

10-inch to 13-inch precipitation zones.

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Upland Scrub

Vegetation for this shrubland community typically is dominated by mesquite species (Prosopis

glandulosa or Prosopis velutina) and succulents. Other desert scrub/trees that may co-dominate

or dominate includes acacia species (Acacia neovernicosa or Acacia constricta) or junipers

(Juniperus monosperma or Juniperus coahuilensis). Perennial grass cover is typically low due

to deep soils and unavailable moisture. Less than 0.3 percent of the Decision Areas consist of

Mogollon chaparral, with the main concentrations occurring in the Globe-Miami area at elevations

between 3,400 and 6,000 feet. The NRCS has not completed a soil survey and the associated

Ecological Site Description for this community.

Mogollon Chaparral

The Mogollon Chaparral vegetative community is a warm, temperate scrubland containing

woody species such as shrub live oak, mountain mahogany, desert ceanothus, and cliffrose.

While such vegetation types are found mainly at elevations between 3,400 and 6,000 feet, they

can also be found at higher elevations with drier and warmer slopes. Only 0.1 percent of the

public lands in the Planning Area consist of Mogollon chaparral, with the main concentrations

occurring in the Globe-Miami area. Periodic, naturally occurring, wildland fires are important in

maintaining the plant community. Depending upon the fire’s temperature, Mogollon Chaparral

shrubs typically re-sprout from root crowns or germinate from long-lived seeds following fire.

Woodland species now dominate the community, especially near urban areas, with a concomitant

reduction in important understory species due to current and past fire suppression strategies.

This vegetative community is most associated with the Granitic ecological site in the 12-inch to

16-inch precipitation zone.

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub (Woodlands)

The Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub community is found mainly near mountain peaks

surrounded by the palo verde-mixed cacti community. It covers approximately 3,800 acres of

the Planning Area, receives higher precipitation, and has a higher diversity of native plants than

that of the surrounding communities. The vegetation typically is composed of an open shrub

layer of creosote bush, narrow leaf goldenbush (Ericameria linearifolia), or flattop buckwheat

(Eriogonum fasciculatum) with taller shrubs, such as crucifixion thorn (Canotia holacantha) or

jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis). The herbaceous layer generally is sparse. Relic communities of

juniper, yucca, and elephant tree have also been observed in the Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert

Scrub community (BLM 1989; PBI 2003). Due to the more remote location of this vegetation

type, it has generally escaped human-related impacts. This vegetative community is associated

with the volcanic and basalt hills ecological sites in the 7-inch to 10-inch and 10-inch to 13-inch

precipitation zones.

Riparian

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 285

The proportion of public land occupied by riparian vegetation is extremely small in relation with

many of the other vegetation types (less than 0.03 percent), but this community’s biological

and ecological importance is greater than its limited geographic occurrence. The only riparian

area in the Planning Area is associated with the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt along the Gila River,

established as a resource conservation area in 1970. The Green Belt includes 45,978 acres of the

Gila River channel and floodplain allocated for wildlife and migratory bird management. The

BLM manages approximately 447 acres, or 1 percent of the Green Belt, with riparian vegetation.

The remaining 99 percent of the Green Belt is in mixed ownership and under various withdrawals

for use by other State and Federal agencies. The Gila River once was lined with native

cottonwoods, willows, and mesquite bosques, but now contains only small pockets of native

vegetation. The majority of it has been replaced with non-native salt cedar or tamarisk (Tamarix

ramosissima and T. chinensis), a shift encouraged by changes in functionality and water flow

from water impoundments, agriculture, and groundwater pumping. Such changes have resulted in

an increased risk of unnatural, high-intensity wildland fires (BLM 2003). Areas appropriate for

firebreaks in the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt have been identified to reduce wildfire severity, increase

public safety, reduce tamarisk invasion, and restore vegetation to a more native composition.

Desert Washes (Xeroriparian)

The Desert Wash, or xeroriparian, vegetative community occurs as small inclusions in large areas

of upland sites. They typically flow only briefly in direct response to significant precipitation

events. The vegetation of desert washes is quite variable, ranging from sparse and patchy to

moderately dense, and usually occurs along the banks but may occur within the channel. The

woody layer typically is intermittent to open, and may be dominated by shrubs and small trees.

Common species include mesquite, catclaw acacia, blue palo verde, and desert ironwood. While

such plant species also are found in upland habitats, species growing in ephemeral washes

commonly are larger and occur at higher densities than in adjacent uplands. This plant community

is associated with the sandy wash ecological site in the 2-inch to 7-inch, 7-inch to 10-inch, and

10-inch to 13-inch precipitation zones.

Desert Grassland

The Desert grassland community is characterized as a warm, temperate grassland dominated by

tobosa grass and ranging in elevation from 2,300 to 4,900 feet. Only 0.07 percent of public

lands in the Planning Area consists of desert grassland. In fact, the only area supporting this

community occurs in the southeast portion of the Monument, abutting the Tohono O’odham

Indian Reservation. This plant community likely supported occasional wildfire historically,

although it is quite arid in nature. It is associated with the Clayey Swale ecological site in the

7-inch to 10-inch precipitation zone.

3.2.8.2. Special Status Plant Species

There are six special status plant species within the Planning Area: one endangered, two candidate

and four BLM sensitive. These species occur or potentially occur in the Decision Areas and are

listed in Table 3.4, “Special Status Plant Species on Public Lands in the Planning Area” (p. 285).

Table 3.4. Special Status Plant Species on Public Lands in the Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Arizona Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus Federal Endangered

Acuña Cactus Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis Federal Candidate

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources
286 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Common Name Scientific Name Status

Murphy Agave Agave mupheyi Federal Candidate

Kofa Mt. Barberry Berberis harrisoniana BLM Sensitive

Arizona Sonoran rosewood Vauquelinia californica spp. sonorensis BLM Sensitive

Tumamoc Globeberry Tumamoca macdougalii BLM Sensitive

Arizona Hedgehog Cactus. The Arizona hedgehog cactus is an endangered species and was

listed in 1979 without critical habitat. It is a diploid, perfect-flowered cactus of southeastern

Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and northern Mexico. It can generally be distinguished from

other similar subspecies by its thicker stems and spines. The cactus' flowers are brilliant red, are

produced along the side of the stem, and appear in late April to mid-May. The species can be

found on dacite or granite bedrock, open slopes, in narrow cracks between boulders, and in the

understory of shrubs in the ecological zone between Madrean Evergreen Woodland and Interior

Chaparral at elevation of 3,200-5,200 ft). The Arizona hedgehog cactus has been documented

in Gila and Pinal counties in central Arizona, including locations in the Planning Area. Exact

locations are not provided because illegal collecting threatens the species.

Acuña Cactus. The Acuña cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis) is a candidate

species for listing under the ESA. Seven populations are currently known, five in the U. S.

and two in Sonora, Mexico. Four out of the five U.S. populations occur in four locations in

the Planning Area: one location is on NPS lands in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument

(OPCNM); two locations are on public lands in Coffeepot ACEC (Lower Sonoran) and SDNM;

and one location is on private land in Ajo. The cactus is restricted to well-drained knolls and

gravel ridges between major washes in Sonoran desert scrub habitat at elevations ranging from

1,300 to 2,000 feet. The amount and quality of habitat for this species are currently not possible to

assess due to limited information on its distribution. Recently monitored populations in OPCNM

and SDNM range from 40 individuals (Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller and SWCA 1997) to more

than 300 individuals (OPCNM 1998; BLM unpublished). Because this species grows in small,

widely scattered populations and only a small part of its potential range has been surveyed, it is

probable that additional populations have not been detected. The NPS and BLM populations of

the Acuña cactus are located solely on Federal lands and are relatively secure; however, they are

susceptible to drought conditions and poaching. Individual plants have been illegally removed

from OPCNM population study plots (OPCNM 1998). The SDNM population is remote and

relatively inaccessible; therefore, it is less at risk from poaching and currently appears relatively

stable. The Coffeepot ACEC population is monitored annually and has experienced some decline

due to drought conditions. The Ajo population, which is on private land, has been reduced due

to impacts associated with mining.

Kofa Barberry. The Kofa barberry (Berberis harrisoniana), also known as Harrison's barberry,

is a rounded, evergreen shrub that can grow to over 6-feet tall. Their range includes the Kofa

Mountains in Yuma and La Paz counties, Sand Tank Mountains in Maricopa County, and north

end of the Ajo Mountains in Pima County. The species has 1.6 to 3.5-inch long trifoliate leaves,

with three leaflets that taper to a short, stout spine. The plant flowers mid-February to March and

fruits in late March to April. The flowers are bright yellow and the fruits are blue-black berries.

The Kofa barberry prefers bottoms of deep, shady, rocky canyons with soils derived from andesite

or rhyolite, at 2,200 to 3,500 feet in elevation.

Arizona Sonoran Rosewood. The Arizona Sonoran rosewood (Vauquelinia californica spp.

sonorensis) is a medium-sized tree with a dense, dark green canopy that typically grows up to

16 feet tall but can range from 10-16 feet tall as a large shrub or small tree. The plants’ habitat

is mainly in southwestern Arizona in the Ajo, Diablo, Mesquite, and Santa Rosa mountains of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 287

Pima County, and Sand Tank Mountains of Maricopa County. The plant can be identified by its

leathery leaves that are green on top and white-hairy on bottom. The leaves are approximately 1⁄4

inch to nearly 1⁄2 inch wide and up to 4 inches long, with serrated margins and pronounced spines.

Flowers are white, approximately 1⁄4 inch to 1⁄2 inch wide, and clustered in flat-topped corymbs

2 to 3 inches broad.

Tumamoc Globeberry. Tumamoc Globeberry (Tumamoca macdougalii) is a perennial vine of

the gourd family that produces fruit. In Arizona, the species’ habitat exists from southern Pinal

and Maricopa counties into Pima County, where it is widespread. It grows from a tuberous root

and features a smooth, slender stem and grasping tendrils. The stems sprout annually and die back

after fruiting. The roots typically are 2-6 inches long and united into a woody crown with a short

stem. The plants’ lacy leaves have three main lobes, each with narrow, linear secondary lobes 1⁄2

inch to 1.5 inches long. When the foliage is touched, it gives off a fetid smell. Globeberry flowers

are pale yellow to greenish yellow and are united below their middle with male and female organs

born in separate flowers. Male flowers outnumber female flowers, and male flowers form in

racemes of two to six flowers. The perianth lobes narrow to 1⁄5 of an inch long. Female flowers

have shorter lobes and are born singly in axils. Fruits are succulent and berry-like, resembling tiny,

round watermelons that are pale green with darker stripes becoming yellow, then turning red when

ripe. Seeds consist of two to several per fruit, and are 1⁄4-inch long, quadrate, tubercular-rugose.

3.2.9. VISUAL RESOURCES

The BLM manages the scenic values of public lands through the Visual Resource Management

(VRM) program. In a two-step visual resource inventory (VRI) process, objectives are established

for four “classes” of visual quality. In the first step of the VRI process, the BLM inventories

scenic resources through three indicators: scenic quality, viewer sensitivity, and distance zones.

Scenic quality, which considers the character and diversity of landform, vegetation, water, color,

and man-made features, measures the inherent visual appeal of a landscape on a rating scale of

“A” (highest appeal) to “C” (lowest appeal). Views with similar ratings are grouped to produce a

map, or overlay, of scenic quality units over the Planning Area.

Viewer sensitivity is a measure of expected public concern for change to the scenic quality of

each rating unit, and is determined on a scale of high, moderate, or low, based on such factors

as user type, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land uses, and presence of special areas.

In this step, the BLM considers public comments and other management concerns to adjust the

boundaries of the VRM inventory classes or even to change the class.

Distance zones establish the relative visibility of landscapes from major travel routes or

observation points, characterized as foreground-middleground, background, and seldom seen.

For the second step of the VRI process, the three indicator maps are overlaid across the Decision

Areas, and areas of similar interaction between the three indicators are grouped into VRI Class I,

II, III or IV. See Map 3-9: Visual Resource Inventory Classes for the VRI classes identified for

the Decision Areas.

The VRI was conducted by Otak, Inc. from October to December 2009 to determine visual

values within the Decision Areas at a specific point in time as outlined in BLM VRI Handbook,

H-8410-1. Visual resource inventory classes provide the basis for considering visual values in

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources
288 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

the RMP process. They do not establish management direction and are not used as a basis for

evaluating surface-disturbing activities.

The extent of VRI classes in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM is shown in Table 3.5, “ Extent

of VRI Class Designations” (p. 288). Approximately 72 percent of the Lower Sonoran is

inventoried as Class III or IV, which allow for moderate to major modifications to the visual

landscape character. In contrast, approximately 65 percent of the SDNM is managed as Class I

or II due to a higher percentage of designated wilderness. Presidential Proclamation 7397 that

created the Monument does not specifically refer to scenic resources, but the visual quality of the

Monument’s landscapes inherently contributes to the natural and cultural resources for which

the Monument was established. Wilderness areas and the Juan Batista de Anza NHT within the

SDNM could be impacted through visual landscape changes.

Table 3.5. Extent of VRI Class Designations

VRI Class Lower Sonoran SDNM

Acres % of Total Acres % of Total

I 91,800 9.9% 159,000 33%

II 166,800 17.9% 158,000 32%

III 290,900 31.3% 169,300 35%

IV 380,700 40.9% 100 0%

Total 930,200 100% 486,400 100%

Based on the VRI, the BLM assigned VRMclasses to the Decision Areas to define management

objectives for each of the alternative identified in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27). While the

assignment of classes is ultimately based on management decisions made in the RMP, visual

values must be considered throughout the planning process. All proposed actions resulting

in surface disturbances must consider the impacts a project may have on visual resources.

Management decisions in the RMP must reflect these important values, and may be the driving

force for some decisions.

The objectives for VRM classes are:

● Class I: The objective is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class

provides for natural ecological changes; however, 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.

● Class II: The objective is to retain the existing landscape character. 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.

● Class III: The objective 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.

● Class IV: The objective is to provide for management activities that require major modification

of the existing landscape character. 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

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Visual Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 289

attention; however, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities,

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating of the basic elements.

3.2.9.1. Visual and Scenic Resources

The scenic quality of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM consists of classic Sonoran Desert views,

made up of jagged and isolated mountain ranges that are often thickly vegetated along the flanks

with “forests” of columnar cactus and scrubby trees and jut dramatically from vast, flat valleys.

Valley floors typically are vegetated with unbroken expanses of low growing, woody shrubs.

Dominant colors range from dark browns and tans to gray, with textures ranging from coarse and

broken in the mountain ranges to smooth on the valley floors. The colors and contrasts provided

by permanent water usually are absent; however, ephemeral drainage washes across the valley

floors produce intricate, dendritic lines of greener vegetation that relieve the unbroken expanses.

Modifications to landscape views in the form of residential developments and infrastructure (i.e.

highways, pipelines, and transmission lines) have greatly increased during the last 15 years.

Viewer sensitivity to visual changes in dominant landscapes increases with residential growth.

Although numerous factors fuel residential growth, the rugged and open nature of the Sonoran

Desert landscape plays, in part, a role in attracting increased numbers of residents. Through public

meetings and comments during the planning process, the BLM has learned that the interested

public places high concern and value on open space, natural landscapes, and mountain views.

Distance zones may also be affected by residential growth as new and expanded subdivisions

provide viewing locations from which additional, landscape change may be noticeable to

more residents. Distance zones may also be affected as new travel routes are constructed to

accommodate increased population or as heavier traffic occurs on existing routes.

3.2.10. WATER RESOURCES

3.2.10.1. Groundwater

Most groundwater in the Planning Area lies in sand-and-gravel alluvium, filling the basins

between rock outcrops and surrounding mountain ranges. The quantity of water stored in these

basins varies widely because the numerous rock outcrops and shallow bedrock form barriers to

groundwater flow. The alluvial stratigraphy, or layers, is similar in all of the larger basins. It is

defined primarily by bedrock structure and associated variations in sedimentary-layer thicknesses

that serve to isolate the groundwater and produce large variations in depths and availability.

Three hydro-stratigraphic units are in the larger sub-basins: (1) an Upper Unit of coarse-grained

basin fill; (2) a Middle Unit that contains finer-grained and evaporate (salt lake) units; and (3) a

deep, conglomeratic Lower Unit.

Groundwater Quantity

The main subsurface sources of groundwater in the Planning Area are the Middle Unit and upper

interval of the Lower Unit. Over the last 100 years, the Upper Unit has largely been dewatered

through use as groundwater levels dropped below its lower boundary. Groundwater withdrawal

is continuing throughout the Planning Area.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
290 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Deep groundwater monitoring in wells is done in terms of water levels, well yields, and

water-quality concentrations. Current and past groundwater monitoring show that groundwater

withdrawal for irrigation and potable water for urban development is continuing, as new

subdivisions are developed in the Planning Area and near the Decision Areas. Most other uses are

small. Increasing water demand for solar energy development in the Decision Areas is probable.

Arizona’s 1980 Groundwater Management Act defined boundaries for the State’s five Active

Management Areas (AMAs) by identifying areas where groundwater pumping has significantly

exceeded recharge. The law established guidelines for long-term management, designed to

mitigate the effects of groundwater pumping in excess of recharge rates, including subsidence

(collapse of a depleted aquifer resulting in sinking and fissuring of the ground at the surface) and

other immediate impacts.

The Planning Area includes portions of twelve groundwater basins, including portions of

special-management areas in the Harquahala Irrigation Non-Expansion Area (INA) and the

Phoenix, Pinal, and Tucson AMAs (Map 3-10: Groundwater Basins). The rules for groundwater

pumping in an AMA are stricter than in adjacent rural areas, and include sustainability targets

for both water quantity and quality. The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)

also places restrictions on increasing irrigated acreage in an INA. Available groundwater in the

Phoenix AMA was quantified in the Third Management Plan (ADWR 1999a), which shows that

the current rate of groundwater pumping will cause levels under the Planning Area to decline;

however, the effects will vary in different locations. The Pinal AMA shows a similar trend, with

most impacts caused by irrigation pumping.

The ADWR monitors groundwater depletion in the AMAs. The USGS and ADWR predict that

ground subsidence, due to groundwater withdrawal, is likely to continue in the areas where it

currently occurs, and in additional areas of significant groundwater depletion (Carpenter 1999).

Although subsidence has occurred in many parts of the Planning Area, none has been detected in

the Decision Areas.

Groundwater Quality

Most groundwater-quality issues in the Planning Area are caused by the infiltration of polluted

agricultural irrigation water, particularly in the Gila and Salt River valleys. Groundwater quality

in other parts of the Planning Area is not well documented. The Pinal Active Management Report

(ADWR 1999b) reports little evidence of groundwater pollutants outside the Planning Area’s

urban and agricultural zones. No groundwater-quality trend has been addressed within the report.

The Phoenix AMA includes the northern third of the SDNM. Groundwater uses primarily are

limited to livestock watering. Groundwater-quality monitoring wells were drilled in the SDNM

about 30 years ago, but no recent data is available. Few, if any, new water developments other

than wildlife waters are expected in the Monument.

3.2.10.2. Surface Water

Although perennial surface water is uncommon on public lands in south-central Arizona,

ephemeral, intermittent, and effluent-dependant lotic (streams) and lentic (standing) water are

both common and important. (See Table 3.6, “Monthly Mean Discharge (Flow) of Key Streams

in Planning Area” (p. 291) for stream-flow data.) Desert washes are key resources in the Planning

Area; however, most flow has been impounded for various purposes. Small water-control devices

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 291

including spreader dikes, berms, dirt tanks, and remnant impoundments from mining activities –

are scattered across the Planning Area to capture rainfall and ephemeral flows in desert washes

for use by livestock and wildlife. The Gila River is the primary watercourse and is ephemeral

for its entire length in the Planning Area except for the discharge of treated effluent, which

flows to about SR 85 most of the year. When there is precipitation and runoff, which mostly

likely occurs in the summer (see Table 3.7, “Montly Temperature & Precipitation for Planning

Area (Gila Bend Weather Station)” (p. 291) for climate data), flow occasionally continues into

Painted Rock Reservoir.

Table 3.6. Monthly Mean Discharge (Flow) of Key Streams in Planning Area

Gage (USGS Reference

Number)

January April July October

Record

high flow

(year)

Mean

flow

Record

high flow

(year)

Mean

flow

Record

high flow

(year)

Mean

flow

Record

high flow

(year)

Mean

flow

Salt River at 51st Ave.

(09512406)

5,484 ft3/s

(2005)

808 ft3/s

4.92 ft3/s

(2007)

1.5 ft3/s

7.46 ft3/s

(2006)

2.2 ft3/s

9.15 ft3/s

(2005)

2.0 ft3/s

Gila River near Maricopa

(09479350)

0 ft3/s 0 ft3/s

0.3 ft3/s

(2005)

0.02 ft3/s

8.1 ft3/s

(2006)

0.54 ft3/s

8.4 ft3/s

(2006)

0.63

ft3/s

Gila River at Estrella

Parkway near Goodyear

(09514100)

53,880

ft3/s

(1993)

3,480

ft3/s

5,104 ft3/s

(1993)

388 ft3/s

55.6 ft3/s

(1993)

3.9 ft3/s

62 ft3/s

(1993)

11 ft3/s

Hassayampa River near

Arlington (09517000)

133 ft3/s

(2001)

79 ft3/s

69 ft3/s

(2007)

47 ft3/s

121 ft3/s

(1999)

46 ft3/s

311.6 ft3/s

(2000)

77 ft3/s

Centennial Wash at Southern

Pacific RR Bridge near Gila

Bend (09517490)

85 ft3/s

(1993)

4.0 ft3/s

2.8 ft3/s

(1982)

0.17 ft3/s

18 ft3/s

(1996)

2.9 ft3/s

21.1 ft3/s

(2000)

0.94

ft3/s

Below Painted Rock

Reservoir (09519800)

6,348 ft3/s

(1993)

390 ft3/s

16,160

ft3/s (1993)

793 ft3/s

3,286

ft3/s

(1980)

265 ft3/s

3,996 ft3/s

(1980)

226 ft3/s

Source: USGS 2010

All water-quality issues discussed above for the Planning Area apply to the Lower Sonoran

Decision Area. Nearly all water-quality issues relate to the Gila River. Portions of all 12

surface-water sub-basins occur in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. About 40 percent of the

LSFO’s northwest portion, all public land in San Tan Mountain area and near Apache Junction, is

included in the Phoenix AMA. As identified in Table 3.7, “Montly Temperature & Precipitation

for Planning Area (Gila Bend Weather Station)” (p. 291), summer is the wettest season, followed

by winter, while spring and fall are the driest. This is only partly reflected in monthly mean

discharges of key streams in the Planning Area (see Table 3.6, “Monthly Mean Discharge

(Flow) of Key Streams in Planning Area” (p. 291)) because other factors such as natural water

regimes being restricted by impoundments and water being diverted for irrigation purposes

greatly influences stream flows.

Table 3.7. Montly Temperature & Precipitation for Planning Area (Gila Bend Weather

Station)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max.

Temperature (F)

69.0 73.6 79.8 88.0 96.7 106 108.9 107.2 103.1 92.1 78.5 69.2 89.3

Average Min.

Temperature (F)

38.7 41.8 46.1 51.7 59.6 68.2 78.1 76.8 70.0 57.2 45.2 38.7 56.0

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
292 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Total

Precipitation (in.)

0.62 0.63 0.63 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.73 1.02 0.51 0.40 0.51 0.69 6.13

Source: Western Regional Climate Center, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azgila, accessed Sept.

26, 2010

Surface Water Basins

The nation’s watersheds are organized into a hierarchy of hydrologic units, each with a unique

hydrologic unit code (HUC).Under the hydrologic watershed naming system, the entire Planning

Area lies in the Lower Colorado Region. Within that region, most of the Planning Area is in

either the Lower Gila or the Salt sub-region, identified by four-digit HUCs. Going down the

hierarchy, the next subdivision is the basin, or six-digit HUCs. Sub-basins (eight-digit HUCs)

are most commonly used to describe state-level drainage areas. Watersheds (ten-digit HUC)

and sub-watersheds are commonly used in project-level planning but are too numerous to be

individually described in this plan.

Table 3.8. Definition of Hydrologic Unit Codes in the Planning Area

Order No. of Digits Name Unit Size

1 2 Region Avg. 177,560 sq. miles

2 4 Subregion Avg. 16,800 sq. miles

3 6 Basin Avg. 10,596 sq. miles

4 8 Sub-basin Avg. 703 sq. miles

5 10 Watershed Range: 40,000-250,000 acres

6 12 Sub-watershed Range: 10,000-40,000 acres

Based on Missouri Information Network (University of Missouri 2002)

There are parts of 20 fourth-order hydrologic units or sub-basins (as defined in Table 3.8,

“Definition of Hydrologic Unit Codes in the Planning Area” (p. 292)) in the Planning Area (Map

3-11: Surface Water Sub-Basins). The San Cristobal, San Simon (near Ajo), Lower Santa Cruz,

Santa Rosa Wash, Roosevelt Lake, Lower Salt, Middle Gila, Lower Gila, Lower Gila-Painted

Rock Reservoir (which includes the SDNM), Centennial Wash, and Tenmile Wash (Gila Bend

Mountains area) comprise most of the Decision Areas. The Lower Verde, Sonoyta Valley, San

Carlos, Colorado (Yuma-Mexico), and Brawley Wash sub-basins occupy only a small proportion

of the Planning Area and are not discussed further.

Table 3.9. Surface Water Sub-basins in Planning Area

Name Acres within Planning Area % of Planning Area

Agua Fria Sub-basin 11,347 0.1%

Aguirre Valley Sub-basin 408,471 4.6%

Brawley Wash 36,626 0.4%

Centennial Wash 286,064 3.2%

Colorado (Yuma-Mexico) 43,105 0.5%

Hassayampa 24,470 0.3%

Lower Gila 294,981 3.3%

Lower Gila-Painted Rock Reservoir 1,291,772 14.6%

Lower Salt 505,992 5.7%

Lower Santa Cruz 559,450 6.3%

Lower Verde 111,892 1.3%

Middle Gila 1,058,211 11.9%

Roosevelt Lake 150,967 1.7%

San Carlos 26,362 0.3%

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 293

Name Acres within Planning Area % of Planning Area

San Cristobal Wash 893,832 10.1%

San Simon Wash 1,373,521 15.5%

Santa Rosa Wash 783,352 8.8%

Sonoyta Valley 267,466 3.0%

Tenmile Wash 741,013 8.4%

Tonto 88 <0.1%

Total 8,868,982 100%

San Cristobal and San Simon Sub-basins. The surface-water resources in these two sub-basins

are not well documented. The San Cristobal Sub-basin, located south and west of Ajo, consists

of ephemeral watercourses. The San Simon Wash Sub-basin contains over 1.4 million acres;

however, only a small portion of the upper watershed in the sub-basin is within the Lower Sonoran.

Lower Santa Cruz Sub-basin. The Lower Santa Cruz Sub-basin is characterized by the lower

Santa Cruz River, which is an ephemeral river. This river's single, topographically defined

channel runs from the eastern boundary of the Planning Area to the confluence with the Gila

River, albeit is often difficult to follow.

Roosevelt Lake Sub-basin. Only the southern tip of the Roosevelt Lake Sub-basin (sometimes

referred to as the Upper Salt Sub-basin) is included in the Planning Area. It also includes the

eastern-most portion of the Lower Sonoran, near the Globe-Miami communities. Drainages in

this sub-basin flow to the Salt River and Roosevelt Lake, the latter being the largest of the Salt

River Project (SRP) reservoirs on the river.

Lower Salt Sub-basin. The Lower Salt Sub-basin includes the Salt River from Roosevelt Dam

to its confluence with the Gila River. The stream is highly urbanized within the Planning Area,

and has a great deal of influence on downstream water resources, including critical parts of the

Lower Sonoran. The Salt River originates in the White Mountains and drains 5,980 square miles.

It is ephemeral as it passes through the Planning Area on the way to its confluence with the Gila

River. A chain of dams operated by SRP control the flow of the Salt River and creates a number

of reservoirs, including Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon, and Saguaro lakes. Downstream from the

last reservoir is Granite Reef Diversion Dam, which is not used to store water but to divert the

entire river's flow into SRP’s irrigation-canal system.

Middle Gila Sub-basin. The Middle Gila Sub-basin comprises the main stem of the Gila River

from the outfall of San Carlos Reservoir to its confluence with the Salt River. This is one of the

most heavily impacted streams in the Planning Area in terms of water quantity; however, very

little of the watershed lies within the Lower Sonoran boundaries. Because it is a large watershed

draining most of southeastern Arizona, peak flows on the Gila River can be large relative to other

Arizona rivers. Most of the Gila River between San Carlos Reservoir and Ashurst-Hayden Dam is

dependent on irrigation releases from the reservoir.

Lower Gila/Painted Rock Sub-basin. The Lower Gila/Painted Rock Sub-basin contains a large

portion of the Decision Areas, including the SDNM and several wilderness areas, and receives

most of the flow from all the previously discussed drainages.

Lower Gila Sub-basin

The Lower Gila Sub-basin below Painted Rock Dam receives runoff from the extreme western

part of the Planning Area, including the Sentinel Plain area.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
294 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Centennial Wash Sub-basin. Centennial Wash extends about 100 miles from the Gila River up

to Wenden, Arizona, then runs east to about 10 miles west of Wickenburg, Arizona. Centennial

Wash drains many parts of the Lower Sonoran, including Saddle Mountain and parts of Woolsey

Peak and Signal Mountain wildernesses.

Tenmile Wash Sub-basin. Tenmile Wash is a long, ephemeral watercourse that drains a large

amount of public land in the Lower Sonoran. It contains numerous water bodies protected for their

riparian values. The wash goes through public lands a few miles east of Ajo, and includes most of

the current flows emanating from the New Cornelia Mine and associated tailings pile located in

the Ajo mining district. Any flows or contaminants from the mining district are transported to

adjacent public lands. The wash also enters and bisects the BGR, and joins the lower Gila River

near Dateland. There are no active USGS gauging stations in the Tenmile Wash Sub-basin.

Surface-Water Quality

The ADEQ assesses water quality in specific stream segments, or reaches, by determining if it

is sufficient to carry out its designated uses. The assessment results are published every other

year as part of the biennial State of Arizona 305(b) Report to Congress. The last report was

issued in November 2008 (ADEQ 2008), although it did not include any new data since the 2006

report. A full report with new sampling data was planned for 2010 but was not published as of

November 2010. The 305(b) report includes the 303(d) list, which lists all state stream segments

with impaired water quality for their designated uses, and the pollutants causing the impairment .

The Clean Water Act (as amended) requires that every stream placed on the 303(d) list must have

a water-quality improvement plan prepared. A key element of these plans is the development

of a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is the concentration of a pollutant allowed for

the stream to meet State water-quality standards. Each TMDL is specific to a given stream, its

uses, and the pollutants that impair it.

In 1998, ADEQ classified all the sub-basins in Arizona as part of the Arizona State Unified

Watershed Assessment (ADEQ 1998). All watersheds that included impaired streams, at that

time, were designated Category 1 watersheds; however, this classification system currently

receives little use. More common is the EPA classification system for impaired streams, which

classifies streams in Categories 1-5. Category 1 refers to specific stream segments that have no

impairment, while Category 5 refers to streams on the 303(d) List.

The three ADEQ water-quality basins that cover the Planning Area are the Santa Cruz/Rio

Magdalena/ Rio Sonoyta, Middle Gila, and Colorado/Lower Gila. The Santa Cruz/Rio

Magdalena/Rio Sonoyta water-quality basin includes all ephemeral washes draining the

southeastern quadrant of the Planning Area. The most common water-quality pollutants identified

for this basin by ADEQ include the following:

● Bacteria, chlorine, and cyanide from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant on

the upper Santa Cruz River;

● Historical mining uses causing copper, zinc, and other metals to enter water bodies and washes;

● Mercury in fish at Arivaca and Peña Blanca Lakes;

● High turbidity in Nogales Wash.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 295

There are ten impaired stream segments in the Santa Cruz/Rio Magdalena/Rio Sonoyta

water-quality basin, but none in the Decision Areas. It is unlikely that any of the impaired

segments could affect or be affected by any future BLM decisions.

The Middle Gila and Colorado/Lower Gila River water-quality basins have impairments that

could influence BLM management actions. While the BLM manages more than a quarter of

the land in the Middle Gila watershed, nearly all of which is in the Planning Area, the only

public land stream reaches are along the Gila River between the Salt River and Painted Rock

Reservoir. There are 11 water bodies (i.e. stream segments and lakes) in this water-quality basin

on the 303(d) list, including those listed by EPA as not meeting standards for pesticides and

with fish-consumption advisories.

The designated uses of the Gila River as it passes through the Gila River Indian Community are

ephemeral aquatic and biota, partial immersion recreation, and fish consumption. Parts of the

Salt River under Gila River Indian Community jurisdiction are designated for effluent-dependent,

aquatic and wildlife, warm water fishery, and livestock watering. The Arizona reaches of the

Gila River above the Gila River Indian Community are designated for aquatic and wildlife,

ephemeral, partial body contact, and livestock watering, except for a short reach below the

Florence Wastewater Treatment Plant that is effluent-dependent. From the Gila River Indian

Community to Gillespie Dam, the designated uses are partial body contact, fish consumption,

irrigation, and livestock watering. Below Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock Reservoir and on to

the Planning Area’s western boundary, the designated uses are aquatic and wildlife, full body

contact, fish consumption, livestock watering and irrigation; however, there is a fish-consumption

advisory for Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and other pesticides. All stream segments

with fish-consumption advisories are on the 303(d) list. The ADEQ also assesses use attainability

of the Grand Canal for agricultural livestock and livestock watering.

The USGS reports that past use of agricultural pesticides and herbicides in the west Salt River

Valley is the origin of these compounds along the Gila River, from below the confluence with the

Salt River to Painted Rock Reservoir (Cordy et al. 2000). Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality studies have shown a sharp decrease in pesticides in fish over recent years (Marsh 2002).

During 1999, collected fish tissue samples suggested much lower DDT levels than previous

studies. Nevertheless, DDT levels were still high enough to trigger EPA advisories on fish

consumption. Some samples contained high concentrations of toxaphene, an insecticide used

heavily in agricultural treatments until banned in 1990.

The Gila River reach within the Planning Area, between Gillespie Dam and Centennial Wash,

continue to exceed standards for boron and selenium, but the sources and trends of these

impairments have not been determined. If the boron stream concentration remains at the current

level (0. 370-2. 7 mg/l), there may be some effects on boron-sensitive riparian plants. The

potential for this impact is unknown.

Gila River TMDL standards for boron and selenium will begin in 2012. The ADEQ recognizes

the risks involved to the Yuma clapper rail and southwestern willow flycatcher resulting from

exceeding water-quality standards for selenium, making it a high priority TMDL, although

complicated by large numbers of potential sources of the pollutants and seasonal influences.

Pesticides impair the entire length of the Gila River, from the Salt River to Painted Rock

Reservoir. Pesticide TMDLs in all reaches should be completed in 2011.

Painted Rock Borrow Pit Lake exceeds State (EPA-approved) standards for dissolved oxygen and

pesticides. The TMDL determination started in 2009, and is scheduled for completion in 2011.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Water Resources
296 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Fecal coliform criteria changed in the last Arizona triennial review of water-quality standards:

Painted Rock Reservoir may be removed from the 303(d) list after the 2012 triennial review.

In the Planning Area and above it on the Salt and Gila rivers, much of the surface water has

been impounded behind dams for irrigation, industrial, municipal, and other uses. Dozens of

stock ponds and other structures in the Decision Areas, such as water bars, spreader dikes, and

impoundments designed to capture rainfall or ephemeral water flows in desert washes, may be

contributing to a loss in flow by evaporation or infiltration; however, these are very small amounts

compared to naturally occurring evaporation and infiltration.

3.2.10.3. Water Rights

The Planning Area is in the Gila River System and Source General Stream Adjudication (Gila

Adjudication). Such judicial proceedings determine the nature, quantity, and priority (i.e.

seniority) of water rights in Arizona. The majority of both Decision Areas lie in the Gila River

Watershed, but small areas are also included in the Upper Salt River, Upper Gila River, and Upper

Santa Cruz watersheds. Although the Gila Adjudication began in 1974, litigation is still unsettled

in the San Pedro Basin. See Table 3.8, “Definition of Hydrologic Unit Codes in the Planning

Area” (p. 292) for definitions of hydrologic unit codes in the Planning Area.

The BLM has filed claims in the Gila Adjudication for state appropriative water rights and well

permits on numerous springs, small reservoirs, wildlife-water developments, and wells for stock

watering, wildlife, or recreation purposes. The BLM has no in-stream flow water rights within the

Decision Areas because there are no suitable perennial or intermittent streams on public lands.

The six wilderness areas in the Planning Area, designated by the 1990 Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act, created an expressly stated, federally reserved water right for each wilderness area upon

designation. The BLM has inventoried, quantified, and submitted notification of its Federal

reserved rights to ADWR for Signal Mountain, Woolsey Peak, North Maricopa Mountains,

South Maricopa Mountains, Table Top, and Sierra Estrella wildernesses. The sources claimed by

notification to ADWR are for small amounts from springs, seeps, and potholes. No perennial

or intermittent surface water exists in the wilderness areas, other than that which may flow for

short distances from springs.

The Gila Stream Adjudication in Arizona is ongoing and will eventually address claims for

water in the Planning Area. Current adjudication activity is limited to the San Pedro Basin, and

the schedule for adjudicating water rights in the Middle and Lower Gila Basins is uncertain.

The enabling Presidential Proclamation for SDNM explicitly states that the Monument has no

water reservation, with exception of lands in North Maricopa, South Maricopa, and Table Top

wildernesses. If water is needed for use outside of the wilderness areas in the SDNM, the BLM

must secure water rights for those uses by appropriation from the State.

3.2.11. WILD HORSE & BURRO MANAGEMENT

The Painted Rock Herd Area (PRHA) is located approximately 85 miles southwest of the metro

Phoenix area and about 11 miles west of Gila Bend, Arizona, and surrounds the Painted Rock

Reservoir area. The Herd Area (HA) encompasses approximately 38,737 acres, of which 31,106

acres are BLM-managed public lands, 4,834 acres are private lands, and 2,796 acres are Arizona

state lands. The HA includes portions of three allotments: Artex, Painted Rock, and Dendora

Valley. All three allotments are classified as ephemeral. The HA has been home to wild burros

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horse & Burro Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 297

and a small band of horses over the years. Management of the herd area applies only to the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area. No Herd Management Areas (HMAs) have been allocated within either

Decision Area. The Painted Rock Herd Area is shown on Map 3-15.

The habitat of the Painted Rock Herd Area consists about 10,700 acres of river bottom between

the Painted Rock Dam and Oatman Mountain. Approximately 28,000 acres of the Herd Area

are upland volcanic flow in a region known as the Sentinel Plain. This area consists of broad

lower Sonoran Desert plains cut by sandy washes and low mountain ranges. Vegetation consists

of palo verde, cacti, creosote bush, and sage. The Gila River bisects the northern portion of the

HA and is characterized by salt cedar, mesquite, cottonwood, and willows. Wildlife species that

also inhabit the area include desert mule deer, javelina, dove, quail, water fowl, and a variety of

small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

The wild burros primarily live off water and forage found on private farmlands along the Gila

River corridor to the west of the PRHA, and move in and out of the herd area in response to

available farm feed. The horses follow the same general pattern of movement in the PRHA, but

also make use of public lands to the north and west of the PRHA.

In 1971, Congress passed The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA, or “The

Act”). The overall goal of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program is to preserve the health of

the land and water resources by managing wild horse and burro populations so as to restore and

maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Appropriate management levels (AML) for the

herds, the habitat requirements of the animals, the relationships with other uses of the public and

adjacent private lands, are analyzed to determine the health of both the animals and the rangeland

resources (43 CFR 4710.3-1). Wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining

populations of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their

habitat, while maintaining their free-roaming behavior (43 CFR 4700.0-6). However, wild horses

and burros must be managed within the limits the animals’ herd areas (43 CFR 4710.4).

In 1980, the population in the PRHA was estimated to be between 15 and 25 animals, but more

animals may have been present, as the area’s dense vegetation made it difficult to place high

confidence on this estimate (BLM 1985). In 1993, a herd area inspection indicated the presence

of 20 to 40 animals. In 1999, BLM removed 42 horses from the herd area and offered them for

adoption due to concerns over potential overgrazing and impacts to privately owned farmlands.

Another inspection later in 1999 found no animals. The BLM continues to receive occasional

complaints regarding burros and horses grazing on the private farmlands within the herd area.

The WFRHBA defined wild horse and burro ranges as “the amount of land necessary to sustain

an existing herd or herds of wild free-roaming horses and burros, which does not exceed their

known territorial limits, and which is devoted principally but not necessarily exclusively to

their welfare in keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands.”

Established Herd Management Areas (HMAs) are designated lands that can provide adequate

rangelands for the purpose of maintaining healthy herds of wild horses and/or burros, as well as

wildlife and livestock. Elsewhere, wild horses and burros compete with livestock and wildlife

for these resources.

For nearly four decades, the Painted Rock Herd Area has vacillated between trying to manage

for a population of wild horses and burros as an HMA, and removing all burros and horses

within the HA. The affected environment in which the animals reside is burdened with issues

that negate the ability to manage the herd area for healthy, sustainable populations of wild horses

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wild Horse & Burro Management
298 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

and/or wild burros. Details of these issues are provided in Appendix M, Painted Rock Burro Herd

Manageability Analysis (p. 1257), but are summarized as follows:

1. Essential habitat components (forage, water, cover, and space) are not available for healthy

herds of wild horses and/or burros. There is very limited forage and no year-round water

source within the boundaries of the Painted Rock Herd Area.

2. Wild horse and burro movement in the area is restricted. Fences, roads, highways, and

natural barriers isolate the Painted Rock HA from other (distant) herd areas, and restrict wild,

free-roaming behavior of these animals. Immigration and emigration is very limited. In fact,

resources are so scarce that a limited number of livestock are permitted in on the associated

allotments only during years of above-average precipitation, pursuant to the Special

Ephemeral Rule, and are otherwise prohibited in order to provide enough forage for wildlife.

3. This population of wild horses is unhealthy and unsustainable. The PRHA is isolated from

other wild horse and burro herds, causing low genetic variability. Genetics testing of the

Painted Rock horses in 2000 and 2010 indicated that genetic variation "is very low and well

below the critical level, . . . likely due to a low population size over a few generations. . . .

Inbreeding within the herd is likely and will probably continue and increase [which] could

cause physical defects and low fertility (Cothran 2010)." Genetics were not conducted

on wild burros, but it is also likely that genetic similarity exists in the burros in the area.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that the addition of 2 or more outside mares or jennies, as

suggested by the analysis (Cothran 2010), would enhance the blood lines enough to make

these healthy, sustainable populations of wild horses or burros. Management of wild horse

and burro herds under these conditions is inconsistent with the spirit of the WFRHBA

and with 43 CFR 4700.0-6.

4. Wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals

in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (43 CFR 4700.0-6).

A minimum population size of 50 effective breeding animals (i.e., a total population size

of about 150-200 animals) is currently recommended to maintain an acceptable level of

genetic diversity within reproducing wild horse and burro populations (Cothran, 2009).

(Research has not yet established a recommended minimum breeding herd size for burros

[BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010]). Due to the scarcity of forage, water, cover, and space,

a herd size of 150-200 animals (either wild horses or wild burros) is unsustainable in the

Painted Rocks area.

5. In accordance with the Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook (2010), "If

wild horse herd size in small, isolated HMAs is so low that mitigation is not feasible,

consideration should be given to managing the HMA for non-reproducing wild horses or to

removing the area’s designation as an HMA through land use planning." Because of the

reasons stated above (lack of essential habitat components, movement outside the HA

boundaries, and barriers limiting free-roaming behavior), managing the Painted Rock Herd

Area as a HMA with non-reproducing wild horses is not feasible. Non-reproducing animals

would face the same issues and have to resort to the same foraging habits (i.e., utilizing

private agricultural fields and waters) as reproductive animals in order to survive.

3.2.12. WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

Background

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 299

Inventories for wilderness characteristics were conducted by the BLM between 2003 and 2010. In

addition, citizens’ proposals were submitted to the BLM by the interested public (particularly

the Arizona Wilderness Coalition [AWC] and the AGFD). As part of the land use planning

process and in response to input received during scoping, the BLM assessed the Planning Area for

wilderness characteristics.

Field Assessments

Assessment of lands with wilderness characteristics was developed from the following four

sources:

1. A review of Wilderness Review, Arizona: Intensive Inventory of Public Lands Administered

by BLM, Decision Report (BLM 1980) and Wilderness Review, Arizona: Initial Inventory

of Public Lands Administered by BLM, Decision Report (BLM 1979). These documents

are comprehensive evaluations of wilderness characteristics on public lands in Arizona that

were conducted during 1978-1980, as directed by section 603 of the Federal Land Policy

and Management Act (FLPMA).

2. Public input received during scoping that delineated tracts of public lands reported to

possess wilderness characteristics.

3. Fieldwork conducted by the BLM in 2003 and 2005 to ascertain the continuing validity of the

findings of the 1980 inventory and appraise input received from the public during scoping.

4. Citizen groups’ wilderness characteristics proposals submitted between 2003 and 2005.

The citizens’ proposals were based upon their application of BLM’s 1978 “Blue Book”

wilderness inventory handbook process. The “Blue Book” process required route forms,

road/way definitions, size requirements, definitions of “outstanding,” and files, narratives

and documentation for all areas proposed. Some submitted citizen proposals were highly

detailed reports based on the “Blue Book” process. Other citizen proposals were maps of

areas considered by citizen groups to possess wilderness characteristics.

Based on BLM’s knowledge of the planning area and each inventory unit’s current land uses

and resource conditions, it may not necessarily be the case that all of the citizen’s proposal in

Alternative D contains wilderness characteristics as those characteristics are defined in the BLM

Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601–1) policy guidance. For example, off-highway vehicle

use on some of these lands could affect wilderness characteristics.

The BLM field-checked public lands using 1978-1980 inventory records. Findings were

documented by a variety of means: narratives, check lists, field map notations, photographs, and

field inventory. All inventory findings were focused on naturalness and outstanding opportunities

for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. All lands inventoried by the BLM or

submitted as proposals by the public are considered in the range of action alternatives.

Findings

Wilderness characteristics are fully considered in the current draft of the LS-SDNM DRMP. In

Alternative D, approximately 429,500 acres were considered, representing over 31 percent of the

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics
300 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

lands in the combined Planning Area. Citizen information on wilderness characteristics utilized in

Alternative D was provided by the Arizona Wilderness Coalition (AWC) in 2004. Additional

areas inventoried by the BLM were added to form the largest acreage of lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics.

Alternatives C and E include only areas with wilderness characteristics fully inventoried by BLM.

Alternative D includes all those lands considered in Alternative C, plus lands submitted as part

of AWC’s citizen’s proposal, and some parts of former WSAs with wilderness characteristics.

Table 3.10, “Units Under Consideration - Wilderness Characteristics” (p. 301) details the field

inventory status of each unit under consideration and documents whether the consideration of the

unit was initiated by BLM, by a citizen’s proposal, or by both BLM and a citizen’ proposal.

Comparison of the 1978-1980 wilderness characteristics review with fieldwork conducted in

2003-2005 identified five findings or trends. They are:

1. Overall, the Decision Areas maintained a high degree of naturalness. There were no

large-scale or incompatible land uses with long-lasting or irreversible effects on naturalness

occurring over the intervening period since 1980.

2. More acres of public lands in the Decision Areas exhibited potential wilderness

characteristics in 2005 (compared to the original inventory in the 1980s), mainly due to

either additional lands (acres) not considered in the 1980 wilderness review or changing

land uses coupled with natural reclamation. Changing land uses often reflected less mineral

exploration and assessment.

3. The 2003-2005 fieldwork indicated that three former wilderness study areas (WSAs) found

to have wilderness characteristics in 1980 – but not included as part of the congressionally

designated wilderness areas – continue to exhibit such character since their release from

FLPMA Section 603 protection in the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.WSAs

released in their entirety in 1990 were Saddle Mountain, Face Mountain and the Butterfield

Stage Memorial.

4. The 1978-1980 wilderness review did not include an evaluation of withdrawn lands

administered by the U. S. Air Force and re-conveyed to BLM with the passage of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. These lands primarily consisted

of the Sand Tank Mountain area (formerly Area A) of the SDNM and Sentinel Plain area

of the Lower Sonoran Field Office. Public lands next to the military lands, previously

inventoried for wilderness characteristics in 1978 – 1980, were re-evaluated for wilderness

characteristics in context with these contiguous re-conveyed lands. While much of the Sand

Tank Mountains and adjoining areas were not inventoried in 1980, the area was found to

have wilderness characteristics. These areas make up the majority of the 153,000 acres in

the SDNM Monument assessed for wilderness characteristics.

5. Finally, the BLM's field assessments and BLM’s comprehensive inventory of vehicle routes

found a rise in motorized public visitation and the popularity of many areas for driving

four-wheel drive and all-terrain vehicles (ATV). Many washes, and most upland routes,

were being used for motorcycle and ATV travel – motorized uses not common in this area

in 1980 as ATV use and technologies was were not yet developed or readily available to

recreationists at that time. As such, the implementation of travel management may have

considerable influence on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 301

Table 3.10. Units Under Consideration - Wilderness Characteristics

LSFO Decision Area

Unit Name

Acres

Miles:

Vehicle

Routes

Miles: Routes

in Washes

% of Wash

Routes

Status of

BLM Inventories or

Field Assessments

Origin of

Inventory

Unit

Lower Sonoran

Total Acres Considered

for Wilderness

Characteristics

276,500

Batamote Mountains

East/West

45,725 52.3 3.4 7% (1) (3)

Black Mountain 10,154 19.9 0 0% (1) (4)

Cortez Peak 16,070 22.5 6.2 28% (2) (4)

Cuerda de Lena 10,961 25.3 5.2 21% (2) (4)

Face Mountain 30,905 46.2 27.1 59% (1) (4)

Gila Bend Mountains 25,314 33.4 11.1 33% (2) (4)

Oatman Mountain 13,434 10.5 4.7 45% (2) (4)

Palo Verde Hills 12,139 10.4 1.9 18.2% (2) (5)

Pozo Redondo 18,210 26.8 6.6 25% (2) (4)

Saddle Mountain 24,413 39.8 0.1 0.3% (1 and 2) (4)

Sauceda Mountains 10,367 4.0 0 0% (1) (3)

Sentinel Plain 25,282 6.9 0 0% (2) (5)

Why 4,162 12.1 0 0% (2) (4)

Yellow Medicine Butte 29,364 31.8 20.1 63% (2) (4)

SDNM

Total Acres Considered

for Wilderness

Characteristics

153,000

Blue Plateau – Sand Tank

Wash

55,701 65.1 23.4 36% (1) (3)

Butterfield Stage

Memorial

9,352 7.7 0.2 2.6% (1) (4)

Javelina Peak 51,970 48.9 9.5 19% (1) (3)

Margie’s Peak 13,427 8.8 1.6 18% (1) (4)

South Maricopa

Mountains Addition

9,520 2.9 0.1 3.4% (1) (5)

White Hills 13,030 5.0 4.7 94% (1) (5)

(1) Presence of wilderness characteristics confirmed by BLM. BLM conducted field inventory or assessment of unit.

This inventory or assessment included BLM reviewing and field checking inventory reports/maps submitted by

interested publics. BLM also examined the 1978 - 1980 BLM wilderness inventory findings (if applicable) for

subject unit.

(2) Presence or absence of wilderness characteristics not yet determined. These units were submitted to BLM by

interested publics. They submitted reports or maps for lands they considered to possess wilderness characteristics.

BLM field checked some units, reviewed the submitted reports/maps, and also examined the 1978 - 1980 BLM

wilderness inventory findings (if applicable) for subject unit.

(3) Both BLM and citizen’s proposal initiated wilderness characteristics consideration of unit.

(4) Citizen’s proposal initiated wilderness characteristics consideration of unit.

(5) BLM initiated wilderness characteristics consideration of unit.

* 5,500 acres of released Saddle Mountain WSA retains wilderness characteristics determined present in BLM

wilderness inventories conducted between 1978 and 1981.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics
302 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.2.13. WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

3.2.13.1. Fire Ecology

In natural desert scrub communities, the distance between shrubs is too great for fire to spread,

unless annual plant growth in the interplant spaces is sufficient to carry fire along between

shrubs. As a result, such communities experience long fire-return intervals, with frequencies

extending hundreds of years (McAuliffe 1995; Rogers and Steele 1981). Wildland fire is thus

not a major natural process in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem and associated vegetation types are

not dependent or adapted to fire (BLM 2002). Wildfires, whether of human or natural causes,

are relatively rare and typically do not exceed one or two acres before burning out naturally.

Above-average winter precipitation, such as the winter of 2005, can generate sufficiently

dense grasses and other annual plants to carry wildfire over a more widespread area than

normal. In years with typical precipitation levels, this effect most likely occurs in the upland and

mountainous areas of the Decision Areas, where high annual plant densities and steep slopes may

combine to create conditions to carry fire. The upslope effects of wind and convection are often

factors in propagating fires in these circumstances.

Within Sonoran desert scrub habitats, the establishment and spread of non-native grass species

such as red brome (Bromus rubens) has increased wildfire frequency. As mentioned above,

interplant spaces within this community have historically had low fuel levels that would not carry

fire. Because introduced, non-native annual grasses are prolific seed producers and grow rapidly,

especially during wet years, they occupy interplant spaces and enable fire to carry throughout

the non-fire adapted community. With an increased fire frequency, native grasses and shrubs

cannot compete, resulting in a loss of native plant communities. In addition, fires burn hotter and

farther, reducing the natural mosaic pattern typical of desert scrub communities (i.e. patchy

distribution of plants and open space) (Esque et al. 2003). Since such fires have the potential

to burn uncharacteristically in terms of intensity, severity, and extent and could have long-term,

adverse impacts on ecosystem components and processes (e.g. biodiversity, soil productivity, and

hydrologic processes), they are considered wildfires of special concern.

There is little evidence of extensive wildland fires in southwestern floodplain ecosystems prior

to European settlement. Lightning- and human-induced fires now occur across a variety of

low-elevation, riparian ecosystems where non-native plant species such as salt cedar (Tamarix

spp.) has invaded (Busch 1995, cited in Ellis et al. 1998). Colonization and naturalization

of non-native plant species affect native ecosystems by altering historical fire regimes. The

deciduous nature of salt cedar, combined with periodic flooding suppression needed in river

floodplain ecosystems to decrease forest-floor litter, has resulted in increased accumulation of

fuels, rendering the riparian communities highly susceptibility to wildfires (Ohmart and Anderson

1982, cited in Ellis et al. 1998). In addition, these conditions put floodplain ecosystems at high

risk of unnatural, high-intensity wildfire events (BLM 2003).

In some cases, wildland fire frequency in riparian ecosystems has increased, with fire return

intervals being as short as five-to-fifteen years, which can create monotypic stands of salt cedar

in the ecosystems. Salt cedar sprouts prolifically after a fire, but native riparian vegetation,

including cottonwood, is not well adapted to severe fire (Ohmart and Anderson 1982; Busch

1995, cited in Ellis et al. 1998). The increasing frequency of wildfires in riparian ecosystems can

further change the vegetation composition and structure, and may have detrimental effects on

riparian-obligate species.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 303

3.2.13.2. Fire and Fuels Management

All public lands within the Planning Area are assigned to one of the following categories for fire

management (BLM 2003):

● Category 1: Wildland Fire Use (areas suitable for wildland fire use for resource-management

benefit)

● Category 2: Non-Wildland Fire Use (areas not suitable for wildland fire use for

resource-management benefit)

Within the Planning Area, there are limited lands in Category 1. Most lands are in Category 2 and

consist of large areas dominated by desert scrub communities. Fire is not a part of the natural

regime in these communities and is typically human-caused.

The goal of the Arizona BLM Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Strategy is to implement

an efficient and effective fuels reduction program. The WUI is defined as the line, area, or

zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped

wildland or vegetative fuels (NWCG 2008). One of the BLM’s fire-management goals is to work

collaboratively with communities at risk for wildfire property loss within the WUI to develop

plans for risk reduction (BLM In Press). The desired resource condition is to maintain fuels at

non-hazardous levels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter safety (BLM In Press).

Fuels treatments within the Lower Sonoran, both WUI and non-WUI, focus on reducing the size

and frequency of wildfires within the non-fire adapted, Sonoran Desert ecosystems, as well as

the residual, native riparian plant communities, with WUI fuels treatments being the priority.

These treatments are conducted utilizing fire, mechanical equipment, herbicide, and biological

treatments (e.g. grazing). The desired resource condition is to maintain fuels at non-hazardous

levels in WUI areas to provide for public and firefighter safety (BLM In Press).

Fire Management Units

Fire Management Units (FMUs) are specific land management areas defined by fire management

objectives, management constraints, topographic features, access, values to protect, political

boundaries, and fuel types. The Planning Area is subdivided into three fire management units

(FMU): Phoenix District South (PHD) of I-10, Phoenix District Wilderness Areas, and the

SDNM. Table 3.11, “Fire Management Units in Phoenix District that Overlap the Planning

Area” (p. 303)1 provides descriptions of the FMUs geographical locations and areas.

Table 3.11. Fire Management Units in Phoenix District that Overlap the Planning Area

Fire Management Area Location Acres

PHD Desert South of I-10

The Lower Sonoran minus

wildernesses areas.

845,454

Phoenix District Wilderness Areas

Signal Mountain, Woolsey Peak,

North and South Maricopa Mountains,

Sierra Estrella, and Table Top

Wilderness Areas

249,450

SDNM. The SDNM minus wilderness areas 408,646

Source: (BLM In press)

Table 3.12, “Communities at Risk in the Planning Area by Fire Management Unit” (p. 304) shows

the communities at risk within the Planning Area by FMU. The FMU with urbanized communities

of concern is the Phoenix District (PHD) Desert South of I-10 FMU. The current description of

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire Management
304 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

communities at risk could change as wildland fire risk assessments are accomplished through

Maricopa, Pinal, and Gila County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) efforts over the

next few years.

Table 3.12. Communities at Risk in the Planning Area by Fire Management Unit

Fire Management Unit Wildland Urban Interface/Communities at Risk

PHD Desert South of I-10 FMU

Pinal County: Maricopa, Stanfield, Casa Grande, Florence, Apache Junction,

Queen Creek

PHD Desert South of I-10 FMU Gila County: Globe

PHD Desert South of I-10 FMU Maricopa County: Apache Junction, Avondale, Buckeye, Buckeye Valley, Gila

Bend, Goodyear, Avondale,

Source: Maricopa County and Pinal County (CWPPs)

3.2.13.3. Fire Regimes and Condition Classes

Fire regime refers to the nature of fires occurring over long periods of time and their immediate

effects that generally characterize an ecosystem (Brown 2000b). Fire regimes can be defined

through the attributes of frequency, seasonality, size/spatial extent, rotation (or fire cycle),

predictability (or variation in fire frequency), and magnitude (both intensity and severity)

(Agee 1993; Morgan et al. 2001). Fire regimes can be subdivided into components that

vary in time, space, and magnitude. However, fire regime descriptions are often limited to

frequency and severity. See Table 3.13, “ Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and

Severity” (p. 304) for a full description of fire regimes in the Planning Area.

Fire regimes vary considerably by both vegetation types and landscape characteristics. Table 3.13,

“ Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity” (p. 304) displays the

historical/natural fire regimes, based on fire frequency and severity, for the lands in the Planning

Area. They are classified as Fire Regime III (fire frequency of 35 to over 100 years with mixed

severity) and Fire Regime IV (fire frequency of 35 to over 100 years and high severity). These

fire regime groups are generalized and address only the primary types of fire that occur in the

Planning Area. (See Map 3-13: Fire Regime Groups.)

Table 3.13. Historical Fire Regimes Based on Fire Frequency and Severity

Fire Acres of Vegetative Community

Regime

Group

Fire Frequency and

Severity

Vegetative Communities

Planning Area

Lower

Sonoran

SDNM

I

0-35 years; low (surface

fire most common)

severity

None in the Planning Area 0 0 0

II

0-35 years; high (stand

replacement) severity

Desert Grassland and

Apacherian-Chihuahuan

Mesquite Upland

4,854 3,400 1,054

III

35-100+ years; mixed

severity

None in the Planning Area 0 0 0

IV

35-100+ years; high

(stand replacement)

severity

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert

Scrub and Mogollon Chaparral

5,300 3,200 2,100

V > 200 years; high (stand

replacement) severity

creosote bush-bursage,

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti,

Sonoran-Mohave Mixed Salt

Desert Scrub, and Riparian

1,401,400 918,500 482,900

Data Source: (Hann et al. 2004; National Interagency Fuels, Fire, and Vegetation Technology Transfer 2008)

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 305

A vegetative community’s current condition is a function of the degree of departure from

historical fire regimes, resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species

composition, structural stage, stand age, and canopy closure. This departure may have resulted

from a number of factors, including fire exclusion or suppression, vegetation resources, grazing,

introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects or disease (introduced or native),

or other past management activities (Hann and Bunnell 2001).

To identify departures from historical conditions, the Planning Area lands are organized in

condition classes (CCs) as indicators of fire-management needs (see Table 3.14, “Current Fire

Regime Condition Classes by Vegetative Community” (p. 305)). CC1 describes lands that are

within or near historical ranges, CC2 describes lands where fire regimes have changed moderately

from historical ranges, and CC3 are fire regimes significantly altered from historical ranges.

(See Map 3-14: Fire Regime Condition Class.)

Table 3.14. Current Fire Regime Condition Classes by Vegetative Community

Acres and percent of Vegetative Community

Planning Area Decision Area

Vegetative Community by

Condition Class

Acres Percent Lower Sonoran SDNM

Creosote bush-bursage – CC1 738,952 52.16% 564,965 173,987

Creosote bush-bursage – CC2 27,940 1.9% 25,713 2,227

Creosote bush-bursage – CC3 4,132 0.29% 4,132 0

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti – CC1 583,870 41.22% 295,080 288,790

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti – CC2 31,162 2.20% 16,718 14,444

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti – CC3 98 0.01% 98 0

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite

Upland – CC1

1,759 0.12% 1,433 326

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite

Upland – CC2

1,987 0.14% 1,963 24

Apacherian-Chihuahuan Mesquite

Upland – CC3

0 0% 0 0

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub

– CC1

2,470 0.17% 1,395 1,075

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub

– CC2

456 0.03% 272 184

Sonoran Mid-Elevation Desert Scrub

– CC3

119 0.01% 119 0

Sonoran-Mohave Mixed Salt Desert

Scrub – CC1

4,791 0.34% 2,426 2,365

Sonoran-Mohave Mixed Salt Desert

Scrub – CC2

296 0.02% 287 9

Sonoran-Mohave Mixed Salt Desert

Scrub – CC3

0 0% 0 0

Mogollon Chaparral – CC1 557 0.04% 528 29

Mogollon Chaparral – CC2 891 0.06% 823 68

Mogollon Chaparral – CC3 62 0% 62 0

Desert Grassland –CC1 0 0% 0 0

Desert Grassland –CC2 1,054 0.07% 0 1,054

Desert Grassland –CC3 0 0% 0 0

Riparian – CC1 1,299 0.09% 779 520

Riparian – CC2 6,681 0.47% 6,457 224

Riparian – CC3 1,563 0.11% 1,563 0

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire Management
306 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Acres and percent of Vegetative Community

Planning Area Decision Area

Vegetative Community by

Condition Class

Acres Percent Lower Sonoran SDNM

Total BLM Land in Planning Area1 1,410,139 99.54% 924,813 485,326

Data Sources (Hann et al. 2008; National Interagency Fuels, Fire, and Vegetation Technology Transfer 2008).

1Riparian vegetation class combines the following plant communities: invasive southwestern riparian woodland

and shrubland, North American warm desert riparian mesquite bosque, and North American warm desert riparian

woodland and shrubland. This total only includes the vegetated land classes in the Planning Area and does not

include some minor vegetation communities that are too small to be included in this list.

Landscape-level fire and fuels management strategies, including wildland-fire suppression,

vegetation and fuel treatments, and prescribed fires, are used in the Planning Area to reduce the

fire hazard and risk in the wildland and WUI areas. In general, actions related to fire and fuels

management should reduce the amount of lands characterized as Fire Regime CC 2 and 3. Fuel

hazard reduction may include prescribed fire, mechanical, biological, and chemical treatments

or a combination thereof. The fuel treatment strategies reduce both existing fuel levels and

risks of large, damaging wildfires.

Landscape-level fire and fuels management strategies are designed to limit wildland fire extent,

modify fire behavior, protect values at risk, and improve terrestrial ecosystem conditions. Fire

management and fuel treatment strategies allow land/resource managers to control fires and set

priorities that protect fire fighters, public life and property, and natural resources.

3.2.13.4. Fire History

Wildfire history is closely related to vegetation and climatic patterns in terrestrial ecosystems.

Patterns of fire frequency, season, size, severity, and uniformity are functions of existing

vegetation conditions, weather, elevation, physiographic features, ignition sources, and

fire-suppression activities.

Between 1989 and 2009, approximately 70 percent of the total number fires in the Planning Area

occurred in the PHD Desert South of I-10 FMU, and approximately 98 percent of all fires in the

Planning Area were human-caused. Most of these fires typically occurred along main travel

corridors and rivers. An increasing portion of the fires within the Planning Area is associated with

UDAs or drug trafficking operations.

Fire numbers vary from year to year and generally occur between the months of March and

September. The 20-year average is four fires a year that burn approximately 4,610 acres in total.

Multiple fire days, consisting of two or more fires per day, have occurred two times in the past 20

years. There were no historically significant fires within the Planning Area until the 2005 fire

season, which was the result of above average fall and winter rains that caused an abundance of

annual grass that fueled over 20 fires totaling over 80,000 acres. The largest single fire that has

occurred in the Decision Areas was the Tracks Fire, which burned in the Maricopa Mountains of

the SDNM during summer 1994 and grew to over 5,000 acres.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Wildland Fire Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 307

3.3. RESOURCE USES

3.3.1. LANDS & REALTY

The lands and realty program for the Planning Area consists of three distinct parts: (1) land use

authorizations, which includes ROWs for utility-scale renewable energy development, (2) land

tenure (disposal and acquisitions of lands), and (3) withdrawals. The lands and realty program

processes applications related to solar, wind, and biomass energy. Geothermal proposals are

managed by the minerals program and are discussed in ???. The lands and realty program

administers public lands within a framework of numerous laws and mandates, which are discussed

in Appendix B, Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003) and Section 2.8.1, “Lands

& Realty (LR)” (p. 118).

3.3.1.1. Land Use Authorizations

The LUA segment of the lands and realty program focuses on requests for ROWs, permits, leases,

and easements. The objective of the Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO) is to strive to meet the

public’s needs on public lands, while also attempting to minimize impacts on resources and

meeting multiple use objectives. One way the LSFO meets these objectives is by allocating major

linear utility facilities within utility corridors.

Rights of Way

Rights-of-way grants are LUAs used for a specific piece of public land for a specific use, for a

specific period. Currently, the vast majority of ROWs granted are authorized under Title V

of FLPMA (43 U.S. Code [USC] 1761-1771) and the Mineral Leasing Act (Section 28 of

the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, 43 USC 185). It is the policy of the BLM to

authorize ROW applications at the discretion of the authorized officer in a responsible, efficient,

and economical manner. Rights-of-ways under FLPMA are authorized for electrical power

generation, transmission and distribution systems, systems for the transmission and reception

of electronic signals and other means of communications, highways, railroads, pipelines (other

than oil and gas pipelines), and other facilities or systems that are in the public interest. Mineral

Leasing Act ROWs are for oil and natural gas gatherings, distribution pipelines and related

facilities (not authorized by appropriate leases), and oil and natural gas transmission pipeline

and related facilities (BLM 2003e).

The LSFO has collaborated with several cooperating agencies in developing formal MOUs in an

effort to meet the management objectives of the BLM, while also accommodating the needs of

the cooperating partner. The BLM in Arizona, which includes LSFO, currently participates in

an MOU with the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation

(ADOT), related to authorizing ROWs across Federal lands.

Since 1988, the number of ROWs issued in the Decision Areas has remained constant at about nine

per year. In general, ROW applications are for access across public lands to private parcels, other

transportation routes, utility distribution systems, communication facilities (e.g. cellular towers),

telephone lines, water facilities, and pipelines. In 1988, the BLM granted (including amendments)

a relatively high number of ROWs for roads, power facilities, and water facilities, mainly due to a

backlog of applications that the BLM was able to address that year. Roads received nearly double

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Resource Uses
308 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

the amount of ROWs grants than any other category, with water facilities and power facilities

following with about half as many ROWs each since 1988 (Information drawn from LR2000,

Case Recordation Reports Lands Year End Report, 2010). The trend in population growth in close

proximity to public lands suggests that the average number of ROWgrants issued across public

lands will likely increase each year. Increased urbanization of public lands in the Planning Area

suggests continued authorizations of two to three ROWs per year within the designated corridors.

Utility Corridors

Utility corridors have been allocated and maintained since their adoption in previous planning

documents. Major utility systems such as transmission lines greater than 230kV, pipelines greater

than 10 inches in diameter, and primary paved roads, as defined by the BLM’s Planning and

Conducting Route Inventories technical reference guide 9113-1 have been authorized within these

corridors. There are currently ten 1-mile wide corridors that cross public lands in the Planning

Area, which are listed in Table 3.15, “Utility Corridors within the Lower Sonoran” (p. 308). The

corridors are centered at the centerline of the major utility system in which the corridors are

named after, unless otherwise stated within the table.

Table 3.15. Utility Corridors within the Lower Sonoran

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) Utility Corridor

Length: 50.6 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the centerline

for EPNG LUA

for a natural gas pipeline (when the utility corridor

runs adjacent to the Monument’s northern boundary

(beginning in section 28 of T. 2. S., R 3. W.), the

southern border of the utility corridor repositions to the

Monument’s northern border and extends 1 mile wide

north)).

Legal Area (T/R):

Outside of the Ajo Block

T.1.N., R.9.W.; T.1.N., R.8.W.; T.1.S., R.8.W.; T.1.S.,

R.7.W., T.1.S., R.6.W.; T.2.S., R.6.W.; T.2.S., R.5.W.;

T.2.S., R.4.W.; T.2.S., R.3.W.; T.2.S., R.2.W; T.3.S.,

R.2.W.; T.3.S., R.1.W.; T.4.S., R.1.W; T.4.S., R.1.E; and

T.5.S., R.1.E.

In the Ajo Block

T.12.S., R.6.W.; T.12.S., R.5.W., T.12.S., R.4.W.; T.11.S.,

R.4.W.; and T.11.S., R.3.W.

Geographic Area Description:

Outside of the Ajo Block

This portion of the EPNG Utility Corridor travels

southeast from the northeast corner of the Planning Area,

north of the Gila Bend Mountains, and along the northern

edge of the SDNM until it intersects with the TEP Utility

Outside of the Ajo Block

EPNG: holds several perpetual and non-perpetual LUAs

for a 50’ to 52.5’ wide underground natural gas pipelines

(approximately 30” in diameter) and operation and

maintenance facilities, including cathodic protection

stations, test wells, access roads, and storage facilities.

Southwest Gas Corporation holds a 20’ wide perpetual

LUA for an underground natural gas pipeline and related

facilities, which run south (perpendicular to the utility

corridor) from the EPNG pipeline in section 1 and 12 of

T.1.S., R.8.W. and four 40’ wide LUAs for underground

natural gas pipelines which intersect the utility corridor

in section 28 of T.2.S., R.4.W., section 3, T.3.S, R.2.W.,

and section 20, T.3.S, R.1.W.

Private Property Owner holds a 33’ wide LUA for an

existing road, which runs parallel to the Southwest Gas

Corporation’s LUA mentioned above (perpendicular to

the utility corridor) (AZA-18271).

APS holds six 40’ wide LUAs for 12 kV and 69 kV

transmission lines, which intersect the utility corridor

in section 16 of T.1.S., R.7.W., section 27 of T. 2. S.,

R.6.W., section 28 of T.2.S., R.4.W., and section 27 of

T.2.S., R.6.W., section 26 of T.2.S., R.4.W., and section

25 of T.2.S., R.4.W. APS also holds five LUAs for 15’ to

20’ wide 12 kV transmission lines, which run parallel to

the utility corridor for less than half a mile in section 26

of T.2.S., R.4.W, section 36 of T.2.S., R.3.W., section 30

of T.2.W., R.2.W., section 30, T.3.S, R.2.W., section 11,

T.3.S, R.2.W., and section 13, T.3.S, R.2.W.

Transwestern Pipeline Corporation holds a 50’ wide

LUA for an underground natural gas pipeline and access

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 309

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Corridor, just south of Mobile, AZ) (refer to Map 2-5a:

Land Use Authorizations).

In the Ajo Block

This portion of the EPNG Utility Corridor travels

east-northeast from Ajo, AZ towards the Batamote and

Sauceda Mountains, until the utility corridor ends at the

Tohono O’odham Nation in the east (refer to Map 2-5a:

Land Use Authorizations).

road, entering the utility corridor in section 11 of T.2.S.,

R.6.W., then traveling southwest within the utility

corridor.

APS, EPNG, Public Service Company of New Mexico,

and SRP jointly holds a 200’ wide LUA for a 525 kV

transmission line and access roads, entering the utility

corridor in section 11 of T.2.S., R.6.W., then traveling

southwest within the utility corridor.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation

holds a 130’ LUA for Agua Caliente Road, which

intersects the utility corridor in section 11 of T.2.S.,

R.6.W., a 65’ LUAfor Riggs Road, which intersects the

utility corridor at section 30, T.2.S, R.2.W., and another

65’ wide LUA for a road which intersects the utility

corridor at section 28, T.3.S, R.1.W.

Gila Bend Power Partners LLC holds a 200’ wide

LUA for a 500 kV transmission line.

Paloma Ranch Investments holds a several LUAs for a

reservoir, canal, and Gillespie Dam, which encroaches

into the utility corridor in section 28 of T.2.S., R.5.W.

Maricopa County Flood Control holds a non-linear

LUA (less than 1 acre) for flood control purposes in

section 28 of T.2.S., R.5.W.

Enterprise Land and Water holds a 100’ perpetual

LUA for a canal, which intersects the utility corridor in

section 28 of T.2.S., R.5.W.

Deep Rainbow Valley Community and other private

property residents hold a LUA for a road, which

intersects the utility corridor at section 30, T.2.S, R.2.W.

Lufthansa German Air holds a 2-acre LUA for an

instrument landing facility, which encroached into the

utility corridor in section 27, T.3.S, R.1.W.

Salt River Project (SRP) holds a 330’ wide LUA for

a transmission line that intersects the utility corridor in

section 7, T.7.S, R.1.E.

Southern Pacific Railroad holds a perpetual LUA for a

rail line, which intersects the utility corridor at section

18, T.4.S, R.1.E.

Within the Ajo Block

EPNG holds a 50’ wide perpetual LUA for a natural gas

pipeline and related facilities.

Freeport—McMoran holds a 50’ LUA for a

transmission line, which runs parallel to the utility

corridor in section 19, T.12.S, R.5.W.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty
310 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

APS holds a 15’ wide LUA for a 12 kV transmission line,

which runs parallel to the utility corridor and a 30’ LUA

for a 69 kV transmission line, which also runs parallel

to the utility corridor.

Note: The San Diego Gas and Electric, Liberty -Gila

Bend, Palo Verde-Kyrene, Santa Rosa-Gila Bend, and

TEP Utility Corridors all intersect this utility corridor.

The LUA that lie within these utility corridors are not

described here.

Palo Verde-Devers Utility Corridor

Length: 8.8 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the centerline

for APS’s LUA for a 500 kV transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.2.N., R.7.W., T.1.N., R.8.W.; T.1.N.,

R.7.W.; T.1.S., R.7.W.; T.1.S., R.6.W.; and T.1.S., R.5.W.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor

travels southeast through the Saddle Mountain area of

BLM land towards Arlington, AZ to connect with the San

Diego Gas and Electric Utility Corridor, which connects

to the Palo Verde Nuclear Facility (refer to Map 2-5a:

Land Use Authorizations).

APS holds a 200’ wide, LUA for a 500 kV transmission

line.

Southern California Edison holds one 160’ wide LUA

for a transmission line.

Maricopa County Department of Transportation

(MSDOT) holds a 1,000’ by 1,000’ site LUA for a

materials production facility and access road.

Note: The Interstate 10 and San Diego Gas and Electric

Utility Corridors all intersect this utility corridor. The

LUAs that lie within these utility corridors are not

described here.

San Diego Gas and Electric Utility Corridor

Length: 21.8 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the centerline

for San Diego Gas and Electric Company/APS’s LUA for

a 500 kV transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.4.S., R.9.W.; T.4.S., R.8.W.; T.3.S.,

R.9.W.; T.3.S., R.8.W.; T.2.S., R.8.W.; T.2.S., R.7.W.;

T.1.S., R.7.W.; and T.1.S., R.6.W.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor

travels east-northeast from the western border of the

Planning Area northeast through the Gila BendMountain

towards the Palo Verde Nuclear Station, just north of the

Signal Mountains Wilderness (refer to Map 2-5a: Land

Use Authorizations).

San Diego Gas and Electric Company / APS holds a

200’ LUA for a 500 kV transmission line.

Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Company holds a 50’ wide

LUAs for a natural gas pipeline and other LUAs for

related facilities, which run parallel or intersect the utility

corridor.

Southern Pacific Railroad holds a perpetual LUA for

railroad and station grounds.

Arizona Eastern Railroad holds a 200’ LUA for a

railroad line, which runs parallel to the utility corridor.

MCDOT holds a 130’ LUA for Agua Caliente Road,

which intersects the utility corridor in section 11 of

T.2.S., R.6.W.

Note: The EPNG, Palo Verde-Devers, Interstate 10, and

Liberty-Gila Bend Utility Corridors intersect this utility

corridor. The LUAs that lie within these utility corridors

are not described here.

Palo Verde-Kyrene Utility Corridor

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 311

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Length: 7.6 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the centerline

for APS’s, EPNG, Public Service Company of New

Mexico and SRP’s LUA for a 525 kV transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.2.S., R.3.W.; T.2.S., R.2.W.; and

T.1.S., R.3.W.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor

travels northeast from the northern border of the

Monument from the EPNG Utility Corridor until it

intersects with the TEP Utility Corridor near Liberty, AZ

(refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations).

APS, EPNG, Public Service Company of New Mexico,

and SRP jointly holds a 200’ wide LUA for a 525 kV

transmission line and access roads.

Note: The EPNG and TEP Utility Corridors intersect

this utility corridor. The LUAs that lie within these utility

corridors are not described here.

Liberty-Gila Bend Utility Corridor

Length: 9.6 miles

Width: 1 mile (1 mile west of the centerline of APS’s

LUA for a 20’ wide transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.1.S., R.4.W.; T.1.S., R.3.W.; T.2.S.,

R.4.W.; T.2.S., R.3.W.; T.3.S., R.4.W.; and T.4.S., R.4.W.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor

travels directly south from the Interstate 10 Utility

Corridor towards Gila Bend, AZ, on the east side of State

Route 85 (refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations).

APS holds two LUAs for a 230 kV (120’ wide LUA)

and 69 kV (20’ LUA) transmission line which both run

parallel to the utility corridor.

Gila Bend and Water Company holds an LUA for a

water irrigation canal, which intersects the utility corridor

in section 19 of T.1.S., R.3.W.

AZ SHWY (also referred to as the Arizona Department

of Transportation (ADOT)) holds perpetual LUAs for

State Route 85, along with several other LUAs for

highway related facilities (such as dykes and pull-offs).

Bureau of Reclamation holds a 100’ LUA for an access

road, which intersects the utility corridor at section 26,

T.3.S., R.4.W.

BLM holds three 100’ LUAs for access roads, which

intersect the utility corridor at section 2, 14, and 23 of

T.4.S., R.4.W.

Qwest Corporation holds an 8’ wide LUA for an

underground fiber optic line which runs parallel to the

utility corridor.

Note: The Interstate 10, EPNG, Santa Rosa-Gila Bend,

and Interstate 8 Utility Corridors intersect this utility

corridor. The LUAs that lie within these utility corridors

are not described here.

Gila Bend-Ajo Utility Corridor

Length: 0.9 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile east and west of the centerline

of APS’s LUA for a 20’ wide transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.11.S., R.6.W.

Geographic Area Description: The majority of this

utility corridor lies within the Barry M. Goldwater Air

Force Range. The utility corridor travels south from Gila

APS holds a 20’ LUA for a 69 kV transmission line,

which runs parallel to the utility corridor and a 15’ LUA

for a 21 kV transmission line which intersects the utility

corridor at section 21 of T.11.S., R.6.W.

AZ SHWY holds a 200’ perpetual LUA for State Route

85, which runs parallel to the utility corridor.

Table Top Telephone Company holds a 20’ wide LUA

for an above ground telephone line, which runs parallel

to the utility corridor.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty
312 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Bend, AZ until it arrives at Ajo, AZ (refer to Map 2-5a:

Land Use Authorizations). Note: The Interstate 8 Utility Corridor intersects this

utility corridor. The LUAs that lie within this utility

corridor are not described here.

Santa Rosa-Gila Bend Utility Corridor

Length: 0.1 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the centerline

of Southern Pacific Railroad’s LUA for a rail line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.5.S., R.4.W.

Geographic Area Description: This portion of the

utility corridor travels northeast from Gila Bend, AZ until

the utility corridor enters into the Monument (refer to

Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations).

MCDOT holds one 110’ wide LUA for operating and

maintaining State Route 238.

Southern Pacific Railroad holds a perpetual LUA for

a 200’ wide rail line and storage facilities, which run

parallel to the utility corridor.

Qwest Corporation holds one 20’ wide LUA for an

above ground telephone line and another 25’ LUA for

an underground fiber optic line, which both run parallel

to the utility corridor.

Note: The Liberty-Gila Bend, EPNG, and TEP Corridors

intersect this utility corridor. The LUAs that lie within

these utility corridors are not described here.

Interstate 8 Utility Corridor

Length: 21.7 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the Interstate

8 Highway LUA centerline).

Legal Area (T/R): T.7.S., R.10.W.; T.6.S., R.10.W.;

T.7.S., R.9.W.; T.6.S., R.9.W.; T.6.S., R.8.W.; T.6.S.,

R.7.W.; T.6.S.; R.6.W.; T.6.S., R.5.W.; T.5.S., R.5.W.;

T.6.S., R.4.W.; T.7.S., R.1.E.; T.7.S., R.2.E.; T.7.S.,

R.3.E.; and T.7.S., R.4.E.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor

divides the Planning Area and runs from the Yuma

County line in the west until it reaches Interstate 10 to the

east (refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations)

AZ SHWY holds several LUAs for operating and

maintaining the major 300’ wide LUA for the Interstate 8

Freeway. These additional LUAs include fencing, access

roads, drainage sites, and sand and gravel production and

storage facilities.

Qwest Coporation holds one 20’ wide LUA for an

above ground telephone line and another 10’ wide LUA

for a buried telephone line, both LUAs run parallel to the

utility corridor.

APS holds a 6’ wide LUA for a short 12 kV transmission

line which lies within the utility corridor.

Southern Pacific Railroad holds several perpetual

LUAs for a 200’ wide rail line and storage facilities,

which run parallel to the utility corridor.

BLM holds a perpetual LUA for an access road, which

intersects the utility corridor at section 10, T.6.S., R.4.W.

Note: The Gila Bend-Ajo, Liberty-Gila Bend, and TEP

Utility Corridors intersect this utility corridor. The LUAs

that lie within these utility corridors are not described

here.

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Utility Corridor

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 313

Size and Legal Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Length: 30.6 miles

Width: 1 mile (1 mile east of the centerline of TEP’s

LUA for a 500 kV transmission line). Within the Ajo

Block, the utility corridor is 1 mile wide (half mile north

and south of APS’s LUA for a 69 kV transmission line,

until the corridor reaches section 5 of T.12.S., R.5.W.,

where the utility corridor heads south and extends one

mile wide, east from the LUA’s centerline.

Legal Area (T/R):

Outside the Ajo Block

T.2.S., R.1.W.; T.2.S., R.1.E.; T.3.S., R.1.E.; T.4.S.,

R.1.E.; T.4.S., R.2.E.; T.5.S., R.1.E.; T.5.S., R.2.E.;

T.6.S., R.2.E.; T.7.S., R.2.E.; and T.7.S., R.3.E.

In the Ajo Block

T.11.S., R.6.W.; T.11.S., R.5.W.; T.12.S., R.6.W.; T.12.S.,

R.5.W.; and T.13.S., R.5.W.

Geographic Area Description:

Outside the Ajo Block

This utility corridor travels southeast towards Tucson, AZ

from Buckeye, AZ, just east of the Monument and exits

the Planning Area when it enters the Tohono O’odham

Nation (refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations).

In the Ajo Block

This utility corridor begins where the Gila Bend-Ajo

Utility Corridor ends, just north of Ajo, AZ. The utility

corridor bypasses Ajo, AZ to the north and east and heads

southeast towards Why, AZ, parallel to State Route 85

(refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use Authorizations).

Outside the Ajo Block

TEP holds two major LUAs for a 500 kV and a 345 kV

transmission line (220’ and 210’ wide respectively).

Pinal County Department of Transportation holds one

50’ LUA for Hidden Valley Road, which runs parallel

to the utility corridor.

In the Ajo Block

APS holds a 30’ wide LUA for a 69 kV transmission line,

which runs parallel to the utility corridor.

AZ SHWY holds a perpetual 200’ wide LUA for State

Route 85, which connects Ajo, AZ to Why, AZ and runs

parallel to the utility corridor

Tucson Cornelia Railroad holds a 200’ wide LUA for

a rail line, which intersects the corridor at section 35 of

T.11.S., R.5.W.

Freeport-McMoran holds a 50’ wide LUA for one 44

kV transmission line and two water pipelines, which

intersect the corridor at section 35 of T.11.S., R.5.W.

(ADEQ) Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality (ADEQ) holds a 35’ by 35’ LUA for a air

monitoring station, which lies within the corridor in

section 1 of T.12.S., R.5.W.

Table Top Telephone Company holds a 20’ wide LUA

for an above ground telephone line and another 10’ wide

LUA for an underground fiber optic line, both of which

runs parallel to the utility corridor.

Note: The Palo Verde-Kyrene, Santa Rosa-Gila Bend,

EPNG, TEP, and Interstate 8 Utility Corridors intersect

this utility corridor. The LUAs that lie within these utility

corridors are not described here.

Interstate 10 Utility Corridor

Length: 1 mile

Width: 1 mile (1 mile south of the Interstate 10 Highway

LUA centerline).

Legal Area (T/R): T.2.N., R.8.W.

Geographic Area Description: This utility corridor runs

directly south and parallel to Interstate 10, and is the

northern boundary of the Planning Area until Interstate

10 reaches Phoenix, AZ.

AZ SHWY holds an LUA for operating and maintaining

the 450’ wide LUA for the Interstate 10 Freeway.

Sprint Communications holds a 15’ wide LUA for an

underground fiber optic line, which runs parallel to the

utility corridor.

APS holds a 15’ wide LUA for a 12 kV transmission

line, which intersects the utility corridor at section 7 of

T.2.N, R.8.W.

*All data was collected from BLM Master Title Plats (March 2011)

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty
314 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 3.16. Existing Utility Corridors within the SDNM

Size and Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Interstate 8 Utility Corridor

Length: 22.4 miles

Width: 1 mile (half mile north and south of the Interstate

8 Highway LUA centerline).

Legal Area (T/R): T.6.S., R.4.W.; T.6.S., R.3.W.; T.6.S.,

R.2.W.; T.6.S., R.1.W.; T.7.S., R.1.W.; T.7.S., R.1.E.;

T.7.S., R.2.E.; and T.7.S., R.3.E.

Geographic Area Desciprtion: The portion of the

Interstate 8 utility corridor within the Monument travels

eastward from Gila Bend, AZ through the Monument

(south of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness),

towards Casa Grande, AZ (refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use

Authorizations).

Note: Portions of the north half of the utility corridor

does encroach into the South Maricopa Mountain

Wilderness, however, no LUAs have been authorized

within that portion of the utility corridor and no new

authorizations would be entertained.

AZ SHWY holds several LUAs for operating and

maintaining the major 300’ wide LUA for the Interstate 8

Freeway. These additional LUAs include fencing, access

roads, drainage sites, and sand and gravel production and

storage facilities.

BLM holds one 30’ wide LUA for an access road (called

Vekol Valley Road), which intersects the Interstate 8

Utility Corridor and travels south towards a private

land in-holding within the Vekol Valley portion of the

Monument.

Western Farm Credit holds one LUA for a legal road

access on Vekol Valley Road, in order to access a private

land inholding in the Vekol Valley portion of Monument.

Note: The TEP Utility Corridor intersects this utility

corridor at T.7.S, R.3.E. The LUAs that lie within the TEP

Utility Corridor are not described here.

Santa Rosa-Gila Bend Utility Corridor

Length: 18 miles

Width: 1 mile (beginning at the western edge of the

Monument, the utility corridor is a half mile north and

south of the centerline of Southern Pacific Railroad’s

LUA for a rail line, until APS’s LUA for a transmission

line begins at section 23, in which this LUA’s centerline

becomes the midpoint of the utility corridor. At section

5 of T.5.N, R.1.W, the utility corridor aligns with the

centerline of ADOT’s LUA for SR-238 until the route

exits the eastern side of the Monument).

Legal Area (T/R): T.5.S., R.4.W.; T.5.S., R.3.W.; T.5.S.,

R.2.W.; T.5.S., R.1.W.; and

T.4.S., R.1.W.

Geographic Area Description: This portion of the

Santa Rosa to Gila Bend Utility Corridor within the

Monument travels northeast from Gila Bend, AZ through

the northern portion of the Monument (between the North

and South Maricopa Mountains Wildernesses) along

SR-238 towards Mobile, AZ (refer to Map 2-5a: Land

Use Authorizations).

Note: Portion of the south half of the utility corridor does

encroach into the South Maricopa Mountain Wilderness,

however, no active LUAs are within that portion of the

utility corridor and no new authorizations would be

entertained for that segment of the utility corridor.

APS holds one 30’ wide LUA for a 69 kV transmission

line that travels from Gila Bend, AZ to a hazardous waste

facility near Mobile, AZ.

MCDOT holds one 110’ wide LUA for operating

and maintaining State Route 238, which also includes

portions of a fence and a bridge. The road travels from

the western side of the Monument until it reaches section

5 of T.5.N., R.1.W.

AZ SHWY holds one 100’ wide LUA for operating and

maintaining State Route 238, which begins at section 5

of T.5.N, R.1.W., until the road exits the eastern side of

the Monument.

Southern Pacific Railroad holds several perpetual

LUAs for a 200’ wide rail line and storage facilities.

ADEQ holds one 50’ to 100’ wide LUA for an access

road to a hazardous waste facility, just north of the utility

corridor.

Arizona Department of Administration holds one 50’

wide LUA for an underground water pipeline to service

a hazardous waste facility.

Qwest Corporationholds one 20’ wide LUA for an

above ground telephone line and another 25’ LUA for

an underground fiber optic line, which both run parallel

to the utility corridor.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 315

Size and Area of Utility Corridor Active LUA Holders within Utility Corridor

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) Utility Corridor

Length: 7 miles

Width: 1 mile (1 mile east of the centerline of TEP’s

LUA for a 500 kV transmission line).

Legal Area (T/R): T.7.S., R.3.E.

Geographic Area Description: Geographic Area

Description: This portion of the TEP Utility Corridor

clips the far east side of the Monument and travels

southeast after intersecting with the Interstate 8 Utility

Corridor and runs directly north along the Table Top

Wilderness boundary (refer to Map 2-5a: Land Use

Authorizations).

Note: Portions of the west half of the utility corridor

do encroach into the Table Top Mountain Wilderness,

however, no active LUAs are within that portion of the

utility corridor and no new authorizations would be

entertained for that segment of the utility corridor.

TEP holds two major LUAs for a 500 kV and a 345 kV

transmission line (220’ and 210’ wide respectively).

AZ SHWY holds one LUA for an access road, drainage

easements (at varying widths), and sand and gravel

production site) which encroaches into the utility corridor.

APS holds one 110’ wide LUA for a 230 kV transmission

line which intersects the utility corridor in section 25.

Note: The Interstate 8 Utility Corridor intersects this

utility corridor at T.7.S, R.3.E. The LUAs that lie within

the Interstate 8 Utility Corridor are not described here.

Permits, Leases, and Easements

Applications for leases, permits, and easements are processed under the guidance of FLPMA

and other applicable laws and regulations pursuant to 43 CFR 2900. Issuance of leases and

permits (such as apiary permits and film permits) is a discretionary action. These authorizations

may include but are not limited to airport leases, Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R & PP)

leases, special-use permits and leases under 43 CFR 2920, permits, or easements (agricultural

leases/permits, film permits, apiary permits, concession leases, etc.). Approximately two permits

are authorized each year. Apiaries have been the most common permits issued in the Planning

Area. No leases (excluding R & PP leases) or easements have been authorized within the Lower

Sonoran since 1988. Approximately ten R & PP leases have been authorized since 1989.

Approximately seven R & PP patents have been completed in the Planning Area since 1989.

Communication Sites

The Planning Area has one designated communication site that is managed through the Oatman

Mountain Communication Site Plan. This site is located in the Gila Bend Mountains in Section 25

of T. 4 S. R. 9 W, Gila and Salt River Meridian. Since 1988, six facilities have been constructed

within the site. Currently the site is near capacity because the unique topography of the area and

limited developed space make it difficult to locate new facilities. However, co-location into

existing facilities where leaseholders are willing remains a viable option.

Utility-scale Renewable Energy Development

While utility-scale renewable energy developments were not specifically addressed as a part of

the lands and realty program in previous land-use plans, recent advancements in renewable

energy technology and increased interest in this type of land use authorization have changed

this. The BLM’s general policy has been to facilitate environmentally responsible commercial

development of solar energy projects on public lands and to use solar-energy systems on BLM

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty
316 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

facilities where feasible. Responding to increased interest in solar-energy development, the

BLM issued national guidance to facilitate the processing of ROW applications for solar-energy

projects on public lands. All applications for renewable energy projects are processed as major,

site-specific ROWs under FLPMA.

As of spring 2011, there were seven pending applications for utility-scale solar-energy

developments in the Lower Sonoran. The BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have

prepared a joint programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) to provide guidance in

facilitating environmentally responsible utility-scale solar energy development by establishing

policies and best management practices. The Draft PEIS was released to the public in December

2010. The focus is on BLM administered lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New

Mexico, and Utah because those states have the highest potential for solar energy production.

The preferred alternative within the PEIS analyzed 24 “solar energy zones” in those states,

including three that are in Arizona. One study area is within the Planning area and is located

north of the Gila Bend Mountains and directly south of the El Paso Natural Gas Utility Corridor.

It is referenced as the Gillespie SEZ in the Solar Energy Development Draft PEIS. More

information on the PEIS, including the draft and final documents, are available on the website

http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/maps/studyareas/Solar_Study_Area_AZ_Ltt_6-09.pdf when

they are available.

The BLM Arizona State Office is currently in the process of developing a Draft EIS (called

the Restoration Design Energy Project – EIS), which aims to build off of the agency wide

Programmatic EIS, by allocating additional areas and sites for renewable energy development

within Arizona BLM administered lands (with an emphasis on allocating suitable areas on

previously disturbed sites and areas with low resource conflicts). A draft of this EIS is projected

to be released in the fall of 2011.

Market trends have been focused around the development of solar energy (having nine

applications for solar) with the assumption that there is little potential for biomass or wind energy

on public lands in the Planning Area. As a result, no applications for biomass or wind energy

development have been submitted or authorized.

3.3.1.2. Withdrawals

Withdrawals are formal lands actions that set aside, withhold, or reserve Federal land by statute

or administrative order for public purposes. A withdrawal creates a title encumbrance on the

land. Withdrawals are established for a wide variety of purposes such as power site reserves,

military reservations, administrative sites, recreation sites, national parks, reclamation projects,

and wilderness areas. Withdrawals are most often used to preserve sensitive environmental values

and major Federal investments in facilities or other improvements, to support national security,

or to provide for public health and safety. Withdrawals can be designated by Congress through

a public land order or statute, or processed by the BLM administratively through FLPMA and

43 CFR 2300.

Classification of lands is the process of determining whether the lands are more valuable or

suitable for transfer or use under particular or various public land laws than for retention in

Federal ownership for management purposes. The classification process is currently used for

potential disposals under the R & PP Act. The segregation of lands is an action such as a

withdrawal or allowed application (e.g. R & PP) that suspends the operation to entry under all or

portions of the public land laws, which includes the mining and mineral leasing laws.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 317

Existing withdrawals where the BLM does not retain any management authority are limited to

the BGR for military purposes. The BLM retains specific management responsibilities, such

as fire management or grazing, based on the specific legislation guiding withdrawals to other

Federal agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers for dams,

reservoirs, and canals, or the USFWS for wildlife-management purposes.

Lands within congressionally designated wilderness areas also are withdrawn from all forms

of appropriation under the mining laws and from disposition under mineral leasing laws.

Prior existing claims or leases with valid existing rights may be developed, though mineral

development within wilderness areas is rare. Within the Planning Area, 249,500 acres have been

withdrawn under the Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended. Withdrawn lands (with surface estate

not currently managed by the BLM) are displayed on land use authorization maps 2-5a to 2-5e.

3.3.1.3. Land Tenure

Land tenure refers to actions that result in the disposal of public lands or the acquisition of

non-Federal land or interests.

The existing surface-management pattern within the Planning Area is shown on Map 1-1: Surface

Management. The BLM administers approximately 1,416,600 acres of surface estate in the

Decision Areas, which includes 486,400 acres in the SDNM and 930,200 acres in the Lower

Sonoran. The current land-tenure pattern can be difficult to manage in areas where there are

scattered and isolated parcels or where there is split estate (where the subsurface estate owner

is not the surface owner). Larger blocks of land generally allow for management that is more

efficient.

Land Disposals through FLPMA Exchanges and Competitive Sales

Bureau of Land Management adjustments to land tenure can occur under a variety of realty

actions, exchanges, and sales. Public lands selected for disposal typically meet the following

criteria:

● Isolated and fragmented from larger tracts of BLM-managed lands,

● Adjacent to urbanizing private and State lands subject to future development,

● Currently leased under the R & PP Act and eligible to be patented,

● Present an economic and management challenge to retain under public ownership,

● Not within designated wildlife corridors,

● Not occupied by species listed or proposed as threatened or endangered under the ESA,

● Not designated or proposed critical habitat for listed or proposed threatened or endangered

species,

● Not supporting listed or proposed threatened or endangered species if such transfer would

conflict with recovery of the listed or proposed species, and

● Not supporting Federal candidate species if such action would contribute to the need to list the

species as threatened or endangered.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty
318 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under the authority of FLPMA, the BLM can sell public lands through competitive sales and

exchange lands with other land management agencies and private landowners. Federal lands can

only be sold at fair market value, that is, at a price comparable to private land sales.

There have been no land exchanges and only one competitive sale within the Planning Area since

the Lower Gila South RMP Amendment was signed in 2005. The competitive sale was for

a 160-acre parcel south of the City of Goodyear. Since September 2008, real estate values and

sales have decreased significantly in the Planning Area; therefore, the LSFO is not anticipating

growth in competitive land sale proposals in the foreseeable future.

Subsurface Estate Disposals

The BLM regulations establish procedures under section 209 of FLPMA for conveyance of

mineral interests owned by the United States where the surface is or will be in non-Federal

ownership. The objective is to allow consolidation of surface and subsurface or mineral

ownership where there are no “known mineral values” or in those instances where the reservation

interferes with or precludes appropriate non-mineral development and such development is a

more beneficial use of the land than the mineral development.

Land Disposals through R & PP Act Patent

Land Disposals through the R & PP Act provides for the transfer, at a reduced cost, of public lands

to a state, state agency, political subdivision of a state or a qualified non-profit organization for

recreation such as a park, or a public purpose such as a fire station (BLM 1996a). R & PP actions

have resulted in the transfer (i.e. patent or lease) of approximately 2,005 acres out of public

surface estate in the Planning Area; however, 130 acres were returned to BLM management when

the Arizona State Parks Department relinquished an R & PP patent at Painted Rocks State Park.

Approximately 7,687 acres of public land eligible for patent or lease is pending application.

Most R & PP applications come from government agencies, especially the State of Arizona or

local jurisdictions. A majority of the acreage transferred to date under the R & PP Act was by

the State of Arizona (this does not include pending leases or patents). Cities are receiving nearly

double the number of patents and leases compared to the State; however, the acreage transferred

to cities is less. Of the issued and pending leases and patents, which make up the majority

of the R & PP actions, approximately 90 percent of the acreage has been related to parks and

recreational facilities, while fewer acres have been requested for other public purposes (e.g.

municipal facilities) (BLM 2004b).

Since the adoption of the Phoenix RMP (BLM 1989), Lower Gila North Management Framework

Plan (BLM 1983), and Lower Gila South RMP (BLM 1989), as amended, surface-estate changes

within the Planning Area have been minimal, with only 9,952 acres disposed. As indicated by

the acreages of land transferred, minimal changes in land status have occurred since previous

plans were adopted. The two main factors that have caused a decrease in land status changes

were a legal determination that the Arizona State Land Department did not have the authority

to exchange lands under the Arizona Constitution and the Planning Area’s location in a volatile

market with land prices that were above the national average.

Land Acquisitions

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 319

Acquisitions can occur through purchases, exchanges, easements, and other land transfers.

Acquired land is always designated for retention. Disposed land is no longer under BLM’s

surface management and no longer classified for retention or disposal. Purchases, easements,

exchanges, and directed sales are completed based on appraised market value. Competitive

sales are completed based on a minimum of appraised fair market value, but may exceed that

value based on competitive bidding.

No land acquisitions have taken place within the Planning Area since the adoption of the Phoenix

RMP (BLM 1989), Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (BLM 1983), and Lower

Gila South RMP (BLM 1989), as amended.

3.3.2. LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Livestock grazing in Arizona is managed under Title 43 of the CFR, section 4100, and is based on

the Taylor Grazing Act (43 USC 315, 315a-315r), FLPMA (43 USC 1701 et seq.), the Public

Rangeland Improvement Act (43 USC 1901 et seq.), and other executive and public land orders.

Grazing leases and permits are issued according to CFR 4130.2(d) and generally last 10 years.

The BLM can change allotment schedules, stocking rates, classes of livestock, or other grazing

practices if a resource concern arises. When leases or permits are scheduled for renewal, the BLM

evaluates resource conditions within the allotments consistent with the Arizona Standards for

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (S & Gs). Approved in 1997,

the S & Gs are now also referred to as Land Health Standards and Arizona Guidelines for

Grazing Administration (See Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253), and

Appendix W, Land Health Standards (p. 1339)). Grazing practices are managed to achieve

resource and grazing objectives, as described in the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or

lease.

3.3.2.1. Rangeland Health and Condition

The overall objective of the Planning Area’s rangeland management program is to manage soil

and vegetation communities to meet land health standards and multiple-use objectives. The

purpose of the S at 43 CFR 4180 is to provide a measure (i.e. standard) to determine land health

and methods (i.e. guidelines) to improve the health of public rangelands. The BLM’s job is to

maintain the health of the land or make appropriate changes on the ground where land health

standards are not being met. The standards help the BLM, public land users, and others to focus

on a common understanding of acceptable resource conditions. The standards communicate

current and desired resource conditions among the various groups. Guidelines describe or

communicate techniques for managing activities to achieve those desired conditions. Guidelines

for grazing management emphasize multiple use by incorporating needs for wildlife habitat,

soil, watershed, riparian areas, and recreation.

The specific program goals and objectives are accomplished through activity-level planning, with

attention given to proper season of use; suitable grazing systems; plant and animal requirements;

kind, class, and distribution of livestock; and placement of rangeland improvements. Together

with livestock operators, other affected agencies, and interested publics, the BLM examines the

indicators addressed by the standards, and assesses whether or not they are being achieved through

the evaluation process. If resource monitoring shows standards are met or progress is being made

towards meeting them, existing management can continue. Resource monitoring can include the

collection of vegetation and soil attributes (i.e. cover, frequency, and species composition, etc.),

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
320 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

utilization levels of key forage plants, actual livestock use, and climate data from permanently

established plots within allotments. If progress is not being made towards achieving standards

and current livestock grazing is determined to be a significant causal factor, then appropriate

actions including changes to permits, grazing systems and practices can be implemented in order

to ensure progress towards achievement of standards. Appropriate actions can consist of:

● Actions taken pursuant to 43 CFR 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 that will result in significant

progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with

the guidelines (43 CFR 4180.2(c)).

● Implementing and issuing a final decision pursuant to 43 CFR 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160

upon determining that existing grazing management needs to be modified to ensure that the

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health exist (43 CFR 4180.1).

Historic Livestock Use

Livestock grazing in the Planning Area began in the late 1700s, based out of American Indian

rancherias along the Gila River. At that time, livestock were confined to the flood plains of the

Gila River, the only available and reliable water source to support livestock year-round. It is

likely that the mountains and bajadas adjacent to the river would have received some livestock

use, particularly during wetter periods when temporary waters were available in potholes, tinajas,

or the few springs in the area.

Settlers began to move into the area along the Gila River in the 1860s and started farming

operations. Livestock from these farms also were likely confined to the river floodplain and

the adjacent bajadas. In addition, livestock brought in by miners and prospectors would have

been scattered throughout the Planning Area.

More widespread livestock use of the drier valleys and mountains in the Gila Bend, Tonopah,

and Ajo areas did not occur until the widespread use of dirt stock tanks began in the late 1800s,

followed by well drilling in the early 1900s. In the Ajo area, the first dirt stock tanks were

established in the 1890s. The first dirt stock tank close to the Monument was built around 1900

in the Little Rainbow Valley, just north of the present boundary. The first wells in the area

were drilled in Rainbow Valley from 1910 to 1912. At that time, the only waters in the Vekol

Valley area consisted of a couple of dirt pools that provided temporary water for cattle for the

Tohono O’odham people. The Vekol Valley was not developed for additional livestock use

until the 1920s and 1930s.

At the beginning of the 20th century, ranching in the Planning Area consisted of yearlong

cow-calf operations, with herds limited only by climatic conditions, water, and available forage.

Management limitations on livestock numbers did not occur until 1934 with the passage of the

Taylor Grazing Act. During the following years, regulations were established pertaining to

operators, allotments, kind and number of livestock, and season-of-use on public lands. Although

such regulations were prescribed in 1934, it was not until after WWII that large numbers of steers

were brought in to utilize the ephemeral forage from a wet winter and/or spring. Sheep grazing has

occurred in the past, but was limited to occasional ephemeral authorizations on a few allotments.

Current Livestock Use

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 321

In Arizona, BLM grazing allotments are classified as perennial, ephemeral, or

perennial-ephemeral. Perennial means the allotment consistently produces enough forage to

support a livestock operation year-round and has an established forage limit, based on the quality

and quantity of perennial plants for a defined period, stated in animal-unit months (AUMs). An

AUM is a measure of forage that will support a cow and its calf for one month. The amount and

length of grazing use, on ephemeral allotments and allotments with ephemeral forage, is based on

vegetation production and determined prior to authorizing use. In addition, grazing allotments

are assigned in three management categories (improve, maintain, or custodial) based on the

present resource condition, management needs, ecological potential, conflicts with other resource

values, and economic potential for improvement.

Livestock operations in the Planning Area on allotments not classified as ephemeral only are

generally yearlong cow-calf operations and involve raising calves for market from a base cattle

herd. These operations usually encompass a mixed ownership of private, Arizona State Trust, and

public lands within allotment boundaries. Although the operations are yearlong, they may only use

the Federal rangelands seasonally. Ephemeral, perennial, and perennial-ephemeral allotments that

utilize ephemeral authorizations may turn out large numbers of steers to take advantage of annual

grass and forb species that can produce significant forage amounts for several months during

winter and spring. These livestock can have high weight gains, up to several hundred pounds,

during particularly wet years before being shipped back to summer ranges in the northern U. S. or

to feedlots. Currently, no sheep or goats are authorized on any allotments in either Decision Area.

Three allotment management categories define the management level needed to properly

administer grazing lands in accordance with BLM Washington Office IM 2009-018. As allotments

are evaluated, the categories, in consultation with affected operators, are reviewed and revised,

where needed, to respond to changing resource conditions. All allotments are placed into these

categories according to management needs, resource conflicts, potential for improvement, and

BLM funding/staffing constraints. The allotment categories and management are defined as:

● Category I (Improve): Category I allotments are those where the current level of livestock

grazing or use on public lands is or is expected to be a significant causal factor in the

non-achievement of land health standards, or where a change in mandatory terms and

conditions in the grazing authorization is or may be necessary. Identifying Category I

allotments requires a review of critical habitat conditions and whether projects have been

proposed specifically for implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative.

● Category M (Maintain): Category M allotments are those where land health standards are

met, where livestock grazing on public land is not a significant causal factor for not meeting

the standards, and where current livestock management is in conformance with guidelines

developed by the state directors in consultation with Resource Advisory Councils. It also

covers allotments where an evaluation of land-health standards has not been completed, but

where existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions are satisfactory.

● Category C (Custodial): Category C allotments are public lands that produce less than

10 percent of the forage in the allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land area. An

allotment should generally not be designated Category C if the public lands in the allotment

contain critical habitat for a threatened or endangered species or wetlands negatively affected

by livestock grazing.

Livestock Permits

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing
322 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The Lower Sonoran Decision Area currently has 45 permitted grazing allotments, 21 of which

are ephemeral only, with a perennial permitted capacity of 17,541 AUMs. Portions of six

LS allotments, one of which is ephemeral only, are also located within the SDNM. These

allotments have a perennial permitted capacity of 8,703 AUMs. Appendix P, Grazing Allotment

Information (p. 1281) shows allotment names and numbers, permitted AUMs, and livestock

numbers and types for both Decision Areas. Also see Map 3-15: Grazing Allotments.

The number of AUMs in the SDNM and Lower Sonoran for the 10-year period from 1998 to 2007

is shown in Table 3.17, “Animal Unit Months 1998–2007” (p. 322). This table is based on the

permittees’ billed amount for each year during the period. During several of the listed years, AUM

amounts are substantially below permitted use levels, reflecting years when permittees elected

non-use in anticipation of, or response to, drought conditions or times Animal Unit Months 1998

to 2007 when additional livestock were unavailable for restocking due to livestock markets. The

ephemeral AUM column indicates years with exceptionally wet winters when ephemeral permits

were issued, in addition to the perennial permits, to take advantage of additional available forage.

Table 3.17. Animal Unit Months 1998–2007

Lower Sonoran Decision Area SDNM Decision Area

Year Perennial

AUMs

Ephemeral

AUMs

Total AUMs

Perennial

AUMs

Ephemeral

AUMs

Total AUMs

1998 2,995 4,594 7,589 17,244 5,713 22,957

1999 6,168 0 6,168 10,887 0 10,887

2000 5,325 393 5,718 20,298 5,287 25,585

2001 7,556 1,054 8,610 14,550 24,920 39,470

2002 1,928 11 1,939 6,110 0 6,110

2003 5,049 162 5,211 15,192 6,334 21,526

2004 4,801 379 5,180 16,323 3,254 19,577

2005 5,929 4,861 10,790 16,309 21,870 38,179

2006 8,178 1,719 9,897 16,309 0 16,309

2007 6,747 1,781 8,528 13,900 1,488 15,388

Note: SDNM allotments include portions of the allotment outside SDNM boundaries

Drought conditions in the mid 1990s and again in 2002 reduced perennial and ephemeral

forage production. When this occurs, livestock use is reduced in Decision Area allotments, or

temporarily reallocated, which allows allocation of the remaining available forage specifically for

wildlife use. Overall, livestock use in the Planning Area has decreased over time, although the

actual number varies yearly. Grazing and grazing management is dependent on precipitation and

corresponding improvement in the abundance and vigor of forage, as well as non-forage species

that support the general health and condition of soil and plant communities.

3.3.2.2. Grazing in the SDNM

The Monument Proclamation allowed Federal grazing on five allotments south of I 8 to continue

until the existing permits expired. Four of these permits expired Feb. 28, 2008, and one expired

Feb. 28, 2009, at which time livestock grazing in these areas ended. The public lands south of

I-8 (155,900 acres), will remain unavailable for livestock use and the grazing preferences (7,884

AUMs) for permitted use on these allotments have been cancelled. These acres exclude the

additional 78,000 acres south of I-8 located in the Sand Tank Mountains area, formerly withdrawn

to BGR and known as Area A. These acres will remain unavailable to grazing as well resulting in

a total of 233,900 acres being unavailable to grazing south of I-8. In addition, the proclamation

stated, “grazing on Federal lands north of Interstate 8 shall be allowed to continue only to the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 323

extent that the Bureau of Land Management determines that grazing is compatible with the

paramount purpose of protecting the objects identified in this proclamation.” A draft livestock

grazing compatibility analysis (Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing

on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)) for the public lands currently available

for livestock grazing within SDNM north of I-8 has been completed. The results of the analysis

indicate that livestock grazing on 8,498 acres of the 252,500 acres of the public lands are not

compatible with protection of the Monument objects and will be considered unavailable for

livestock grazing in the range of alternatives.

3.3.2.3. Range Improvements

A number of range improvement projects were constructed for both the enhancement and

protection of watershed and wildlife values and the management of domestic livestock grazing.

These projects consist of water developments (windmills, pipelines, stock ponds) and fences.

All projects were authorized under cooperative agreements or permits, depending on overall

benefits, objectives, and private investment levels. Under most alternatives, the construction

of range improvement projects would continue where the project benefits watershed, wildlife,

and livestock grazing. The disposition of existing range improvements will depend upon

the alternative selected (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences (p. 371) for details).

Regulations pertaining to range improvements can be found at 43 CFR 4120.

3.3.3. MINERALS MANAGEMENT

The BLM mineral resources within the Planning Area include both federally owned mineral

estate underlying BLM-managed surface lands, and those minerals under lands where the Federal

Government has disposed of the surface rights but retained the minerals. The latter are called

“split estate”. There are also lands where BLM manages the surface but a different entity (e.g. the

State of Arizona) owns the mineral estate. This also is referred to as split estate and presents other

surface-management challenges because the mineral estate has primacy over the surface estate.

Although the Planning Area encompasses nearly 9 million surface and mineral estate acres,

the BLM manages both the surface and mineral estate on only 15 percent (1,338,300 acres;

see Table 3.18, “BLM Mineral Estate Acreage” (p. 323)). Approximately 713,300 acres of

BLM-managed minerals under BLM-managed surface are currently open to mineral activities,

along with 139,000 acres of BLM mineral estate under non-federal surface (Map 3-16: Mineral

Estate).

Table 3.18. BLM Mineral Estate Acreage

Mineral Estate Acres Percent

Planning Area

Total Acres (All Owners) 8,868,300 100%

BLM Mineral Estate BLM Surface 1,338,300 15%

BLM Mineral Estate – Non-Federal Surface 210,000 2%

All other owners, including other Federal (Park Service, Forest Service, Fish

& Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense), tribal

communities, State, counties, cities, and private

7,320,300 83%

Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Areas

Total Acres 1,558,300 100%

BLM Mineral Estate BLM Surface 1,338,300 86%

BLM Mineral Estate – Non-Federal Surface 220,000 14%

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management
324 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Approximately 366,300 acres of Arizona State Trust lands are within the Planning Area, and are

generally open to mineral exploitation, but subject to different requirements and restrictions

than Federal lands. Private mineral estate is open to mineral development by the owner under

regulations issued by various state and Federal agencies. Therefore, within the Planning Area,

about 15 percent of the total mineral estate is available for exploration and development under

Federal mining/mineral laws and regulations, and 2 percent under State of Arizona rules and

regulations. (See Table 3.18, “BLM Mineral Estate Acreage” (p. 323) and Table 3.19, “Acreage

Open to Minerals Activity” (p. 324).)

Table 3.19. Acreage Open to Minerals Activity

Acres Percent

BLM Surface with BLM-Managed Mineral Estate

Total (BLM-managed mineral estate under BLM surface) 1,338,300 100%

Currently closed to minerals activity (includes SDNM, wilderness,

and other mineral withdrawals)

625,000 47%

Currently open to minerals activity 713,300 53%

Non-Federal Surface with BLM-Managed Mineral Estate

Total (BLM-managed mineral estate under non-Federal surface) 210,000 100%

Currently closed to minerals activity (primarily parks) 71,000 34%

Currently open to minerals activity 139,000 66%

By presidential proclamation, 461,000 acres of BLM mineral estate in the SDNM are closed to

the location of new mining claims, mineral leasing, and mineral materials disposals. There are no

existing locatable minerals rights as all previous mining claims have lapsed. Nor are there any

existing mineral leases, mineral materials sales, or free use permits. For this reason, minerals

will not be discussed further for the SDNM.

On public lands within the Lower Sonoran, there are approximately 210,000 acres of split-estate

lands with BLM-owned mineral estate and non-Federal surface owners, including Arizona state

lands, county and city parks, and private lands (see Map 3-13: Wildfire Regime Groups). Of

those, approximately 71,000 acres (34 percent) are already withdrawn from mineral entry, with

the remaining land open to mineral activities under the various mining and minerals laws.

3.3.3.1. Categories of Minerals on BLM Lands

By legal statute, three categories of mineral resources have been established on public lands:

locatable, leasable, and salable. Federal laws, regulations, and legal decisions define these

categories (BLM 1997).

Locatable Minerals

Locatable minerals include both metallic minerals such as gold, silver, and copper and nonmetallic

minerals such as gemstones, silica, and perlite. Locatable minerals rights are established by

staking a mining claim in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations. Related

mining operations are governed by Federal, State, and local environmental and safety laws and

regulations, including BLM’s regulations at 43 CFR 3802 (Exploration and Mining, Wilderness

Review Program), 43 CFR 3809 (Surface Management), and 43 CFR 3715 (Use and Occupancy

under the Mining Laws).

Surface-management regulations currently define three levels of mining operations: 1) casual use,

2) notice-level use, and 3) plan-level use. Casual use involves minor activity requiring only hand

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 325

tools, with no explosives or mechanized earth-moving equipment. No permit is required for these

activities. Notice-level operations involve exploration activities using explosives or mechanized

earth-moving equipment and a total annual unreclaimed surface disturbance of less than 5 acres.

Plan-level use requires a plan of operations, along with a full environmental analysis. Bonding is

required for both notice-level and plan-level operations. Both notice-level and plan-level mining

require permits. Operators currently do not pay royalties on the production of locatable minerals.

Various mineral resources have been mined to different extents throughout the Planning Area for

hundreds of years. Evidence suggests that Native Americans as well as early Spanish explorers

prospected and mined within the region. With the entry of Europeans into the area, those activities

increased tremendously. Virtually all of the mountains within the Planning Area exhibit evidence

of some level of activity in search of minerals. Few of the mines ever had the quantity or quality

of ore to sustain a viable operation for any period of time, but two areas containing large metal

deposits, primarily copper, were discovered near Ajo and in the Globe-Miami area. These

major districts began as large underground mines and eventually evolved into massive open-pit

operations, along with their attendant milling and smelting facilities. Levels of activity at these

sites have varied over the years, primarily as a reaction to fluctuations in the market price of

metals. Most of the lands within these two areas are no longer in Federal ownership, having been

patented through processes established through the 1872 Mining Law. Other patented individual

claims and small groups also exist at scattered locations throughout the Planning Area.

There are 65 metallic mineral districts in five Arizona counties: 25 in Pima; 23 in Pinal; 11 in

Maricopa; 5 in Gila; and 1 in Yuma. Many established mining districts within the Planning Area

contain metallic or nonmetallic mineral resources or both. All of the districts historically have

been explored and mined to varying extents; many still host active mining claims, but activity

on the ground is infrequent.

In June 2009, the most notable active operations in the Planning Area were three copper mines

in the Globe-Miami area of Gila County: BHP Billiton’s Pinto Valley/Miami Mine, Quadra’s

Carlota Mine, and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold’s Miami Complex. These operations are

located on a mix of private and Forest Service lands. In some places, they adjoin public lands,

suggesting the possibility of additional mineral deposits on public lands. Other locatable minerals

activities are comparatively small.

Some mineral districts historically were mined for nonmetallic minerals, including asbestos,

barite, feldspar, mica, quartz, silica, and gypsum; gemstones such as amethyst and turquoise;

and industrial-grade limestone and clay deposits. The most notable active nonmetallic mines

are Tolleson Mine (clay, Clinton-Campbell Contracting Inc.); Superior Perlite Mine (perlite,

Harborlite Corporation); Copper Hill Mine (silica, Kessen and Kessen); and Sleeping Beauty

Mine (turquoise, Sleeping Beauty Turquoise) in Gila County.

Table 3.20, “Locatable Mineral Potential in Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision

Areas” (p. 326) describes mineral potential for locatable minerals in the Lower Sonoran on BLM

mineral estate. Moderate- and high-potential areas are located primarily in the mountain ranges,

with known mineral occurrences in the Ajo area, Gila Bend Mountains, and Buckeye Hills, and

on public lands in northeast Pinal and Gila counties, primarily around Superior and Globe-Miami

(BLM 2004). See Map 3-17: Locatable Minerals Potential.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management
326 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 3.20. Locatable Mineral Potential in Lower Sonoran & SDNM Decision Areas

Potential Total Acres Percentage of Total BLM Land

Open to Minerals Activity

Low 506,000 71%

Moderate 194,600 27%

High 12,200 2%

Closed to Minerals Activity

Low 368,100 42%

Moderate 251,100 56%

High 5,800 2%

Acres and percentages are for the BLM mineral estate under BLM-managed surface estate within the Decision

Areas, which excludes BLM-managed minerals under subsurface owned by other Federal agencies and non-Federal

jurisdictions, such as State land, parks, county land, and private land.

Over the past 25 years, the trend in locatable minerals has been toward a reduction of mining

activity. Rising mining costs have led to a decrease in the number and size of mining operations,

particularly for metallic minerals. However, increases in metal prices have resulted in increased

interest in opening new or inactive copper mines near Superior, Globe-Miami, and Ajo.

Leasable Minerals

Leasable minerals include fluid minerals such as oil, gas, and CO2; solid minerals such as coal

and sodium; and geothermal resources. There has been no leasable-minerals development within

the Planning Area during the last 20 years. (See Maps 3-18, 3-19, and 3-20.) Since 1913, 33

exploratory oil or gas wells have been drilled. Although some of these found indications of oil

and gas, they were not present in economic quantities. No exploration or lease activity, planned

lease sales, or drilling activity for fluid minerals such as oil, gas, CO2, helium, or geothermal

resources have taken place in or near the Planning Area in at least 20 years.

Leases for mineral development are allocated through competitive bid on lands open for leasing.

If there is not competitive interest in a parcel, an interested party can get a noncompetitive lease.

A successful lessee is required to pay rent on the leased parcel plus royalties on the sale of

mineral resources produced from it.

Oil and Gas: Oil and gas are nonrenewable, fluid mineral resources typically discovered

by drilling exploration wells into “targets” defined from prior geophysical and geological

exploration. If exploitable resources are discovered, additional development wells are drilled for

efficient production from the oil or gas field.

An economically exploitable resource is found in reservoir rock with adequate permeability and

porosity, petroleum source rock such as organic-rich shales or coal in the vicinity, a stratigraphic

or structural trap under which the oil or gas can accumulate, and a recent geologic environment to

provide adequate geothermal heat flux to mobilize the liquid hydrocarbon fractions (but not so

much that all of the volatiles are driven off and leave a tarry residue).

As discussed in the Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report (URS 2004), there is moderate

potential for oil and gas resources in approximately 40 percent of the Planning Area. Table 3.21,

“ Leasable Mineral Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM” (p. 327) describes the acres and

percentages of various leasable mineral potentials for lands with BLM mineral estate within

the Lower Sonoran (See Map 3-18: Oil & Gas Potential.) Moderate potential exists in two

regional geologic structures: the Chihuahua Trough/Bisbee Basin in eastern Pima County, and the

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 327

Arizona-New Mexico Trough in northeastern Pinal and Gila counties. There also is moderate

potential in the Tertiary alluvial basins between the mountain ranges (URS 2004).

Table 3.21. Leasable Mineral Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM

Mineral Resource Oil and Gas Geothermal Sodium

Potential Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

Open to Minerals Activity

Low 607,700 85% 157,000 22% 629,000 88%

Moderate 105,600 15% 517,000 72% 84,000 12%

High 0 0% 39,300 6% 300 <1%

Closed to Minerals Activity

Low 573,500 92% 199,300 32% 577,000 92%

Moderate 51,500 8% 417,400 67% 47,200 8%

High 0 0% 8,300 1% 800 <1%

Acres listed are BLM mineral estate under BLM-managed surface within the Decision Areas. This excludes

BLM-managed minerals under surface owned by other agencies and non-Federal jurisdictions such as State land,

parks, county land, and private land. Percentages are the proportion of low, moderate, and high potential for

each mineral.

CO2 and Helium: Carbon dioxide and helium are nonrenewable, fluid mineral resources

typically discovered during the drilling of exploratory oil and gas wells that encounter natural

gas or nonflammable gas in sedimentary rocks. Three of the 33 exploratory wells drilled in the

Planning Area reported the presence of gas, but there is no information on whether the gas was

tested for CO2 or helium. Consequently, there are no known occurrences and low potential for

CO2 and helium in the Planning Area.

Coal: Coal is a nonrenewable, solid mineral resource. It is typically exposed in outcrops of

coal-bearing sedimentary rocks. No coal-bearing sedimentary formations or coalfields are known

to exist in the Planning Area.

Sodium: Sodium is a nonrenewable, solid mineral resource that typically occurs as salt beds

in deep-basin sediments. There is high potential for sodium in the Luke, Higley, Tonopah, and

Picacho basins in the Planning Area; however, little of this potential exists on public lands (see

Map 3-19: Sodium Potential). There is moderate potential for sodium in the remaining alluvial

basins. The majority of these potential areas are within the Lower Sonoran (URS 2004). There

is no leasing or development activity for this in the Planning Area; however, sodium is being

extracted from the Luke Basin to the north.

Geothermal: Geothermal resources are nonrenewable, fluid mineral resources. Geothermal

energy sources include artesian hot springs and wells that tap into groundwater or dry rock at

elevated temperatures resulting from high heat-flow gradients in the earth’s crust. They typically

are discovered by drilling exploratory wells in areas of known or suspected high temperature

gradients or by coincidence during water drilling.

There are 15 geothermal energy resource regions in the Planning Area ranging in temperature

from 35 degrees to 120 degrees Celsius (95 degrees to 248 degrees Fahrenheit). These

are considered low-temperature resources suitable only for residential or commercial space

heating, greenhouse use, aquaculture, or heated swimming pools and spas. (See Map 3-20:

Geothermal Resources Potential) Table 3.21, “ Leasable Mineral Potential Lower Sonoran &

SDNM” (p. 327) describes geothermal potential on the BLM mineral estate within the Lower

Sonoran. High- and moderate-potential areas are located in deep alluvial basins, including the

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management
328 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Picacho, Maricopa-Stanfield, Rainbow, Luke, Harquahala, and western Higley basins (URS

2004). There is low potential for geothermal resources in the mountain ranges.

Salable Minerals (Mineral Materials Disposal)

Salable mineral resources (mineral materials disposals) have high potential throughout most of

the Planning Area (URS 2003). (See Map 3-21: Mineral Materials Potential.) They include

common varieties of sand, gravel, aggregate, clay, limestone, cinders, and decorative rock,

as well as building or dimensional stone including granite, decomposed granite, basalt, and

other volcanics. Large volumes of salable minerals are used in commercial, residential, and

infrastructure construction within the Planning Area. Salable minerals within the Lower Sonoran

are predominantly sand, gravel, and decorative (or crushed) rock.

Federal, State, and local environmental and safety laws and regulations govern mining-related

operations, including the BLM’s regulations at 43 CFR 3600 (Mineral Materials Disposal). The

mineral materials disposal regulations require that commercial operators obtain a sale contract

from the BLM prior to beginning operations. Sales are conducted through competitive bid or,

when appropriate and when certain criteria are met, on a noncompetitive basis. Commercial

operators pay the BLM a royalty based on the amount of materials taken from public lands.

Government agencies and non-profit organizations can obtain mineral materials from public lands

at no cost by obtaining a BLM free-use permit.

Within the Lower Sonoran, there are seven active commercial salable-mineral pits (crushed

rock/decorative stone/aggregate): Arizona Pacific Materials, Bush Sand and Gravel, Chandler

Rock, Kilauea Crushers (two locations), Red Mountain Mining, and Treasure Chest Granite Pit.

Sand and gravel come from pits in Quaternary and Tertiary alluvial deposits in active or former

stream channels, washes, floodplains, and alluvial fans. Decorative rock and building stone are

mined or quarried from granitic, metamorphic, and volcanic rock outcrops. Mineral material pits

and quarry locations are common throughout the Planning Area and usually are located close to

cities and primary transportation arteries such as roads and railways.

The general trend for salable minerals during most of the past 25 years has been toward

increasing development and production. On all public lands around metropolitan Phoenix, total

salable-minerals production increased from 1.29 million short tons in fiscal year (FY) 2003 to 2.4

million tons in FY 2007 before falling to 2 million tons in FY 2008 during the recent economic

downturn. Production for FY 2009 fell to about 1.3 million tons. (LR2000, BLM records)

Within the Lower Sonoran itself, salable-minerals production increased from 0.81 million tons in

FY 2003 to 1.38 million tons in FY 2007 before falling to 1.01 million tons in FY 2008. (See

Figure 3-1.) Production for FY 2009 fell to about 0.5 million tons (LR2000, BLM records).

There are many large, active sand and gravel pits in the Planning Area; however, sand and gravel

production is not a significant activity within the Decision Area because most operations are on

private or State lands. Consequently, the majority of the mineral materials production within the

Decision Area is decorative rock.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 329

Table 3.22, “Mineral Materials (Salable) Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM” (p. 329) below

and Map 3-21: Mineral Materials Potential show the available mineral estate with potential for

certain salable products. Areas for salable minerals are unranked and only designated as having

potential based on being either bedrock or alluvial materials and sediments. In reality, almost

any material can be mined and produced as salable minerals, though the quality and level of

processing needed vary greatly. The primary factors determining which sites are of interest

for salable minerals are market factors and transportation costs, with physical properties being

dominant only for exceptional situations.

Table 3.22. Mineral Materials (Salable) Potential Lower Sonoran & SDNM

Acres Percent of Total1

BLM mineral estate with BLM surface currently open to minerals activity 713,300 100%

Areas with potential for crushed stone, decorative rock, boulders, aggregate,

and related products

364,400 51%

Areas with potential for sand and gravel, aggregate, fill material, and related

products

348,900 49%

Acres and percentages are for the BLM mineral estate under BLM-managed surface estate within the Decision

Areas, which excludes BLM-managed minerals under subsurface owned by other Federal agencies and non-Federal

jurisdictions, such as State land, parks, county land, and private land.

3.3.3.2. Mineral Potential Maps

The various potential areas shown for locatable minerals (Map 3-17: Locatable Minerals

Potential), oil and gas (Map 3-18: Oil & Gas Potential), sodium (Map 3-19: Sodium Potential),

geothermal resources (Map 3-20: Geothermal Resources Potential), and mineral materials, i.e.

salable minerals (Map 3-21: Mineral Materials Potential), are based on existing data (URS 2004).

Boundaries between areas of different potential are considered general in nature, as the data is

not sufficiently detailed to draw the divisions more precisely, the exception being small areas

of high potential based on known commodity occurrences. Accordingly, acreage totals in the

preceding tables are estimates rounded to the nearest 100 acres. Inaccuracies and inconsistencies

in geographic information system (GIS) database layers contribute to variability in the numbers

and can result in differences between equivalent acreages. These problems arise during data

analysis and normally result in maximum errors of only a few percent.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Minerals Management
330 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.3.4. RECREATION MANAGEMENT

The dramatic increase in population within and surrounding the Lower Sonoran and SDNM since

the last planning effort was completed has brought increased demands for outdoor recreational

opportunities. Much of this demand has fallen on public lands adjacent to new residential

communities in Maricopa, Tonopah, and Gila Bend and the rapidly growing cities of Goodyear

and Buckeye. There also is widespread, lower-density residential development on private land

throughout the Decision Areas. Increased OHV sales and new technology have resulted in a

rising demand for motorized trails and recreational areas. Community demand for parks, open

spaces, and non-motorized trails, both on a local and regional basis, has increased in Maricopa

and Pinal counties.

The process used to allocate public lands for the provision and management of recreation and

visitor services has changed substantially during recent years. Integral to both prior and current

recreation planning processes is the use of a tool called the recreation opportunity spectrum

(ROS). This is a system used to inventory and classify public lands according to physical and

social settings, which combine to offer specific types of recreational opportunities. As the name

implies, such settings range across a spectrum of opportunities from primitive and primitive

non-motorized, where motorized use does not occur and facilities are non-existent or minor

in extent, to rural and urban, where opportunities are vehicle-dependent and facilities may be

extensive.

In an approach known as benefits-based management, the BLM now integrates perceptions

of visitor demand with ROS to produce market-based strategies that provide for recreational

opportunities and visitor services. The result is that public lands are allocated to special

recreation-management areas (SRMAs) in which structured recreation opportunities are offered

or to extensive recreation management areas (ERMAs) in which management is of a custodial

nature. The major way this approach differs from one using only ROS is that SRMAs now are

targeted to demonstrated recreation-tourism markets (destinations); locales dependent on public

lands for recreation (communities); or to dispersed, frontier-like opportunities dependent on the

natural characteristics of the landscape (undeveloped).

3.3.4.1. Recreation Management in the Decision Areas

The Lower Sonoran and SDNM are used by visitors for a multitude of outdoor recreation

activities, with the numbers of visitors to both areas increasing more than the increase in

population experienced by adjacent communities. The principal activities of the two Decision

Areas are OHV use, recreational target shooting, and non-motorized activities such as hiking and

equestrian uses. Surveys of motorized and non-motorized trail users in Arizona, conducted by

Arizona State Parks in 2003 and 2008, show that both types of trail use increased statewide

as a percentage of the total population over the intervening period (see Table 3.23, “Types of

Trail Users as a Percentage of Population, 2003-2008” (p. 331)). Additionally, the percentage

of non-trail users among respondents declined, indicating that demand for motorized and

non-motorized recreation opportunities has increased as a relative proportion of the population

(Arizona State Parks 2009).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 331

Table 3.23. Types of Trail Users as a Percentage of Population, 2003-2008

Primarily Motorized Primarily Non-motorized Non-User

Locale

2003 2008 2003 2008 2003 2008

Arizona 7.0% 10.7% 56.5% 57.9% 33.6% 31.4%

Maricopa County 5.6% 9.6% 55.1% 59.2% 36.2% 31.2%

Pima County 5.3% 7.9% 66.9% 63.5% 26.5% 28.7%

Pinal County 8.6% 13.8% 48.9% 48.3% 40.2% 37.9%

Source: (Arizona State Parks 2009)

Route proliferation and off-road recreation areas were observed north of SR 238 in the SDNM, in

Haley Hills, Rainbow Valley, Buckeye Hills, Saddle Mountain, parts of the Gila Bend Mountains,

and in all areas near urban development in the Lower Sonoran.

The BLM does not have comparable data illustrating demand placed on the Decision Areas

for recreational target shooting; however, this use has increased dramatically during the past

five years. No improved or facilitated target shooting sites are managed by the BLM; most are

informal gathering places adjacent to vehicle routes that commonly exhibit shooting damage to

dominant vegetation, such as saguaro or trees, rock outcrops, and regulatory or informational

signs. Large quantities of litter often are present, including spent shells and target debris,

including broken bottles, cans, wooden pallets, appliances, computers, TVs, cardboard boxes,

propane bottles, and abandoned vehicles.

Hiking and backpacking occurs throughout both Decision Areas, particularly in the mountain

ranges. There are four designated, non-motorized trails within the Monument (Lava Flow, Table

Top, Margie’s Cove, and Brittlebush all within wilderness areas), and two within the Lower

Sonoran (Quartz Peak in the Sierra Estrella Wilderness and Painted Rock Interpretive Trail).

Designated non-motorized trails within the Monument and wilderness areas are minimally

maintained, primitive, and in average condition.

Horseback riding is a relatively minor use within the Decision Areas but has been occurring for

many years. Equestrian use occurs on most non-motorized trails except Quartz Peak Trail, which

is inaccessible to horses. Most rides have taken place near Gap Well along the Butterfield Stage

Route and from camp areas along Vekol Wash.

Generally, recreation settings are remote and access is by unmaintained, primitive roads that

require high-clearance, often four-wheel-drive, vehicles. Facilities are small and primitive,

recreation use is dispersed over the landscape, and BLM staff rarely makes contact with visitors.

Area allocations managed for recreation uses are indicated in Table 3.24, “Recreation Land Use

Allocations in the Decision Areas” (p. 331). Recreation facilities managed by the BLM are

available only in the ERMA at Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and Campground and at Quartz Peak

Trailhead in the Lower Sonoran. In the SDNM, small, primitive recreation facilities (trailheads)

are available in the Gila Trail SRMA adjacent to the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness, and

in the ERMA adjacent to Table Top Wilderness. See Map 3-22: Special Recreation Management

Areas & BLM Recreation Sites.

Table 3.24. Recreation Land Use Allocations in the Decision Areas

Allocation

Area

(acres)

Area (% of

Decision Area) Goals

Lower Sonoran

Ajo SRMA 175,200 19% Provide facilities and maintenance; protect resource

values; visitor safety

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation Management
332 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Allocation

Area

(acres)

Area (% of

Decision Area) Goals

Saddle Mountain SRMA 46,300 5%

Emphasize interpretation of geologic, cultural, and

wildlife resources; protect scenic landscapes and vistas;

promote recreational opportunities

Sentinel Plain SRMA 20,800 2% Provide facilities and maintenance; protect resource

values; visitor safety

Gila Trail SRMA (part) 137,100 15% Provide facilities and maintenance; protect resource

values; visitor safety

ERMA 550,800 59%

Provide primitive facilities for resource protection, visitor

safety, and /or improvement or increase of recreational

opportunities

Total 930,200 100%

SDNM

Gila Trail SRMA (part) 143,900 30% Provide facilities and maintenance; protect resource

values; visitor safety

ERMA 342,500 70%

Provide primitive facilities for resource protection, visitor

safety, and/or improvements or increase of recreational

opportunities

Total 486,400 100%

Table 3.25, “Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes of the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area” (p. 332) shows ROS classes identified for the Decision Areas. Approximately 87

percent of the Lower Sonoran is allocated to ROS classes that accommodate or emphasize

vehicle-dependent, recreational opportunities ranging from semi-primitive motorized to urban.

Illustrative of the remote, unmaintained, and dispersed qualities in the Lower Sonoran, 69

percent of the area is allocated to a single ROS class: semi-primitive motorized. Only 9 percent

is allocated to the non-motorized classes of primitive and semi-primitive non-motorized, which

occur in wilderness. In comparison, approximately 32 percent of the SDNM is allocated to ROS

classes that emphasize non-motorized, recreational opportunities. Although these areas exist

principally in wilderness, substantial areas of semi-primitive, non-motorized settings are offered

in the Sand Tank Mountains area. Nearly 54 percent of the SDNM is allocated to semi-primitive,

motorized opportunities.

Table 3.25. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area

ROS Class Lower Sonoran (acres) SDNM (acres)

Primitive 10,154 14,951

Semi-primitive non-motorized 71,812 142,391

Semi-primitive motorized 639,117 262,041

Roaded natural 141,067 49,355

Rural 24,919 17,347

Urban 979 0

Public lands not allocated* 23,694 316

Total 930,200 486,400

*Private and State Trust Land in holdings

With the exception of a specific prohibition against off-road travel by motor vehicles, Presidential

Proclamation 7397 did not refer to the provision and management of recreation and visitor

services on the Monument. Nevertheless, since an intrinsic result of such a designation is to

encourage visitation, it is expected that curious visitors would be interested in seeing, learning

about, and experiencing the natural objects for which the Monument was designated. Since

designation, visitation has increased on the Monument, and lack of facilitated recreational

opportunities resulted in degradation of certain portions. In June 2008, approximately 54,817

acres adjacent to the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness were closed to motor vehicles

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Recreation Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 333

after off-road travel became rampant. Other areas of concentrated visitation include the three

wilderness areas incorporated into the Monument, the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, and areas used

extensively for recreational target shooting adjacent to the Monument’s northern boundary.

Portions of the Decision Area contiguous with the BGR, Sentinel Plain, and a part of the SDNM

were re-conveyed to BLM by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000

from the Department of Defense. Due to unique safety concerns posed by previous military

training exercises on these lands, entry is managed through a permitting process that requires

visitors to view a brief safety video and sign a document acknowledging awareness of safety

concerns. Combined, the U.S. Air Force, Marine Air Corps, USFWS, and BLM annually issue

approximately 9,000 free-access permits to the BGR and adjacent areas, including Sentinel

Plain. The BLM issues approximately 150 of these free-access permits annually. Commercial

and competitive recreational use is limited, with BLM issuing approximately seven new special

recreation permits annually.

SDNM Recreation Site Inventory

From 2003 to 2005, researchers under the direction of Dr. Pam Foti, a professor in Northern

Arizona University’s Geography, Planning, and Recreation Department, determined the extent of

recreation impacts to the SDNM with a comprehensive inventory of all recreation sites visible

from the vehicle-route network. At each of the 410 sites identified, impacts were assessed for a

variety of impact variables and sites were categorized into five levels of relative impact based

on the presence of these impacts. Approximate area size of each site was also noted with 276

sites (81 percent) having minimal area disturbance area (less than 1,000 sq. ft.) and 64 sites (19

percent) being larger than 1,000 sq. ft. in size. Map 3-23: SDNM Inventoried Recreation Impact

Sites depicts all known recreation impact sites. Sites also were categorized as “non-shooting

sites” or “shooting sites,” based primarily on the presence of shooting-related litter such as spent

ammunition casings and clay pigeons (Foti and Chambers, 2005). Approximately one-half of the

total sites were identified for follow-up monitoring at three-year intervals to determine temporal

changes in impacts, with the long-term objective to determine if impacts from recreation activities

on SDNM resources were increasing, decreasing, or remaining relatively stable.

3.3.5. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

3.3.5.1. Regional Travel Routes

Motorized vehicle travel is the dominant form of transportation throughout the Planning Area.

The principal highways used to reach public lands in the Planning Area include I-8, I-10, SR 85,

and State Route 86 (SR 86). (See Map 3-24: Travel Management.) Old U.S. Highway 80 (U.S.

80) is another key secondary highway accessing the Gila Bend Mountains area, and US 60 is

the main highway for the BLM East Valley parcels. Maricopa Road/SR 238 is an important

secondary highway frequently used to access the Monument.

The main transportation trend affecting the Planning Area is an expected continued increase in

demand. Current RMPs governing travel in the SDNM and Lower Sonoran were written in the

1980s and 1990s. The Phoenix metropolitan area has experienced explosive growth since then,

and seen considerable expansion of its freeway, arterial, and local street infrastructure. More

importantly, from the perspective of public lands surface transportation, population growth has

pushed road infrastructure into previously undeveloped areas near the Decision Areas. The

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management
334 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

number of high-standard, regional roads has increased in recent years to accommodate community

growth in Mobile, Vekol Valley, Rainbow Valley, Goodyear, Tonopah, Buckeye, Maricopa,

and Gila Bend. Numerous existing roads have been widened and paved, and new roads built

throughout the Planning Area. In addition, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG),

Maricopa and Pinal counties transportation departments, and ADOT all are studying additional

freeway, parkway, and arterial connectors throughout the Planning Area. Many of these would

bisect public lands.

The introduction of ATVs and other vehicles with the capability to travel into more remote areas

has led to increased use of public lands for recreational vehicle use. New routes and extension

of existing ones have emerged in the Decision Areas as vehicles with more technical capability

(such as rock crawlers) become common. These trends are likely to continue into the future.

Transportation network changes on and around public lands include upgrades to existing roads

traversing the Planning Area; new ROWs for freeways, arterials, and streets; access elimination

in some areas and expansion in others due to new roads; and increasing demand for motorized

vehicle access to public lands as population grows. Changes to the Planning Area road system are

detailed in the MAG’s Draft Regional Transportation Plan 2010 Update (MAG 2010).

The following is a description of planned highway and road projects expected to affect public

lands:

Loop 202 (South Mountain Freeway): A new ROW that wraps around the southern and western

edges of South Mountain Park will not only allow for easier access to the Lower Sonoran, it

will increase demand for recreation and travel on public lands by encouraging residential and

commercial development south and west of metro Phoenix’s current boundaries.

Loop 303 (Estrella Freeway): A new ROW running west of the White Tank Mountains will

connect U.S. 60 to the north with Goodyear to the south, encouraging further urban growth in

these areas and speed access. Both of these developments are likely to drive up demand for

recreational uses of public lands.

State Route 801 (I-Reliever): New ROW planned to run parallel to I-10 in southwestern part of

metropolitan Phoenix could increase the amount of traffic passing near the Lower Sonoran.

CANAMEX Corridor: Segments of I-8 and SR 85 that pass through the SDNM and Lower

Sonoran are planned to be part of the CANAMEX Corridor, an international highway designed to

promote commerce throughout North America (MAG 2003). The minimum duty rating for the

CANAMEX Corridor is a four-lane, divided highway.

Arterial roads: An expansion of the arterial and local street system is expected in the SR 85

corridor between Buckeye and Gila Bend over the next 20 years. Agua Caliente Road, northwest

of Gila Bend, is experiencing increased use, and a connection with Harquahala Valley may be

requested by Maricopa County in the future. MAG has outlined a plan to expand SR 238 to

a four-lane, arterial connector linking the communities of Gila Bend, Mobile, and Maricopa.

Similarly, the Gas Pipeline-Komatke Road, linking Mobile to SR 85 and U.S. 80, is planned to

become four-lane, arterial connector, along with a one-mile square street grid to be developed in

Rainbow Valley south of Buckeye and Goodyear. Although these road expansions would not be

limited-access highways, they likely would affect existing, public motorized and non-motorized

access to the Lower Sonoran and SDNM in Buckeye Hills East and Rainbow Valley

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 335

3.3.5.2. Motorized Vehicle Access to Public Lands

Motorized vehicle access to each of the major areas within the Planning Area is possible via

routes that include primary and secondary highways, improved (though often unmaintained)

roads from adjacent BLM and other Federal lands, and county or municipal roads and streets.

The existing collection of access routes includes a limited number of legally established public

ROWs and non-public routes. While some of these routes cross State trust or private lands where

public vehicle travel is not authorized, access is not physically barred or denied by posted notice.

This situation, however, can change at any time, cutting off critical access points for visitors and

administrative personnel to reach the Monument.

Legal public access is minimal in several key geographical areas and continued access is

dependent on other landowners or jurisdictional agencies. Obtaining legal public access is

necessary to ensure future access to the areas. These areas are identified as:

Buckeye Hills West: Currently, the only legal vehicle access to Buckeye Hills West is available

from SR 85 at Robbins Butte Wildlife Area, managed by the AGFD, and Buckeye Hills County

Park, managed by Maricopa County. On the west side of the area near Gillespie Dam, physical

access exists by using a canal road beginning two miles south of public lands, which then

connects to the main access road on public lands.

Gila Bend Mountains: Legal access to the southeastern boundary of this area is limited. Citrus

Valley Road, formerly a county- maintained road along its length on public lands, provides access

except when interrupted by Gila River flows from Painted Rock Reservoir. Access to Citrus

Valley Road north of the Gila River is possible from AGFD land accessed from Painted Rock

Road and Sisson Road, but the road is in poor condition and crosses private land. The Enterprise

Road borders the eastern boundary of the Gila Bend Mountains, but is posted for private use only.

While another primitive road exists that would allow access to the area, it traverses the San Lucy

Indian Reservation and is gated and locked.

Saddle Mountain: Legal access is available to the northern part of the area from Courthouse

Road at several junctions. Access to the south part of the area is available from Dobbins Road

and Elliot Road at several junctions as it crosses public lands.

Sentinel Plain: Legal vehicle access to the Sentinel Plain, south of the Union Pacific Railroad,

is only available from I-8 at Exit 87, which provides an at-grade public railroad crossing. Exit

78 (I-8) at Spot Road, located about one mile west of the Planning Area boundary, is used to

access the Sentinel Plain area from the west. This access route, however, requires the use of a

private crossing over the Union Pacific tracks.

SDNM: Currently, most of the public lands within the Monument north of SR 238 are closed to

motorized use due to ongoing restoration work. When the area is re-opened, it may be reached

from several routes highways, roads, and primitive roads. The area south of SR 238 is accessed

from I-8 with limited legal vehicle access provided into the area from the interstate. This area can

also be physically accessed from SR 238 under the railroad track at one concrete box culvert and

two trestles. The nearest legal crossing of the railroad is 83rd Ave in Mobile several miles away

from the Monument, although it involves crossing private and state land.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management
336 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.3.5.3. Existing Travel Management Situation in the Decision Areas

There are currently 2,283 miles of motorized vehicle routes and 39 miles of non-motorized trails

that cross public lands in the Planning Area. (See Map 3-23: SDNM Inventoried Recreation

Impact Sites.) Existing RMP decisions have designated public lands in the Lower Sonoran and

SDNM as either limited to existing or designated routes, or closed to vehicle use. There are no

open areas for cross-country vehicle use within the decision areas. An inventory of existing routes

was completed for this planning process (see Section 3.3.5.4, “Non-Motorized Travel” (p. 336)),

which will be used to designate individual routes as open, limited, or closed to vehicle use during

travel management planning. Routes within the SDNM will be formally designated in this RMP,

and routes within the Lower Sonoran will be designated within 5 years of approval of the ROD.

In the Lower Sonoran, 1,670 miles of existing routes are currently open for vehicle use and

15 miles are closed. The areas designated as closed include the South and North Maricopa

Mountains and Table Top Wildernesses (157,600 acres) and the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC

(3,500 acres). In all other parts of the Monument, vehicles are limited to existing or designated

routes. Scattered parcels east of Phoenix in the Florence, Miami, and Globe areas have not been

inventoried for routes at this time. Inventory in these areas will take place as staff time and

resources become available.

In the SDNM, 567.9 miles of existing routes currently are open for vehicle use and 6.6 miles are

closed. Hiking and equestrian trails, totaling 37 miles are designated in the North Maricopa and

Table Top mountains. The areas designated as closed include the South and North Maricopa

Mountains and Table Top Wildernesses (157,600 acres) and the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC

(3,500 acres). In all other parts of the Monument, vehicles are limited to existing or designated

routes.

Interim Monument management requires that the inventoried route system in SDNM become the

interim travel network. Currently, 63 miles of primitive roads were inventoried in sand washes.

There are 971 miles of sand washes, of which only 63 were inventoried as being a primitive

road. Of those 63 miles, 19 are currently closed due to their location inside the BGR Sand Tank

Mountain area (formerly known as Area A), where driving in washes was prohibited by rules

established by the military.

A temporary emergency closure to restore damaged lands is currently in place in the SDNM. The

closure area is located north of SR 238 in the vicinity of the Anza NHT and extends north along

the eastern edge of the North Maricopa Wilderness to the Gas Pipeline Road. No vehicle use is

permitted on 54,817 acres, including 89 miles of existing primitive roads. This temporary closure

began on June 13, 2008 and will remain in effect until the completion of this land use plan.

Visitors are required to obtain an annual safety briefing and access permit prior to entering the

Sand Tank Mountain area (Area A). The ongoing access permit program informs visitors about

both the military training activities at the BGR, and prohibitions on public travel from the

Monument into restricted areas of the military range. Permit requirements include the use of

licensed vehicles only within Area A.

3.3.5.4. Non-Motorized Travel

Non-motorized travel includes pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycling activities. Public access to the

Decision Areas by pedestrian or equestrian travel, from external areas cross-country, is permissible

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 337

wherever public use of adjacent lands is legally authorized. A number of non-motorized trails

are designated for hiking and equestrian use. Bicycle use is limited to existing or designated

vehicle routes, so such use is limited. Pedestrian and equestrian activities are permitted within the

wilderness areas in both Decision Areas, while all mechanized modes of travel, including bicycles,

are prohibited. Non-motorized, wheeled carriers may be used for cross-country game retrieval

anywhere in the Decision Areas, except in wilderness areas where they are prohibited. There

has been an increase in demand for non-motorized travel in the Decision Areas as more people

move into new developments nearby. Use of designated trails has grown along with increases in

dispersed hiking, backpacking, and equestrian use. Little change in bicycle use has occurred.

In the Lower Sonoran, hiking is permitted in the Sierra Estrella Wilderness, although horse

and pack-stock use is not recommended for the steep and narrow three-mile Quartz Peak Trail.

A 0.2-mile designated, interpretive trail is available at the Painted Rocks Petroglyph Site.

Development of private property and State trust land adjacent to or in the vicinities of the

Decision Areas has reduced physical, and possibly legal, access for motorized and non-motorized

use. Four existing designated trails are located in the Monument. Two trails, the nearly nine-mile

Margie’s Cove Trail and the six-mile Brittlebush Trail, are located in the North Maricopa

Mountains Wilderness. The other two trails are within Table Top Wilderness. These trails include

the 7.25-mile Lava Flow Trail and 3.5-mile Table Top Trail.

Five designated hiking trails were created in wilderness areas following wilderness designation in

1990. No other trails have been developed, although user-created trails have been identified in

Saddle Mountain, and are likely to occur in other areas. In the Planning Area, Phase III of the

Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan (Maricopa County 2004) identifies a primary,

county trail loop that incorporates Estrella Mountain and Buckeye Hills regional parks, and

Phoenix’s South Mountain Park. This trail traverses the East Buckeye Hills area. Options to link

other parts of the Lower Sonoran or SDNM to the regional trail system have also been identified.

Buckeye and Goodyear have identified potential trail corridors within the Decision Areas that

could connect to neighborhoods in these cities.

3.3.5.5. Visitor Use & Travel Modes by Geographic Area

Area use by local and destination visitors is not equally distributed across public lands. Some

areas are more popular for motorized or non-motorized travel modes. Table 3.26, “Primary

Use and Current Settings for Existing Travel Routes” (p. 337) represents an overview of the

geographic areas and a general classification of the primary travelers.

Table 3.26. Primary Use and Current Settings for Existing Travel Routes

Geographic

Area

Primary Use and Origin of Visitor and Current Settings

Ajo Block Primary travelers: Local visitors use four-wheel drive and ATVs to access all areas. Day use

is popular for recreational pursuits. Access to adjacent jurisdictions, such as BGR Area B and

Cabeza Prieta NWR, is popular seasonally.

Current Settings: Local visitors use four-wheel drive and ATVs to access areas. Recreational day

use is popular. Most users enjoy informational and route signs and maps. Access to adjacent

jurisdictions, such as BGR Area B and Cabeza Prieta NWR, is popular seasonally.

Buckeye Hills

and Rainbow

Valley

Primary Travelers: In Buckeye Hills local and destination visitors use four-wheel drive,

OHVs, horses, bicycles or hike in to access the area. Travelers use existing roads for camping,

sightseeing, trail riding, and hunting. In Rainbow Valley, local and destination visitors use four

wheel-drive vehicles, primarily to access designated wilderness areas for hunting and sightseeing.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management
338 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Geographic

Area

Primary Use and Origin of Visitor and Current Settings

Current Settings: In Buckeye Hills, easily accessed areas and routes make day use of trails and

areas popular by local visitors. Access points are limited and visitation is relatively low, yielding

remote experiences near the city. A mix of motorized vehicle use and non-motorized use is

common. In Rainbow Valley, areas near Phoenix and adjacent towns are easily accessed, where

interaction with few people is desired. Vehicle access is necessary to reach popular hiking,

sightseeing, and hunting destinations.

East Valley and

Globe-Miami

Primary Travelers: Local and destination visitors drive passenger cars to access San Tan

Regional Park and other easily accessible areas for trail-based, non-motorized travel. Visitors

access scattered public lands using four-wheel drive vehicles for non-motorized activities. Local

visitors drive four-wheel drive vehicles to access remote backcountry near Globe and Miami.

Hunting and camping are primary uses of these areas.

Current Settings: Structured, non-motorized travel with informational and trail signs and

maps are emphasized at San Tan Regional Park. Other scattered public land parcels exhibit

unstructured travel opportunities for non-motorized and motorized uses. In the Globe-Miami

area, self-directed experiences are desired by locals, although some existing signing and maps

are available. Four-wheel drive is usually required to access popular hunting, recreation, and

other interesting sites.

Gila Bend

Mountains and

Sentinel Plain

Primary travelers: Destination visitors use four-wheel drive, ATV, and motorcycles to access the

core area. Hiking and equestrian users visit designated wilderness areas and remote, unroaded

areas. Local visitors, generally from Gila Bend, are day users accessing the area by four-wheel

drive vehicles, ATVs, and motorcycles. In the northern portion of the Gila Bend Mountain area,

including the Fourth of July Wash area, use is increasing by west valley visitors seeking day use

and overnight OHV riding experiences. In Sentinel Plain, destination visitors predominately use

four-wheel drive for sightseeing, stargazing, and overnight camping.

Current Settings: Remote settings for traditional outdoor activities are enjoyed by many visitors.

Vehicle access is required due to remoteness. Most visitors are self-directed and require little,

if any, support. In the Sentinel Plain area, dark-sky areas are desired with easy access from

a major highway or road.

Saddle Mountain Primary travelers: Local visitors use four-wheel drive and ATVs to access the core area. Hikers

primarily visit the area mountains for day use, but also for long-distance touring. Destination

visitors drive two-wheel drive and four-wheel drive vehicles for camping, rock hounding, and

sightseeing.

Current Settings: Easy access for camping and passage through the area for sightseeing is

available. Most users require informational and route signs and maps. Experiences are remote

and self-directed, with only route signs and entry information kiosks.

Sonoran Desert

National

Monument

Primary Travelers: Destination visitors use four-wheel drive vehicles to visit the SDNM. Local

visitors access it through Rainbow Valley and adjacent lands near Mobile, using four-wheel drive,

ATVs, motorcycles, and horses for sightseeing and trail riding.

Current Settings: A temporary closure is in effect, which causes some visitors to seek new

areas for camping, exploring, and Monument tourism. Out of town and local visitors receive

guidance through signs and maps to visit popular Monument locations, including historic places

and scenic areas. Vehicle access is required, yet primary uses are designated wilderness hiking,

exploring, hunting, and camping.

3.3.5.6. Data Collection and Analysis for Travel Planning

All routes in the Decision Areas were inventoried on-the-ground using global positioning system

technology. Conditions were noted and basic information about each route was gathered, using a

statewide standard data dictionary. Later, routes were reviewed by an interdisciplinary team, using

a standardized methodology or “route evaluation process,” to systematically identify resource

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Travel Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 339

concerns, values, and legal requirements associated with each route. This method allowed for the

identification of both area-wide and site-specific issues. Each numbered route has a corresponding

route report and database entry detailing the findings from the evaluation process (see the detailed,

large-scale SDNM Route Designations map on the accompanying CD version of the RMP). This

database was used to gather specific details for the impact analysis.

After the route evaluation process was completed in 2004, new guidance was issued directing field

offices to designate roads and trails as specific types of travel-management assets. Asset types

include road, primitive road, and trail and are established by the Roads and Trails Terminology

Report issued with IM 2006-173. These definitions are contained in the glossary of terms. Roads

under BLM management are maintained to specific standards, while primitive roads are not

necessarily compliant with any engineering standards. The asset type primitive road fills the gap

between roads and trails. The significance of the guidance for this plan revolves around the

prohibition of off-road travel in the SDNM proclamation. The BLM interprets this to mean that

travel off designated routes is cross-country travel, which is thus prohibited.

Additional guidance pertinent to the route designations was issued in 2009. Washington Office

guidance, IM 2009-132. Characteristics will be identified in a transportation inventory as a

"route". These routes will not be classified as a transportation asset and will not be entered into

FAMS unless one of the following conditions are met:

a. Congress designates the area as Wilderness, or

b. RMP decision is made to not protect the area for wilderness characteristics, or

c. Congress releases the area from Wilderness consideration.

3.4. SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

3.4.1. NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

In June 2000, the BLM responded to growing concern about the loss of open space by creating

the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). Congress codified the NLCS in 2009

through Public Law 111-11. The NLCS brings into a single system some of the BLM's premier

designations. By putting these lands into an organized system, the BLM hopes to increase public

awareness of these areas’ scientific, cultural, educational, ecological, and other values. Inclusion

in the NLCS does not create any new legal protections for these lands, but it does provide field

offices with overall guidance and direction for management of the system. Components of the

NLCS include public lands that have been specially designated by presidential or congressional

action. These designations include national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness

areas, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers, and national historic and scenic trails.

Each type of special designation (presidential and congressional) has been used to establish

special management areas on public lands within the Planning Area (see Table 3.27, “Special

Designations Within the Planning Area” (p. 340). Four special designations are located within the

Lower Sonoran, including Sierra Estrella, Signal Mountain, and Woolsey Peak wildernesses and

Juan Bautista de Anza NHT. Five special designations occur within the SDNM, including the

Monument itself; the North Maricopa Mountains, South Maricopa Mountains, and Table Top

wildernesses; and Juan Bautista de Anza NHT.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Special Designations
340 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 3.27. Special Designations Within the Planning Area

Decision Area

Designation

LS SDNM

Size

(BLM Acres/Miles)

Designating Authority Date Designated

Presidential Designations

Sonoran Desert

National Monument

SDNM

486,600 acres

Presidential Proclamation No.

7397 by President William J.

Clinton

2001

Congressional Designations

North Maricopa

Mountains

Wilderness

SDNM

64,228 acres

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

Sierra Estrella

Wilderness

LS 13,926 acres

(excluding 640-acre

State inholding)

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

Signal Mountain

Wilderness

LS

13,468 acres

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

South Maricopa

Mountains

Wilderness

SDNM

60,424 acres

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

Table Top

Wilderness

SDNM

34,308 acres

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

Woolsey Peak

Wilderness

LS

64,456 acres

Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990

(Public Law 101-628)

1990

Juan Bautista de

Anza NHT

LS

10 miles

Juan Bautista de Anza NHT

Act

(Public Law 101-365)

1990

Juan Bautista de

Anza NHT

SDNM

17 miles

Juan Bautista de Anza NHT

Act

(Public Law 101-365)

1990

Administrative Designations

Coffee Pot Botanical

ACEC

LS

8,900 acres

Record of Decision (ROD) for

Lower Gila South RMP

1988

Vekol Valley

Grasslands ACEC

SDNM

3,500 acres

ROD for Lower Gila South

RMP

1988

Fred J. Weiler

Green Belt Resource

Conservation Area

LS

45,978 acres

Public Land Order 1015,

Classification of Public Lands

for Multiple Use Management,

Designation of Fred J. Weiler

“Green Belt” Resource

Conservation Area

1954, 1967, 1970

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

National Landscape Conservation System August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 341

3.4.2. CONGRESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS

3.4.2.1. Wilderness Areas

The Decision Areas include six wilderness areas designated by the Arizona Desert Wilderness

Act of 1990. These areas total 249,450 acres: 91,750 acres are in the Lower Sonoran and 157,700

acres are in the SDNM.

Each wilderness area has its own management plan (BLM Manual 8560). Management guidance

is provided under the Woolsey Peak Wilderness and Signal Mountain Wilderness Management

Plan (BLM 2003) and the Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan (BLM 1995) for

the North Maricopa Mountains, Sierra Estrella, South Maricopa Mountains, and Table Top

Wildernesses.

A five-year evaluation of the Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan, completed in

2005, made the following observations:

Motorized use of the Maricopa Complex was authorized 91 times,

principally for the inspection, maintenance, and redevelopment of

rainwater catchments for wildlife, and such authorizations have

decreased substantially as the catchments were upgraded. Monitoring

for naturalness, solitude, and visitor encounter standards was attempted

by several visitor-tracking methods; however, monitoring of standards

for vegetation, trail width, and depth, frequency of manure on trails,

grazing of vegetation, and plant density was not accomplished as

planned. Of the 70 planned ‘special project’ wilderness management

activities, 2 of 18 vehicle routes identified for active reclamation were

completed; 23 of 26 planned vehicle barriers were completed; all 6

trail and trailhead development projects were completed; and 9 of

20 ‘other special projects’ were completed, including 4 wildlife water

catchment redevelopments. In total, 57 percent of planned ‘special

projects’ were implemented, and largely represented high-priority

vehicle and people management projects intended to ensure compliance

with the Wilderness Act. ... Visitation data indicate that the visitor standards

adopted by the Plan have adequately met public expectations. The Plan

was amended twice to provide for the use of mechanized equipment for

vehicle way rehabilitation and the capture and removal of desert bighorn

sheep for release in other areas of the state. (BLM 2005)

Although unauthorized activities that do not conform to wilderness values (e.g. unauthorized

entry by motor vehicles) occur on an occasional basis, the above summary of the five-year plan

evaluation indicates that the four wildernesses of the Maricopa Complex (North Maricopa

Mountains, Sierra Estrella, South Maricopa Mountains, and Table Top wildernesses) have been

successfully managed as envisioned by the Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan

(BLM 1995).

At the time that the Woolsey Peak Wilderness and Signal Mountain Wilderness Management Plan

was written (BLM 2003), these two wilderness areas also were meeting all standards envisioned

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressional Designations
342 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

by that plan. No significant threats to wilderness values have been detected by occasional staff

field visits to these wilderness areas.

Recent regional trends in general population growth, public demand for outdoor recreation,

emerging conflicts between types of outdoor recreation activities, and impacts resulting from

illegal immigration pose the potential for substantial impacts to the wilderness values of the six

wilderness areas in the Decision Areas. This is anticipated to be particularly true for impacts

resulting from the unauthorized use of motor vehicles in wilderness areas associated with

recreation activities and illegal immigration and smuggling.

Visitation data collected in the Maricopa Complex indicates yearly increases in trailhead

visitation; however, visitation remains low in comparison to wilderness areas in closer proximity

to urban areas.

3.4.2.2. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail

The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT is a 1,200-mile historic trail corridor commemorating the

1775–1776 land route that Spanish commander Juan Bautista de Anza took from Mexico through

Arizona to California in an effort to establish a mission and presidio on San Francisco Bay.

Although historians have researched the diaries and journals of the people that followed this trail

in the 18th century, only a few segments can be tied to a specific topographic feature. Although

this trail has no known surviving trail signature on the ground, several other historic trails

lie within the NHT corridor that crosses through SDNM and in certain segments in the Lower

Sonoran, which means portions are considered a multi-component historic trail with associated

sites. These historic trails have a trail signature due to the use of wagons and stagecoaches of

the mid-nineteenth century. Where this trail signature coincides with the NHT corridor results in

a natural fit for identifying and interpreting all of these trails together. While the Anza NHT is

a historic trail corridor, the later trails have artifacts, features, and associated historic sites that

are more obvious, as well as contain more visible trail signature and corridor area to interpret

and protect. Certain segments of the NHT that traverse the Planning Area are considered to be

among the best-preserved corridor segments and most representative of the historic trail corridor

conditions.

Since the NHT’s designation in 1990, Anza friends groups, NPS, other agencies, and the BLM

have worked collaboratively to develop and mark segments of the historic trail. The BLM marked

a 12.5-mile segment of the trail through the Maricopa Mountains in SDNM during the late 1990s.

The vision for the NHT is that the trail will gradually become a long-distance recreational

trail that the public can access, and that some private developers will incorporate the trail and

surrounding landscape into their development plans.

The prevailing conditions of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT through the Lower Sonoran

and SDNM have been generally maintained since the NHT’s designation in 1990. Current

management guidance for the entire length of the NHT is provided by the Comprehensive

Management and Use Plan for the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT (NPS 1996). This plan was

prepared by the NPS and cooperating agencies, which included the BLM. A Long Range

Interpretive Plan for the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT also has been prepared by the NPS (NPS

2003). These plans are still in place and actively form the basis for collaborative implementation

of trail segment identification, protection strategies, and interpretive projects.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Congressional Designations August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 343

Designation of the SDNM placed an additional layer of protection upon the NHT segment

through the Monument. The NHT and other underlying historic trails (e.g. the Butterfield

Overland Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trail) are all named Monument Objects and all

follow the same corridor.

Threats to the NHT include increasing recreational use, particularly near urban areas, and removal

of historic artifacts. These threats were realized in 2008 when the NHT and the access routes

leading to it became unacceptably degraded by damage due to improper OHV use. A temporary

closure in the fall of 2008 was followed by intensive restoration and repair work to address the

excessive damage to the historic trails, vegetation, soils, and historic trail corridor setting.

Over the long-term, there will continue to be the challenge of protecting the trail from visitor

over use and unauthorized visitor activities. The dramatic population growth projected for the

Phoenix metropolitan area and the urban development expected in the vicinities of various NHT

segments in the Planning Area indicates that this challenge will become increasingly complex.

The population growth will lead to increased pressure to access the trail for recreational visitation.

Moderate to high levels of use are expected over the life of the plan.

In the Planning Area, an additional threat is the loss of opportunity to protect the trail corridor as

private and state trust lands are developed. Collaborative projects with Anza NHT friends groups

and local communities will be the avenue through which additional pieces of the trail might

be certified as official NHT segments. This might involve acquisition of easements and lands

by local groups or Federal agencies.

3.4.3. ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATIONS

3.4.3.1. Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area

The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt along the Gila River was established as a resource conservation

area in 1970 and allocated for management of wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources. The

parts of the green belt that fall within the Planning Area include 45,978 acres of the Gila River

channel and floodplain from Sierra Estrella Park on the east to the Planning Area boundary on the

west. Approximately 20,000 additional acres fall within the BLM’s Yuma Field Office for a total

of approximately 63,000 acres in the green belt. Only the acres that fall within the Planning Area

will be discussed further in this document. Following is a brief history of land use within this area.

Within the area now known as the green belt, Public Land Order 1015 withdrew 6,896 acres of

land from the Department of the Interior (DOI) to the USFWS in 1954. At this time, the USFWS

entered into a cooperative management agreement with the AGFD to manage these withdrawn

lands for wildlife, notably waterfowl and migratory birds. These lands were segregated from all

forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws but not the mineral

leasing laws. Grazing and existing withdrawals for power purposes were specifically exempted

from the segregation.

In 1967, approximately 63,000 acres in the Gila River floodplain were studied, including the 1015

lands, and it was determined that they would be retained under the Classification for Multiple

Use Act of 1964. A classification for multiple use was placed on the subject lands, segregating

the 63,000 acres from appropriation under the public land and mining laws. Mineral leasing,

however, was not excluded. The multiple-use classification was established to allow for the

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Administrative Designations
344 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

management of nesting areas for white-winged dove, mourning dove, and songbirds; public

recreation; historical significance; and flood and erosion control.

In 1970, the 63,000 acres were designated as the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation

Area. This designation was designed chiefly to draw public attention to the area and explicitly did

not change existing land uses. The green belt qualified as a Class VI recreation area under the

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation system of classification (the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation has

since been incorporated into the National Park Service) due to its Native American habitation

sites of “major historic or cultural significance” (43 CFR 2071.2 1971).

3.4.3.2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Coffepot Botanical

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC consists of approximately 9,600 acres located in the Ajo Block

of the Lower Sonoran. It protects primarily botanical resources. The Sonoran Desert scrub

community in this area is diverse and includes more than 285 plant species, many with limited

distributions in the U.S. Among these is the Acuña cactus, a candidate for listing under the ESA.

Livestock grazing in the Coffee Pot ACEC is limited due to a lack of livestock watering facilities,

and no mining activity has occurred in the ACEC.

In general, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC is meeting the intent of the ACEC, although illegal

drug and people smuggling do adversely affect the area. The ACEC is bisected by an improved

road used for access to a gas pipeline, making closure impractical; however, the area is less

impacted by illegal uses than other border areas and generally remains in good condition.

Vekol Valley Grassland

The Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC consists of approximately 3,500 acres located in the

southeastern corner of the SDNM. It consists of mostly valley bottom with creosote bush,

mesquite, and 300 acres of remnant tobosa grassland.

A spreader-dike system and watershed fence were built in the late 1940s to reduce soil erosion.

Many of the spreader dikes are currently in disrepair, thus leading to localized erosion and

reduction in hydrologic function. The dike system also provides valuable resting areas for

migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. Mesquite thickets provide nesting and roosting habitat for

non-game and small game birds (e.g. dove and quail) and escape cover for mule deer and javelina.

The deep clay/loam soil and grass cover provide a relatively mesic environment for Sonoran

green toads (Bufo retiformis), green toads (Bufo debilis), and Great Plains narrow-mouthed toads

(Gastrophryne olivacea) (Jones et. al. 1983). It is extremely rare to find these toad species

occurring together, and it is the only known occurrence of the Sonoran green toads on public

lands. Toad species with more widespread distribution, such as the Sonoran Desert toads (Bufo

alvarius) and Couch’s spadefoot toads (Scaphiopus couchii), are also present.

Authorized livestock grazing ceased in the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in 2008 after the

grazing permits expired; however, boundary-fence cutting in the Vekol Valley related to illegal

border activities has resulted in trespass-livestock use.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Administrative Designations August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 345

The Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC has been impacted by off-route motor vehicle use and heavy

foot and bicycle traffic propagated principally by illegal drug and people smuggling. In general, it

is heavily used by drug and people smugglers, which largely negates efforts to close the area to

OHV or off-route use, which has remained stable or decreased over the years.

3.4.4. OTHER SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

No national conservation areas, national recreation areas, cooperative management and protection

areas, outstanding natural areas, forest reserves, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic rivers,

byways, national recreation trails, watchable wildlife viewing sites, wild horse and burro ranges,

or other special designations exist in the Decision Area.

The Gila River was evaluated for wild and scenic river eligibility and suitability. The portion

of the river to the east of the Planning Area (commonly known as the Middle Gila) and other

portions to the east were evaluated for suitability in the Final Arizona Statewide Wild and Scenic

Rivers Environmental Impact Statement (EIS; 1997). The remaining lengths of the Gila River,

approximately from Winkleman to the junction with the Colorado River, were not deemed

eligible during the development of BLM resource management plans prepared before 1993

and were not evaluated as part of the EIS. The portion of the Gila River in the Lower Sonoran

Planning Area, from the east boundary of the Planning Area to the west boundary of the Planning

Area, was re-evaluated in 2005 (BLM, 2005) and determined not to meet the eligibility criteria

outlined in Appendix D, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment (p. 1027), Wild & Scenic

Rivers Eligibility Assessment.

3.5. TRIBAL INTERESTS, PUBLIC SAFETY & SOCIAL AND

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

3.5.1. TRIBAL INTERESTS

While tribal interests in the Decision Areas are as diverse and wide-ranging as those of

non-Indians, tribes also have special concerns about cultural resources that are part of their

tribal heritage.

The frequency of BLM cultural resources consultations with tribal groups has increased

considerably over the last decade; however, no extensive inventories of traditional cultural

resources have been completed. Assumptions have sometimes been made by Federal agencies

that all tribal members know significant, traditional cultural information, but, unfortunately, this

is not factual. Considerable effort is often required to obtain information about traditions that

are fading with the passing of each generation. Collecting such data can be difficult as some

traditional cultural information is so confidential that discussing it with non-tribal members is

considered inappropriate, and some traditional knowledge is not even widely shared within tribes.

Virtually all tribes are concerned about preserving archaeological sites regarded ancestral and

the disturbance of human remains associated with some of them. Some tribal groups continue

to collect natural resources, such as plant materials traditionally used for food, medicine,

ceremonies, or crafts and are concerned about public lands access to collect such items. The

BLM has involved tribes by conducting formal consultations on certain projects and during

RMP development efforts.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Other Special Designations
346 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Several tribes have traditional cultural affiliations with the Planning Area. Formal consultation

letters and follow-up telephone calls were used to contact the Ak-Chin Indian Community,

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Gila River Indian

Community, The Hopi Tribe, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community,

San Carlos Apache Tribe, Tohono O’odham Nation, Tonto Apache, White Mountain Apache

Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. More recently, three tribal

communities (Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, and Colorado River Indian

Tribes) were identified for consultations, as well.

Four O’odham (Piman) groups, closely related linguistically and culturally, continue to reside

on reservations in the Planning Area. These are the Ak Chin Indian Community, Gila River

Indian Community, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Tohono O’odham Nation.

Spanish explorers encountered these peoples when they entered southern Arizona in the late

seventeenth century. These indigenous groups consider themselves descendents of the prehistoric

groups who occupied the region.

The Maricopa, an amalgam of groups that traditionally lived along the lower Gila and Colorado

rivers, moved up the Gila River in the nineteenth century to live with the O’odham. Other groups

living along the lower Colorado River (Cocopah, Quechan, and Mohave) occasionally traveled

into the Planning Area.

Consultations with the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe and the Yavapai-Apache Nation indicated

that those groups have interests in the traditional territory of the Yavapai, which was primarily

north of the Salt and Lower Gila rivers. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation’s reservation is in the

Planning Area’s northeastern section. The Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation indicated that they

have an interest in the management of public lands near their reservation and would like to

acquire public lands available for disposal.

The territories of various Apache groups were primarily east of the Planning Area. The San

Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, and Fort Sill Apache

Tribe of Oklahoma were consulted. Proposed developments in areas traditional Apaches regard

as sacred have been controversial (e.g. telescope construction on Mount Graham), but no such

conflicts have been identified in the Decision Areas.

Traditional histories of some Hopi Tribe clans indicate they came from the south and have

traditional cultural affiliations with the prehistoric occupants of southern Arizona. The Hopi

have expressed interest in the cultural resources in the entire state of Arizona, including the

Planning Area.

The Pascua Yaqui Tribe originated in northwestern Mexico and began to move into the United

States about 125 years ago. Communities of Yaquis are found near Tucson where they have a

small reservation, as well as a reservation in the Salt River Valley. Consultations with the Pascua

Yaqui identified no special concerns.

The Mojave and Quechan peoples’ traditional territories were centered primarily on the Colorado

River. The Ft. Mojave Indian Tribe, Ft. Yuma-Quechan Tribe, and Colorado River Indian Tribe

are currently located along the Colorado River and its confluence with the Gila River. Places

important to these groups include areas along the Gila River, and may extend into the far western

portion of the Planning Area.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Tribal Interests August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 347

3.5.2. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & PUBLIC SAFETY

Government records document known and recognized sites of reported hazardous materials and

wastes. These sites include facilities that handle hazardous materials and, in some cases, produce

hazardous wastes. Most of the facilities in the Planning Area successfully manage the use of these

products and wastes, but activities at some can contaminate soil, water, and air.

Although many facilities using hazardous materials, housing underground storage tanks, and

producing hazardous wastes are located within the Planning Area, no contaminated sites on public

lands within the Lower Sonoran or SDNM are privately owned. There is one State-owned site

on State property adjacent to the SDNM where millions of discarded tires are stored. The State

currently is attempting to remediate the site.

The BLM is assessing hazardous-waste contamination resulting from past mining activities within

the Planning Area. As risks to human health and the environment are determined, the BLM will

take appropriate action to remove the contamination and remediate, as appropriate and feasible.

In addition to hazardous materials and waste risks, other issues affecting public safety are natural

and human-made hazards. These hazards include abandoned mines, motor vehicles operated on

roads and primitive BLM roads, unsafe target shooting practices, and cross-border smuggling

activities. In general, abandoned mine-related public safety trends are static. For other hazards,

associated risks may increase over time because more people are visiting and using public lands.

3.5.2.1. Landfills and Wildcat Dumping

Seven active landfills are located within the Planning Area. They include the Butterfield Station

Landfill in Mobile; the Southwest Regional Landfill, located east of SR 85 and north of the

SDNM; the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Regional Landfill, located north of SR

87; the Allied Waste Landfill, located in Queen Creek; the Waste Management Seventh Avenue

Landfill, located in south Phoenix; the Weinberger Landfill, located in south Phoenix; and a

new facility, the SR 85 Landfill, located along the western side of the SDNM within Buckeye’s

municipal boundaries. There are no landfills located directly within the Decision Areas.

“Wildcat dumping” occurs frequently on public lands and is a significant hazardous and

non-hazardous waste issue. This refers to trash left by individuals in areas other than regulated

landfills and most commonly occurs near urban-interface areas. Occurrences range in severity

and volume, and discarded items include, but are not limited to, construction debris, household

trash, appliances, tires, oil and waste fluids, paper goods, and other unwanted items. It is likely

that, as the population grows and urban encroachment increases, this trend also will increase.

Wildcat dumping occurs near the Lower Sonoran’s urban-interface (e.g. Ajo, Saddle Mountain,

southern Rainbow Valley, Haley, and Buckeye Hills). Wildcat dumping also occurs near the

northern part of the Monument near established recreational-use sites, especially along roadways.

Many of these sites also are associated with littering by people engaged in recreational activities

(Foti and Patterson 2003). Undocumented immigrants and drug smugglers also produce copious

amounts of trash concentrated along roads, in staging and pick up/drop off areas, and dispersed

throughout the SDNM. Similar smuggling-related problems occur in the Ajo Block and Sentinel

Plains.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety
348 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Another form of waste involves litter from visitors recreating on public lands. Such litter can

include target-shooting debris, trash, and human waste and is found in the highest concentrations

at campsites, trailheads, and other high-use areas. Incidences of littering from recreational users

have increased, with further increases likely.

3.5.2.2. Active and Abandoned Mines

Abandoned mines are found throughout the Lower Sonoran and SDNM. Data gathered by the

Office of the Arizona State Mine Inspector in the early 1990s and the Bureau of Mines in 1995

show that more than 180 active and abandoned mines are located in the Decision Areas. Five

abandoned mines have been found within the Ajo Block and at least eight in the Sand Tank

Mountains (Arizona State Department of Mineral Resources 1979).

Mining activities may have historically included the use or presence of mercury, cyanide,

arsenic, acids, and/or base metals as a component of the ore being mined. Another source of

contamination sometimes occurs when hazardous materials are dumped into old mine shafts. In

addition, mine tailings located at active and closed mine sites pose potential hazardous effects,

including leaching of chemicals into the soil and/or groundwater and airborne hazardous wastes.

Visitors often find abandoned mines and prospects attractive to explore, but entering abandoned

mining sites may expose them to hazards including open and unstable shafts, adits, drifts, pits,

tailings piles, wells, or other excavations; dilapidated and unstable buildings or other structures;

collapsed buildings or other structures; mining implements or construction debris; and the

presence of hazardous or toxic materials. Injury can occur when entering or exploring features

at abandoned mining sites. No specific data documents the extent to which this recreational

activity is pursued within the Decision Areas.

While hazardous situations are corrected when found, there are numerous historical mines in the

Decision Areas not thoroughly investigated or documented. The BLM is researching and ranking

the human health and safety risks from known abandoned mine sites in order to develop long-term

reclamation, remediation, and restoration projects.

The BLM has developed an inventory of high-risk, abandoned mine lands to prioritize funding

requests for the restoration and reclamation of these sites. Over time, these actions are expected to

decrease their numbers, thus decreasing both the hazardous waste and public safety risks.

3.5.2.3. Military Operations and Unexploded Ordnance

The Sand Tank Mountains and Sentinel Plain are adjacent to aviation weapon ranges in the BGR

used to train military aircrews in the delivery of air-to-ground bombs, rockets, missiles, and

gunnery. Unexploded ordnance refers to military munitions that have been prepared for action

and remain unexploded by either malfunction, design, or any other cause. Entry into the range

is prohibited because of ongoing military operations; however, signs and fences typically are

inadequate or absent. Visitors to the Sand Tank Mountains area of the SDNM are required to

obtain an annual BGR visitor permit, which includes an explanation of the risks of unexploded

ordnance and guidance on avoiding them, as well as a warning not to enter the active training

range.

Known and potential unexploded ordnance contamination exists in and around the Sand Tank

Mountains (formerly known as Area A) and the Sentinel Plain due to the longtime inclusion of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 349

these areas in the BGR. Unexploded ordnance also possesses a potential chemical hazard due to

explosive, pyrotechnic, propellant, and incendiary components (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

1995).

Most of the fired and detonated munitions are eliminated during clearances; however, some likely

remain. Also undetermined is the extent to which chemical byproducts produced by the firing

and/or detonation of munitions are present in the area. Studies suggest that, while possible,

contamination from these byproducts is unlikely (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995; U.S. Air

Force 1996, 1997). Unexploded ordnance represents an immediate public safety hazard. Unspent

munitions may be located on the ground’s surface or buried beneath due to the momentum

of impact. In addition, recent studies on the Sentinel Plain have identified large numbers of

parachute flares, and such flares are continuing to drop into the area from military activities. The

BLM and the Air Force also will continue to work together to identify other procedures, such as

required visitor entry permits, to protect the public from such hazards.

The BGR has removed and cleaned up unexploded ordnance in the Sand Tank Mountains and

is inventorying lands formerly part of the BGR in the Sentinel Plain area. When addressing

unexploded ordnance elsewhere in the Decision Areas, the BLM works closely with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to monitor the remediation of unexploded ordnance sites. As a

cooperating agency, the BLM participates in regular discussions with the Corps.

3.5.2.4. Recreational Target Shooting

Shooting activities including “target shooting,” “shooting practice,” “plinking,” “sporting clays,”

“skeet,” and “sighting-in” have been occurring in the Decisions Areas since firearms were

introduced to the region. Target shooting commonly occurs on lands at the edge of private

property, on the outskirts of communities, or in remote areas offering unstructured settings.

Such settings are attractive because they accommodate a typically desired experience, and the

participant is free to shoot whatever firearm is available in whatever manner desired, usually

without fear of harming or interfering with the interests of other people.

With the population growth and subsequent urbanization of the American West in the 21st

Century, the edges of property have become closer, the outskirts of communities more crowded,

remote areas fewer, shooting closures more common, and “downrange” target sites both larger

and more numerous. Target shooters are being pushed farther out from metropolitan areas seeking

lands (private, State, and Federal) for target shooting. Urban growth and development have made

it increasingly difficult for target shooters to find unstructured areas without affecting other users

or natural resources. It is harder yet to find settings that can absorb continued deposition of

destroyed and abandoned targets without becoming eyesores with an associated and perhaps an

irretrievable loss of natural or heritage resources, Monument objects, and wildlife habitat.

Challenges for management of recreational shooting are clearly related to increased urbanization

adjacent to public lands, the need for public safety, and the protection of Monument objects and

natural resources. In and of itself, larger populations bring higher percentages of irresponsible

people to these public landscapes. Commonly, other recreational visitors are displaced when

target shooters occupy an area. Initially, this displacement is a result of the sights and sounds of

shooting; later the lands are too littered and denuded to attract visitors seeking a non-shooting

recreation experience.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety
350 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Increasingly, Arizona's broad public demand for places to shoot is being shifted to public lands

managed by the BLM. Continued demographic changes in Arizona are straining the limits of

where and how recreational target shooting can be accommodated. For example, the Arizona

State Lands Department has closed all their lands to all target shooting, the Tonto National Forest

has closed 80,000 acres of USFS lands in the Phoenix proximity to shooting, and various Phoenix

communities do not or no longer allow target shooting within incorporated limits.

Arizona’s BLM recreation management staff was internally canvassed to identify issues arising

from recreational shooting activities (BLM 2007). At that time, staff noted the following, which

are in order of priority:

● A concern for the health and safety of visitors engaged in non-shooting activities and residents

adjacent to public lands.

● Accumulation of abandoned household refuse used as targets, causing spending for regular

cleanups in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM. Such cleanups drain fiscal, labor, and volunteer

resources and supplant other program priorities.

● The gradual degradation or destruction of natural resources, such as intentional shooting of

saguaro cactus, and Monument objects in protected landscapes, such as the SDNM.

● Vandalism to SDNM and Monument signage and structures, from the use of signage for

targets and “drive-by” shotgunning to damage to remote infrastructure such as restroom doors

and slump block walls being shot through.

● Damage to natural resources or Monument objects downrange of target sites, such as visible

depletion of plant cover over time on slopes, delimbing of downrange trees, damage to trees

or saguaros used to hang targets, and permanent pockmarking of rock outcrops due to gunfire.

The extent of recreation impacts to the SDNM were analyzed during a comprehensive inventory

of all recreation sites visible from the vehicle route network (Foti and Chambers, 2005). Site

impacts were assessed for a variety of impact variables and categorized as “non-shooting sites”

or “shooting sites,” based primarily on the presence of shooting-related litter such as spent

ammunition casings and clay pigeons.

The inventory identified 243 recreation sites predominantly used for activities other than target

shooting and 63 sites predominantly used for target shooting. Impacts at the two types of sites

were analyzed to determine if significant differences existed between non-shooting and shooting

sites with respect to management of Monument objects and natural resources. The major types

of impacts relevant to this analysis were defined as follows: (1) damage to saguaro cactus, (2)

damage to rock formations, (3) damage to trees, (4) damage to shrubs, (5) presence of litter, (6)

presence of off-road vehicle impacts, and (7) number of 400 square foot barren cores. Every

recreational target-shooting site had damage to one or more of these seven impact elements, while

such impacts were significantly less prevalent at non-shooting sites.

Since designation of the SDNM in 2001, impacts from recreational target shooting have

increasingly become a management concern. Such impacts commonly include damage to

protected plants, particularly saguaro; areas denuded of vegetation, both at sites from which

shooting occurs and at target areas; and accumulation of debris used as targets, such as discarded

appliances, propane bottles, glassware, furniture, automobile tires, paint cans, computers, TV and

video displays, plywood, sheet metal, insulation form cans, and numerous other types of trash.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 351

Computer displays and electronics can be full of lead and other toxic materials. The safety of

other visitors, particularly with regard to inadequate backstops, is a concern as well.

Recreational target shooting is dispersed throughout the SDNM; however, the activity is

concentrated at locations adjacent to its northern boundary along the El Paso Natural Gas

Company pipeline road and smaller sites adjacent to SR 238 and Vekol Valley Road. During

October-November 2008, the BLM removed 12,000 pounds of debris from recreational target

shooting sites adjacent to the northern boundary of the Monument.

Field observations by resource managers and law enforcement officers indicate target-shooting

activities have become increasingly popular, especially near the growing fronts of the greater

Phoenix metropolitan area (Hanson and Mahoney; 2010), even in summer. New and more

powerful firearms used by target shooters may increase the public safety risk due to the distance

that bullets can travel. In addition, more frequent and widely spread recreational use of automatic

weapons has also been noted. Although there have been no reported incidents of specific harm to

people, these activities remain largely unregulated and pose potential public safety risks.

Further discussion of target shooting on the SDNM can be found in Section 3.3.4, “Recreation

Management” (p. 330) and in Appendix G, Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreational

Target Shooting Analysis (p. 1183). From a hazardous materials standpoint, popular

recreational-shooting sites may have minor potential for lead contamination in the soils derived

from spent bullets. Recreational shooting tends to be less frequent and more widely dispersed

than on an established shooting range where lead levels can exceed regulatory guidelines and

cause potential impacts to humans and wildlife. In addition, based on the composition of the hard,

rocky soil of the Sonoran Desert, it is unlikely that much of the lead has penetrated the surface

(U.S. Air Force et al. 2003).

3.5.2.5. Motor-Vehicle Operations

Hazardous wastes associated with motor-vehicle operations are generally limited to vehicle

abandonment and spills of oil and other fluids. While historically a small concern on public lands,

rock-crawling activities dramatically increase the risks of oil/fluid spills, often in sensitive washes

where waste movement via water flow is more likely. In addition, dumping and burning vehicles

is a common occurrence on public lands, leaving various hazardous wastes.

Safety issues associated with the use of paved public highways, unpaved backcountry roads, and

off-road areas may have implications for the management of or access to public lands. Available

data indicate that the highest numbers of accidents on public highways and roads in the Decision

Areas occur on I 8, SR 85, and SR 238/Maricopa Road. The lack of entrance or exit ramps or

crossovers to support safe traffic interchanges on I-8 and SR 85 indicates that there is at least some

elevated public safety risk associated with accessing public lands from these roads. Excessive

speed is the most common contributor to accidents on major roadways traversing public lands.

Four-wheel drive, ATV, and dirt bike use is common in the Decision Areas, and BLM

law-enforcement officers report that accidents among such users are a safety issue, although no

data quantifying the extent of such accidents in the Decision Areas are available. While vehicles

are required to stay on roads, illegal off-road travel does occur and increases user risk.

Regional population growth and increased awareness of public lands for recreational activities

has and will continue to provide more opportunities for transportation-based recreation in the

Decision Areas. As a result, dumping and burning of vehicles, abandonment associated with

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety
352 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

illegal border activities, and use, particularly associated with rock crawling activities, increases

the likelihood of small hazardous spills and wastes. Use of ATVs and other recreational vehicles

has increased, proportionately, increasing the risk to public safety. This trend is expected to

continue as population growth increases.

3.5.2.6. Other Permitted Uses

Utility maintenance, livestock grazing operations, and other permitted uses appear to present

minimal risk to visitors on public lands, but potentially could influence public safety. Mishaps

could result from collisions between livestock and vehicles, increased travel by large maintenance

vehicles, or encounters with agitated livestock. Visitor mishaps could also occur at utility sites

(e.g. communication or utility line towers) or range improvements (e.g. stock ponds, fences, or

wells). No known hazardous conditions associated with other permitted uses within the Decision

Areas have been identified.

3.5.2.7. Illegal Drug Production

Due to the remote nature of the Decision Areas, illegal drug production occurs across public lands.

While occurrences of these activities are rare, it is a major problem when they are discovered.

Byproducts from these illegal drug labs can include lye, acetone, red phosphorous, iodine crystals,

ephedrine, and other chemicals. In addition, the perpetrators sometimes abandon or bury their

supplies, including glassware and utensils. Materials left on site can present a public safety hazard

to visitors and employees, as well as impact natural resources. When encountered, these areas

typically are cleared by a BLM contractor hired for solid-waste cleanup (Kershaw 2003).

While the BLM does not have trend information regarding illegal drug production, the potential

exists for illegal laboratories to be established on public lands, most often in washes and other

low-lying areas and within abandoned mines. Specifically, production of illegal drugs has been

noted in 2005 and 2006 in areas with abandoned mines. The vast expanse of remote desert lands

with access through dry washes and off-road trails provides opportunities for such uses.

Within the SDNM, production of illegal drugs, including methamphetamine, has seen an increase

near SR 238. Waste from the production of this drug especially presents health hazards through

exposure and physical danger to visitors and BLM staff. There is a high risk of explosive

combustion in methamphetamine labs when materials are exposed to normal atmospheric

pressure. An increase in dumping of materials related to drug production was noted during late

spring 2009 near SR 238 and Tijeras Road. Field observations suggest that it is now spreading to

other BLM parcels within the vicinity of SR 238 and the Gas Pipeline road.

3.5.2.8. Drug Smuggling and Undocumented Immigrant Traffic

Illegal immigration and drug smuggling continue to be issues on public lands in the southwestern

border of the United States with Mexico. Illegal activities affect public lands within 100 miles of

the international boundary in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM.

The BLM collaborates with DOI agencies and state, tribal, and local governments to resolve

issues caused by illegal borderland activities. Partnership efforts include:

● Coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security to provide needed support and

coordination for deployment of border security infrastructure,

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 353

● Providing a leadership role in the mitigation of environmental impacts caused by illegal

immigration and smuggling,

● Strengthening communication and intelligence sharing with other law enforcement agencies,

particularly the U.S. Border Patrol, and

● Sharing funding with partner agencies, tribes, and organizations who manage lands within 100

miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Between FY 2003 and 2010, the BLM allocated $7 million toward these borderlands mitigation

efforts, including the removal of trash, waste, and abandoned vehicles; road and trail restoration;

and repair of damaged landscapes. Volunteer organizations participate in these critical efforts to

remediate and restore public lands.

Border security for BLM employees and visitors continues to be a challenge. Escalation of

drug-smuggling activities has created concerns for both the Lower Sonoran and SDNM. The BLM

has posted travel caution signs, increased interactions with visitors, and is providing additional

information at public access points and on websites.

Various areas of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM are used as travel routes by drug and UDA

smugglers and independent parties of UDAs. Regular use by human and drug smuggling

traffickers has become apparent over the last decade, with summertime lulls; however, over the

past two years, traffic has been intense year-round with no respite during the heat of summer.

The most heavily traveled routes for smuggler and UDA traffic are in the SDNM south of

I-8, where traffic is widespread and heavy. The Ajo Block and Sentinel Plain areas also have

received smuggler and UDA traffic. Law-enforcement activity in the Decision Areas typically

include the recovery of stolen vehicles abandoned by or confiscated from smugglers, recovery

of weapons, drug interdictions involving the seizure of illegal drugs, and the apprehension of

UDAs (Hanson 2010).

Law enforcement officers report that smugglers are often armed (Brasington 2010). Additionally,

UDAs are themselves very much at risk from exhaustion and exposure to the elements as they

attempt to walk considerable distances to reach pick-up points along I 8, SR 238, or other

locations. The increased risk to the UDAs lives and health, from climatic exposure and other

environmental hazards of the Decision Areas, has been clearly demonstrated by the number of

people dying trying to cross the Sonoran Desert in recent years.

Smuggler and UDA traffic through the Decision Areas has increased within the last decade, while

traffic in other regional areas has declined. This trend is due to the Decision Area’s proximity

to the United States/Mexico border (Brasington 2010), remote unpopulated terrain, and strong

interdiction efforts elsewhere, such as in California, New Mexico, and other parts of Arizona.

Increases in illegal and armed cross-border trafficking, coupled with increases in public visitation

to these areas, intensifies related public safety concerns.

3.5.2.9. Wildfires and Fire Management

Wildfires endanger people and property. Normally, the vegetative cover in the Decision Areas

is too sparse to carry wildland fires effectively or to generate fires with sufficient heat to be

self-propagating. Over the past decade, however, a long drought coupled with a few exceptionally

wet winters made atypical moderate to large wildland fires more common. There have been two

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety
354 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

moderately sized fires in the SDNM since establishment in 2001, and one extremely large fire

on the adjacent BGR. The potential for large fires may increase if fire adaptable invasive weeds

make further intrusions into the two Decision Areas. Additionally, changes in the ecosystems,

due to invasive species and long-term drought, may also increase the likelihood of fire, resulting

in larger areas being burnt, and thus more risks to the public.

3.5.3. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

This section provides information on the social and economic conditions of the Planning Area,

particularly as it relates to resource issues addressed in the current planning effort. Management

decisions, specifically those relating to energy and minerals, grazing, recreation, and lands and

realty, have the potential to affect social and economic conditions of communities and individuals,

negatively or positively.

This socioeconomic assessment considers the national, regional, and local levels identified below:

● United States: provides a baseline for comparison of national trends,

● State of Arizona: provides an indication of statewide trends,

● Tri-county region (Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties): provides an overview of the

counties that encompass the majority of Planning Area. In addition, a small portion of the

northeastern-most section of the Planning Area is located in Gila County.

● Local communities (Arlington, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Goodyear, Mobile, Palo Verde, Tolleson,

Tonopah, Casa Grande, Florence, Maricopa, Stanfield, Ajo, Why, Globe, and Miami):

provides specific information on communities located near the Decision Areas.

Indicators of the social and economic environment include population and demographic data

represented by population size, density, and growth; income levels; employment rates; ROWs and

other realty use of public lands; and attractiveness.

Four dominant social and economic trends in the socioeconomic study area include:

● Rapid population growth (though the rate of growth has slowed or even stopped since 2008);

● A decline in natural resource-based, extractive industries between the 1970s and 1980s and an

increase in high-tech, knowledge-intensive services since the 1990s;

● Retirement as an increasingly important source of non-labor income in the local economy; and

● A higher intensity of changes in employment and income trends in small, rural communities

compared to larger, urban areas.

3.5.3.1. Demographics

Population Growth

While the population of the United States has increased by 38 percent from 1970 to 2000, the

population of Arizona increased by 190 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2003d; Arizona Department

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 355

of Economic Security 2006). In this period, Maricopa County increased by 217 percent, Pinal

County increased by 165 percent, and Pima County increased by 140 percent.

Based on the July 2008 American Community Survey, the population of the tri-county region

was nearly 5.3 million, with nearly 4 million (75 percent) residing in Maricopa County, which

represents nearly 60 percent of the total population of Arizona Between 2000 and 2009, the

region’s population grew by 1,290,172 people.

Local population estimates, available for incorporated cities and towns, indicate that the City of

Maricopa had the fastest growth rate of any city or town in the State between 2000 and 2005,

while Buckeye and Goodyear had growth rates ranked sixth and seventh, respectively. Some

communities showed extremely slow population growth, such as the Gila County communities

of Globe and Miami. Population estimates and trends for eight communities near public lands

in the Planning Area are shown in Table 3.28, “Population Growth 2000 to 2008, Six Cities

and Towns near the Decision Area” (p. 355).

Table 3.28. Population Growth 2000 to 2008, Six Cities and Towns near the Decision Area

Population

Geographic Area

2000 2008 (estimate)

Percent Increase,

2000-2008

Maricopa County

Buckeye 8,497 47,261 623%

Gila Bend 1,980 1,831 -7.5%

Goodyear 18,911 59,508 214.7%

Tolleson 4,974 7,199 44.7%

Pinal County

Maricopa City 1,482 45,571 4,281.8%

Casa Grande 25,224 41,152 63.1%

Gila County

Globe 7,486 7,197 -3.9%

Miami 1,936 1,778 -8.2%

Source: American Community Survey 2009

Population Density

The most densely populated portion of the Planning Area is its northern edge, from Phoenix west

to Goodyear and from South Phoenix east nearly to the Maricopa County border. Portions of

Phoenix and other cities are close to “build-out” and have urban densities of about 2,500 people

per square mile. Nearby suburban areas are less densely populated (ranging down to about 1,000

people per square mile), with larger residential lot sizes and more pockets of vacant land.

Based on the 2009 American Community Survey, the population density in the three counties

varies significantly, from 430 people per square mile in Maricopa County to 61 in Pinal County

(see Table 3.29, “Selected 2008 Demographic Information” (p. 356)). Maricopa County's

population density is more than seven times that of the State's, while Pima County's population is

nearly twice as dense as the State's, while Pinal County's population is about the same as the State.

These numbers are indicative of the focus of the three counties, with Maricopa County being

strongly metropolitan and Pinal County being rural in many areas (American Community Survey

2009; Arizona Department of Commerce 2003b). Overall, each of the three counties has a much

lower density than the urban centers due to large, undeveloped areas that are largely comprised of

BLM-administered and other Federal lands as well as state trust lands within their borders.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
356 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 3.29. Selected 2008 Demographic Information

Demographic Category Maricopa

County

Pima County Pinal County Arizona

Total Population 3,954,598 1,012,018 327,301 6,500,180

Area (square miles) 9,203 9,186 5,370 113,635

People per Square Mile 429.7 110.2 60.9 57.2

Number % Number % Number % Number %

Sex

Male

1,993,117 49.6 495,889 49.0 170,524 52.1

3,256,5

90

50.1

Female

1,961,481 49.6 516,129 51.0 156,777 47.9

3,243,5

90

49.9

Age

Under 18 Years

1,083,560 27.4 240,860 23.8 84,444 25.8

1,083,5

60

26.3

18 to 64 Years

2,432,078 61.5 621,379 61.4 198,999 60.8

3,952,1

09

60.8

Age 65 and Older 438,960 11.1 149,779 14.8 43,858 13.4 838,523 12.9

Median Age 33.7 N/A 36. 7 N/A 34. 0 N/A 34.8 N/A

Race and Ethnicity

White

3,251,355 82.2 895,636 88.5 284,097 86.8

5,655,1

57

87.0

Black or African American 170,460 4.3 36,433 3.6 12,765 3.9 260,007 4.0

American Indian/ Alaska Native 73,474 1.9 34,409 3.4 19,965 6.1 305,508 4.7

Asian 114,414 2.9 26,312 2.6 5,237 1.6 162,505 2.5

Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander 7,152 0.2 2,024 0.2 327 0.1 13,000 0.2

Hispanic or Latino (any Race)*

1,224,005 31.0 330. 930 32.7 96,881 29.6

1,924,0

53

29.6

SOURCE: American Community Survey 2009

NOTE: N/A = not applicable

*Hispanic or Latino heritage includes people of other races, so percentages will not tally to 100 percent.

The city of Maricopa in Pinal County and the Rainbow Valley area of Maricopa County border

the Decision Areas. Both have privately owned land available for development. The collapse

in the Arizona housing market and the nationwide recession have slowed growth in these areas

since 2007, but development is expected to pick up again once the economic situation improves.

Maricopa eventually plans to house 125,000 residents with a predominantly high-density

development pattern (Maricopa 2006). Buckeye and Goodyear annexed the Rainbow Valley

area, and similar growth rates and housing densities are expected there in the coming decades.

Other areas, including Avondale, Buckeye, Goodyear, Casa Grande, and areas currently part of

unincorporated Maricopa County, are also expected to experience significant growth over the next

few decades (MAG 2003).

Population Composition

There are slight differences in racial distribution among the counties, primarily in the form of

differences in the proportion of American Indians due to the locations of American Indian

reservations. Further discussion of the Planning Area racial and ethnic profile is discussed in

Section 3.5.3.4, “Environmental Justice” (p. 367).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 357

Individuals who are foreign born represented 12.8 percent of the total population in Arizona in

2008, while 24 percent of the population in Phoenix was foreign-born (American Community

Survey 2009). This ranked the city sixth in the nation among other large cities in terms of the

percentage of foreign-born population.

3.5.3.2. Employment, Income, and Subsistence

The economy, in general, is shifting away from reliance on natural resources, as indicated in

the decrease in the proportion of employment in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining

industries. In the tri-county region, declines in the mining industry dominate this trend.

Employment

Over the past several decades, services, which include many of the knowledge-based professions,

were the largest employment sector in the tri-county region. The service sector made up 53.9

percent of total employment in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties in 2007, with a total of

1,604,453 jobs. Service jobs as a share of total jobs increased 32.3 percent from 2001 to 2007

for the tri-county region, especially in the areas of educational services (85.2 percent of total

tri-county employment in 2007); real estate (79.8 percent); business management (36.7 percent);

health care and social assistance (34.9 percent); and arts, entertainment, and recreation (28.7

percent). By comparison, farm employment in the tri-county region grew by 4.6 percent from

2001 to 2007 (employing 12,529 people in 2007), while forestry, fishing, and related sectors

shrank by 19.9 percent from 2001 to 2007 (employing 4,243 people in 2007). Farm proprietor

employment also shrank 4.7 percent from 2001 to 2007, further exemplifying the shift away

from natural resource-related employment in the Planning Area. Key employment figures for

each county in the tri-county region are presented in Table 3.30, “ Key Employment Statistics:

Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region” (p. 357).

Table 3.30. Key Employment Statistics: Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY*

Wage and Salary

Employment

Proprietors’

Employment

Total

Forestry,

fishing and

related

Mining Farming

Services and

Professional

MARICOPA COUNTY

2001 1,617,329 298,363 1,915,692 3,824 3,165 8,395 978,147

% of Total 84.4% 15.6% 100.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 51.1%

2007 1,924,699 452,812 2,377,511 3,160 4,360 8,671 1,293,557

% of Total 84.4% 15.6% 100.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0 4% 54.4%

PIMA COUNTY

2001 362,427 82,041 444,468 499 2,505 1,173 218,400

% of Total 81. 5% 18. 5% 100.0% 0. 1% 0. 6% 0. 3% 49. 1%

2007 406,446 122,404 528,850 373 2,616 1,135 284,136

% of Total 76.9% 23.1% 100.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.2% 53.7%

PINAL COUNTY

2001 43,101 9,115 52,216 972 1,348 2,415 15,948

% of Total 82.5% 17.5% 100.0% 1.9% 2.6% 4.6% 30.5%

2007 56,411 14,252 70,663 710 1,342 2,723 26,760

% of Total 79.8% 20.2% 100.0% 1.0% 1.9% 3.9% 37.9%

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010

*Employment by industry figures are by place of residence.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
358 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Between 1980 and 1990, employment in the agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining sector

decreased by 14.2 percent in Pinal County, 14.1 percent in Ajo, 7.4 percent in Casa Grande,

and 7.2 percent in Gila Bend. At the same time, the services sector share of local employment

increased 32.2 percent in Sells, 17.6 percent in Ajo, and 6.8 percent in Buckeye. By comparison,

the services sector share of local employment only increased by 4.9 percent in Maricopa County,

4.6 percent in Pima County, and 2.6 percent in Pinal County (Sonoran Institute 2003a).

Overall, key employment figures (see Table 3.30, “ Key Employment Statistics: Changes from

2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region” (p. 357)) indicate large gains in employment in the tri-county

region for the period between 1970 and 2000. Both wage and salary employment and the

establishment of new businesses by proprietors have generally kept pace with the increases in

population, land development, and housing. There have been shifts, however, in the dominant

employment sectors. The services and professional sector has grown faster than other sectors.

The regional trend matches the statewide trend whereby this sector provided approximately 75

percent of the new jobs in Arizona. In the tri-county region, and in each individual county and the

state, unemployment increased each decennial period between 1970 and 1990 (Sonoran Institute

2003a). However, unemployment rates in Maricopa and Pima counties have generally been

lower than the state national rates since 2000, while unemployment rates in Pinal County have

remained consistently higher than that of the state and nation (see Table 3.31, “Unemployment

Rates, Annual Averages 2000-2005” (p. 358)).

Table 3.31. Unemployment Rates, Annual Averages 2000-2005

Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

National 4.0 4.7 5.8 6.0 5.5 5.1

Arizona 4.0 4.7 6.0 5.7 4.9 4.6

Maricopa 3.3 4.2 5.6 5.2 4.4 4.1

Pima 3.7 4.3 5.6 5.3 4.6 4.6

Pinal 4.6 5.3 7.2 6.8 5.7 5.4

SOURCE: State of Arizona, Department of Economic Security 2006

Typically, Pinal County has had the highest unemployment rates; however, over the last several

years, its economy has become more robust and its unemployment rates are now more similar to

those of the other two counties. There are rural areas far from employment centers in all three

counties with chronically high unemployment rates.

Income

In 2008, Maricopa was the only county in the tri-county region with a median family income

value ($66,752) higher than that of the state of Arizona ($60,426). The median family income

was $57,972 for Pima County and $53,308 for Pinal County. The median family income, adjusted

for inflation, has risen in each county in the tri-county region since 1970.

In 2006, non-labor income constituted 40 percent of total personal income in Pima County, 38

percent of personal income in Pinal County, and 28 percent of total personal income in Maricopa

County Non-labor income includes transfer payments (primarily related to retirement) and

dividends, interest, and rent (money earned from past investments) (see Table 3.32, “Key Income

Statistics: Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region” (p. 359)). The median value for

non-labor income as a percentage of total personal income in all U. S. counties was 37.4 percent

in 2006. High levels of non-labor income have important implications for the management of

public lands because much of the income in this sector is brought in by individuals who are not

tied to a specific job or industry and have flexibility in where they choose to live. Examples of

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 359

people contributing this type of income include retirees and second- and vacation-home owners.

These groups tend to be attracted to areas with natural and scenic resources and the presence of

public lands, which offer recreational opportunities and a desirable setting in which to live. As a

percentage of new income from 1970 to 2006, non-labor income grew faster than labor income

in all three counties that comprise the Planning Area. From 1970 to 2006, non-labor sources of

income as a percentage of new income grew 5.5 percent a year in Maricopa County, 5.0 percent a

year in Pima County, and 6.6 percent a year in Pinal County.

Table 3.32. Key Income Statistics: Changes from 2001 to 2007, Tri-County Region

MARICOPA COUNTY PIMA COUNTY PINAL COUNTY

INCOME 2001 2007 %

Change

2001 2007 % Change 2001 2007 %

Change

Per Capita

Personal

Income

$29,238 $36,135 23.6% $24,706 $31,755 28.5% $19,082 $22,975 20.4%

Per Capita

Non-labor

Proportion*

28% 30% 32.3% 39.8% 41.6% 34.2% 36.9% 37.9% 23.7%

SOURCE: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2010

*Non-labor Income Proportion of Per Capita Personal Income

In 2001, 6,744 workers in the tri-county region were employed in the mining North American

Industry Classification System sector (which includes mining, oil and gas extraction, and support

activities for mining) and derived $355.3 million in personal income (U.S. Bureau of Economic

Analysis 2004). See Table 3.33, “Employment and Income in the North American Industry

Classification System” (p. 359) for employment and personal income numbers at the county and

state level. While Gila County’s active mines were in or near the Planning Area, data concerning

the county’s mines were undisclosed (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2004).

Table 3.33. Employment and Income in the North American Industry Classification System

Area Total Mining Employment Personal Income (in millions)

Maricopa County 2,984 $195.4

Pima County 2,426 $92.4

Pinal County 1,334 $67.5

Tri-County Region $355.3

Arizona 12,573

Source: U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2004

Mining Income

Mining yields secondary employment and income impacts on the economy. For example, it is

estimated that the jobs of nearly 23,000 Arizona residents resulted indirectly from the copper

industry’s presence in Arizona in 2002. About 2,600 of those jobs were in state and local

government, including public education. Another 8,300 were in trade and service businesses. In

2002, the personal income indirectly received by Arizona residents because of copper industry

spending in the State amounted to more than $560 million (Arizona Mining Association 2002).

Since 1910, Arizona has been the nation’s top copper producer, producing more copper than all

the other 49 states combined.

In the Planning Area, the Ajo and Globe/Miami areas have been most affected by the long-term

trends in mining. The mining industry supported the development of Ajo, which arose from

the Ajo Phelps Dodge copper mine and operated from the early 1930s until 1985. In 1980,

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
360 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

manufacturing of durable goods and agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and mining were the largest

SIC employment sectors in Ajo, but decreased greatly over the next 20 years while the service

sector increased greatly. By 2000, just 3.3 percent of employment in Ajo was in the agriculture,

forestry, fisheries, and mining (Sonoran Institute 2003a). An increased focus on tourism and

retirement industries in Ajo was, in part, responsible for the shifting of the workforce to the

services sector. The Globe/Miami area has also realized reductions in mining employment,

but community leaders are reviewing ways to enhance the tourism market and diversify their

economy (Arizona Department of Commerce 2003a).

Locatable Minerals. Locatable minerals, particularly copper and silver, have historically been

very important to both Arizona's and the Panning Area's economy (Niemuth 2006). Arizona’s

total mineral production from operating all 160 mines in the state valued at $2.8 billion in 2000

and $2.2 billion in 2001 (Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 2003). The value

of non-fuel mineral production per capita in 2000 was estimated at $474 for Arizona, compared to

the $139 national average, making Arizona sixth in the nation for mineral production per capita.

Active locatable mineral mines in Arizona employed 11,676 workers in Arizona in 2002 (Arizona

State Mine Inspector 2002). Of these, approximately 1,100 workers (9.4 percent) were employed

in or near the Decision Areas, mainly in Gila County, where 1,012 workers were employed

by locatable mineral mines. Over two-thirds of those working in the Gila County mines were

primarily employed within or near the Decision Areas. Sixty-three workers were employed at

active mines within or near the decisions areas in Pinal County, which represented only 5.3

percent of all workers employed at active mines in Pinal County.

Salable Minerals. Salable mineral development is active in the Decision Areas, where the

predominant mineral materials are decorative rock and building stone (e.g. granite, weathered

granite, basalt and other volcanics, and cinders). In Arizona, approximately 10 million tons of

decorative rock was produced in 2006, of which approximately 1 million tons, or 10 percent, were

produced in the Lower Sonoran. Decorative rock is also an important commodity in Arizona,

with production value increasing from approximately $48 million in 2000, with a high of $76

million in 2004. Non-industrial sand and gravel has become increasingly important in Arizona.

Its production value has increased from approximately $300 million in 2000 to $560 million in

2006. In addition, from 1991 to 2001, the production value of non-industrial sand and gravel has

quadrupled (Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 2002) and continued to increase

yearly through 2004 (Niemuth 2003, 2005). See Table 3.34, “Comparison of National, State, and

Decision Area Trend in Decorative Rock Values” (p. 360) for national and local comparisons

in value. Sand and gravel operations in the Planning Area occur primarily on private, Native

American, and Arizona State Land Department lands, with lands in the Decision Areas being only

a minor component. Total mineral production value in the Lower Sonoran has increased in parallel

with the regional trend, growing from approximately $6.9 million in 2003 to $7.6 million in 2006,

ranging from 6 percent to 14 percent of the total decorative rock production value in the State.

Table 3.34. Comparison of National, State, and Decision Area Trend in Decorative Rock

Values

Year United States Arizona Lower Sonoran

% of AZ value

produced in Lower

Sonoran

Lower Sonoran

Royalties

Produced

2000 $8,290,000,000 $48,200,000 N/A N/A N/A

2001 $8,870,000,000 $49,600,000 N/A N/A N/A

2002 $8,650,000,000 $51,500,000 N/A N/A N/A

2003 $9,060,000,000 $49,100,000 $6,900,000 14. 1% $689,061. 74

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 361

Year United States Arizona Lower Sonoran

% of AZ value

produced in Lower

Sonoran

Lower Sonoran

Royalties

Produced

2004 $9,890,000,000 $75,900,000 $4,900,000 6. 5% $490,192. 82

2005 $12,100,000,000 $69,300,000 $4,800,000 6. 9% $479,710. 46

2006 $12,900,000,000 $60,000,000 $7,600,000 12. 7% $760,506. 97

Sources: USGS Survey Minerals Yearbooks 2002-2005 for Crushed Rock and Sand and Gravel/Construction;

USGS Mineral Industrial Survey 2007; LR2000, BLM records

Livestock Grazing and Agriculture Income

Grazing permits issued by the BLM in the Planning Area constitute about one-third of the

grazing permits issued in the tri-county region, including those issued by the Arizona State Land

Department, USFS, American Indian communities, and others (U.S. Department of Agriculture

[USDA] 1997).

The acreage of land in ranches and farms continues to decline in the tri-county region. Increasing

population growth and urbanization have correlated with a decline in traditional, rural-oriented

industries such as ranching and farming. This may be due largely to the consumption of land for

urban development and an overall shift towards a service-oriented economy. In the tri-county

region, income in the agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and other sector has remained

relatively flat over the past 30 years, although there has been a slight increase since the late 1980s.

Between 1997 and 2002, there was an overall increase in the market value of agricultural products

sold throughout Arizona. Data for the tri-county region show the greatest increase in Pima

County (40 percent, to $68.9 million), and the least in Maricopa County (9.1 percent, to $740.2

million). The livestock market value increase was greatest in Pinal County (41.7 percent, to

$247 million) and increases in both Maricopa and Pima counties were at rates greater than the

statewide average (USDA 2004).

In 2000, farm and agricultural services accounted for 0.9 percent (16,184 jobs) of employment in

the tri-county region: 6.3 percent (3,841 jobs) in Pinal County, 0.9 percent (3,192 jobs) in Pima

County, and 0.6 percent (9,151 jobs) in Maricopa County. In 1999, earnings associated with the

agricultural services, forestry, fishing, and other sector were $82.0 million or 0.9 percent of total

earnings in Pima County, and 439.4 million or 0.8 percent of total earnings in Maricopa County.

By comparison, total earnings in this sector in Arizona were $773.0 million or 1.09 percent of

total earnings for the state (Sonoran Institute 2003a).

Recreation Income

Much of the recreational activity on public lands qualifies as tourism, which is one of Arizona’s

leading industries and is the dominant industry in most communities (U.S. Department of

Commerce 2003a). In 2000, an estimated 29.5 million domestic and international overnight

visitors to Arizona and 19.3 million day-trip visitors spent 15.8 billion in tourism dollars (Pollack

2002). The overall economic impact from these tourism dollars is estimated to be nearly $30

billion. In addition, the fiscal impact (revenues from local, county, and state government

taxes) totaled $1.3 billion and supported more than 451,600 jobs in Arizona, including direct,

indirect, and induced jobs created by the industry. These jobs equate to about 20 percent of total

employment in the State. Based on averages of jobs per household and people per household, the

tourism industry supported about 382,000 households, or an estimated population of 1 million.

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
362 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Key reasons cited for tourism in Arizona are outdoor recreation opportunities and open space,

which are prevalent assets in the Planning Area. The Planning Area extends over four of Arizona’s

seven tourism regions identified by the Arizona Office of Tourism: the Metro Phoenix Region,

which includes the SDNM as well as Lower Sonoran lands surrounding the Monument; the West

Coast Region, which includes the Gila Bend Mountains and Saddle Mountain area; the South

Central/East Region, which includes the Ajo Block; and the East Central Region, which includes

the Globe/Miami Area. Annual visitation in these four regions is 19.4 million, while annual

visitation in Arizona is 25.1 million. A large portion of tourism in the rural communities originates

from the greater Phoenix and greater Tucson areas (Arizona Department of Commerce 2003a).

While all forms of recreation affect the current economic climate of the Planning Area and

Decision Areas, only a few have been closely examined for their economic influence. These

include wildlife-related recreational activities (i.e. hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing), OHV

use, and visiting cultural and historic sites.

In 2001, there were 1.7 million Arizona residents and non-residents (16 years old and older) that

fished, hunted, or viewed wildlife in Arizona and spent in excess of $1.6 billion in the State: $512

million on trip-related expenditures; $1.0 billion on equipment purchases; and $67 million on

licenses, contributions, land ownership and leasing, and other items and services (USFWS and

U. S. Department of Commerce; U.S. Census Bureau 2001a). According to BLM estimates,

$203 million was spent on wildlife-related recreation on public lands in Arizona in 2002, with

$41.7 million being spent by hunters, $16.2 million by anglers, and $145.1 million by wildlife

viewers (BLM 2002c). See Table 3.35, “2001 Economic Impacts of Wildlife Viewing (in $

millions)” (p. 362) for a quantification of the economic impacts of wildlife viewing.

Table 3.35. 2001 Economic Impacts of Wildlife Viewing (in $ millions)

Expenditures

Total Multiplier

Effect

Full- and

Part-Time Jobs

Salaries and

Wages

State Tax

Revenues

Maricopa County $368.3 $690.4 6,603 $192.8 $25.8

Pima County $173.5 $326.5 3,196 $90.7 $12.2

Pinal County $50.9 $96.0 949 $26.6 $3.6

Total for Tri-county Region $592.7 $1,112.9 $41.6

Total for Arizona $820.7 $1,542.9 15,058 $429.4 $57.6

SOURCE: Southwick Associates 2003

In comparison, consumptive wildlife-related recreation (i.e. hunting and fishing) created a total

statewide impact of $1.34 billion, based on $958.5 in direct expenditures and an estimated 17,190

jobs in Arizona.

The tri-county region accounted for $642.9 million of the statewide impact and 6,865 jobs.

Table 3.36, “2001 Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing (in $ millions)” (p. 362) shows the

breakdown in economic impacts of hunting and fishing for each county in the tri-county region.

Table 3.36. 2001 Economic Impacts of Hunting and Fishing (in $ millions)

Expenditures

Total Multiplier

Effect

Full- and

Part-Time Jobs

Salaries and

Wages

State Tax

Revenues

Maricopa County $409.1 $515.0 5,382 $103.0 $21.1

Pima County $84.5 $105.0 1,187 $18.3 $5.4

Pinal County $20.0 $22.9 296 $3.8 $0.9

Total for Tri-county Region $513.6 $642.9 6,865 $125.1 $27.4

Total for Arizona $958.5 $1,340.0 17,190 $314.0 $58.2

SOURCE: AGFD Department 2003

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 363

The AGFD and Arizona State Parks (2003) estimated that recreation activities involving OHV

use in Arizona created a statewide impact of $4.25 billion, including secondary impacts (see

Table 3.37, “2002 Economic Impacts of OHV Recreation Activity (in $ millions” (p. 363)) and

supports an estimated 36,951 jobs. About 60 percent of the total economic benefit and slightly

less than half of the jobs occurred in the tri-county region.

Table 3.37. 2002 Economic Impacts of OHV Recreation Activity (in $ millions

Expenditures

Total Multiplier

Effect

Full- and

Part-Time Jobs

Salaries and

Wages

State Tax

Revenues

Maricopa County $1,358.1 $1,787.1 13,113 $428.9 $3.3

Pima County $323.6 $403.5 3,307 $84.3 $17.7

Pinal County $135.3 $152.7 1,099 $24.2 $5.9

Total for Tri-county Region $1,817.0 $2,343.3 17,519 $537.4 $26.9

Total for Arizona $3,055.7 $4,252.0 36,951 $1,088.0 $187.0

SOURCE: AGFD Department and Arizona State Parks 2003

One of the fastest growing segments of the tourism industry in Arizona is cultural heritage

tourism. An estimated 59 percent of the visitors to Arizona tour historic sites, and 28 percent

visit historical museums. A study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation found that

nationally, heritage tourists stay on average a half-day longer and spend $62 a day more than

typical tourists. In Arizona, cultural heritage tourists spent $1,534 during their stay (as compared

to $389 for typical travelers) in 1997, and their propensity to shop was 20 percent greater (Arizona

Humanities Council 2000). Cultural heritage tourism sites in the Decision Areas include the Juan

Bautista de Anza/Butterfield Stage Trail, Painted Rocks petroglyph site, Sundad, historic mining

sites, historic ranching sites, and various other cultural sites.

Economic Impact of Lands and Realty

Indicators of social and economic conditions as they relate to the BLM lands and realty program

are drawn from land tenure adjustments and ROWs, permits, leases, and easements that have

economic activity. The trend in land tenure adjustments, either acquisitions or disposals, has been

a decrease in activity over the last 20 years. Only a few land tenure adjustments had occurred

since the mid 1980s compared to years prior.

Rights of Way, Permits, Leases and Easements

The ROWs currently accommodated in the Planning Area support several large utility companies

providing power, telephone, and natural gas service to the southwestern United States. These

include El Paso Natural Gas, Southwest Gas, SRP, Arizona Public Service (APS), U. S. West

Communication, Tucson Electric Power, as well as Arizona Water Conservation District, which

is the State of Arizona's entity responsible for operating, maintaining, and repaying the Federal

government for the Central Arizona Project). The ROWs for roads, railroads, and associated

transportation facilities support the flow of commerce in southern Arizona and northwestern

Mexico. These include I-8, I-10, SR 85, SR 238, and Southern Pacific Railroad. These links also

connect people as they support multiple forms of communication and travel and support a wide

range of commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Data are not readily available to quantify

the economic value of these relative to the Decision Areas; however, the aggregate social and

economic ties to these ROWs are recognized as significant.

Renewable Energy Resources

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
364 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

There is high potential for the development of solar energy throughout the Planning Area.

Development of solar sites has accelerated considerably within Arizona between 2000 and 2006

(APS 2006; Tucson Electric Power 2006); however, no sites are present in the Decision Areas.

Due to high energy demands that are on the increase and climatic conditions that are conducive

to solar energy, the trend for solar energy development the Planning Area involves increases in

employment and income generated from solar energy production. However, nine applications for

renewable energy development sites in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area are pending. There is

little or no potential for industrial development of wind energy or biomass in the Decision Areas,

and there is no trend for their use.

Renewable energy facility development on public lands, including collection or processing,

generation, and transmission requires an ROW grant. Currently there are no approved ROW

grants for solar, wind, or biomass energy development within the Decision Areas. The Planning

Area has potential for solar development due to contiguous large land masses, high solar radiation,

and relatively flat ground (Map 3-16: Mineral Estate). There are several solar sites that may be in

operation by 2014 in the Planning Area on private land, but none in the Decision Areas (Arizona

Public Service [APS] 2006; Tucson Electric Power 2006). Historically, solar energy production

has not been a large source of employment or income in Arizona, but with the recent interest in

solar development, some manufacturing plants have located to the Phoenix area.

Economic Impact of Public Finance and Government Services

Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILT) payments are Federal payments to local governments that help

to offset losses in property taxes due to nontaxable Federal lands within county and municipal

boundaries. These payments are used for services including education, water, and transportation

and are based on a formula whose principal criterion is the number of Federal acres within the

locality. The number of qualified acres is multiplied by a dollar amount per acre set by law.

Payments are subject to certain population-size-based limits and annual congressional program

funding limits. The entitlement acreages have varied slightly over recent years, but the relative

share of agency PILT payments has remained constant. See Table 3.38, “2009 PILT Entitlement

Acreage by Federal Agency ” (p. 364) for PILT payments in the tri-county region for 2009.

Table 3.38. 2009 PILT Entitlement Acreage by Federal Agency

Area BLM USFS

Bureau of

Reclamation

NPS

Army

Corps

of Engineers

USFWS Total

BLM

as

% of

Total

Maricopa

County

1,749,122 657,723 30,832 11 2,478 0 2,440,166

71.68

%

Pima County 377,496 389,871 5,933 410,821 0 416,210 1,600,331

23.59

%

Pinal County 382,231 222,889 19,095 358 0 0 624,688

61.19

%

Arizona 12,201,796 11,255,164 234,528 2,666,418 7,192 1,567,498 27,932,596

43.68

%

SOURCE: Department of the Interior 2010

Overall, revenues and expenditures in the tri-county region have been increasing in proportion

with population growth. PILT payments have been increasing steadily from 1999 to 2009. See

Table 3.39, “ PILT Payment and Entitlement Acreage” (p. 365).

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 365

Table 3.39. PILT Payment and Entitlement Acreage

Year Area Payment Total Acres BLM Portion*

Maricopa County $969,069 2,309,656 $675,441

Pima County $998,178 1,527,086 $201,632

Pinal County $377,565 516,901 $199,732

1999

Arizona $10,275,296 27,580,348 $4,469,754

Maricopa County $1,019,264 2,299,643 $713,485

Pima County $1,061,362 1,527,386 $214,395

Pinal County $396,290 516,581 $209,637

2000

Arizona $11,005,635 27,562,016 $4,798,457

Maricopa County $1,465,414 2,299,602 $1,025,790

Pima County $1,529,516 1,527,956 $308,962

Pinal County $568,264 516,581 $300,612

2001

Arizona $16,057,080 27,566,920 $7,000,887

Maricopa County $1,539,003 2,299,624 $1,077,302

Pima County $1,618,859 1,528,206 $327,010

Pinal County $599,120 516,581 $295,774

2002

Arizona $16,928,055 27,582,635 $7,380,632

Maricopa County $1,725,495 2,307,190 $1,202,670

Pima County $1,841,427 1,530,972 $370,127

Pinal County $673,798 518,313 $355,092

2003

Arizona $18,045,248 27,668,453 $7,831,638

Maricopa County $1,775,295 2,456,262 $1,272,531.46

Pima County $1,901,776 1,599,417 $448,628.96

Pinal County $842,978 626,905 $515,818.24

2004

Arizona $18,698,143 27,890,328 $8,167,348.86

Maricopa County $1,813,162 2,458,021 $1,299,674.52

Pima County $1,930,009 1,599,452 $455,289.12

Pinal County $861,637 626,902 $527,235.68

2005

Arizona $19,233,714 27,885,022 $8,401,286.28

Maricopa County $1,858,155 2,457,360 $1,331,925.50

Pima County $1,925,348 1,600,332 $454,189.59

Pinal County $868,239 627,294 $531,275.44

2006

Arizona $19,023,415 27,869,615 $8,309,427.67

Maricopa County $1,844,364 2,457,368 $1,322,040.12

Pima County $1,902,625 1,600,331 $448,829.24

Pinal County $858,776 627,294 $525,485.03

2007

Arizona $19,098,223 27,872,586 $8,342,103.81

Maricopa County $2,915,379 n/a $2,089,743.67

Pima County $3,003,013 n/a $708,410.77

Pinal County $1,374,260 n/a $840,909.69

2008

Arizona $30,674,473 n/a $13,398,609.81

Maricopa County $2,997,005 2,440,166 $2,148,253.18

Pima County $3,073,106 1,600,331 $724,945.71

Pinal County $1,403,450 624,688 $858,771.06

2009

Arizona $31,662,123 27,932,596 $13,830,015.33

SOURCE: Department of the Interior 2010

NOTE: *The BLM portion is based on entitlement acreage; refer to Table 3.21, “ Leasable Mineral Potential

Lower Sonoran & SDNM” (p. 327)

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
366 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3.5.3.3. Attractiveness of the Decision Areas

Open Space

During this planning process, there were many public comments regarding the role of public lands

for recreation and open space. The value of open space often is cited as a non-market value of

public lands. A study conducted in 2000 reported the loss of open land, including agricultural and

desert lands, in the metropolitan Phoenix portion of the study area. In the same study, the Sonoran

Desert was identified as a major part of what makes metropolitan Phoenix unique and gives it a

special character. Losing huge tracts of land threatens the region with the loss of its most famous

lifestyle and environmental assets (Morrison Institute for Public Policy 2000).

There is a perception that the public lands will help insulate communities from growth and

provide open space and related modest economic growth. There is also support for planning and

policy decisions to control growth to be made in collaboration with the BLM and the broader

context of neighboring communities and the county. Strong sentiment was expressed in the

communities to maintain BLM ownership of the lands to limit growth and provide open space

(Sonoran Institute 2003b)

Across the nation, parks and protected open space have been increasingly recognized as vital to

the quality of life that fuels economic health. As the nation moves toward a mixed economy

based on services, light industry, consumer goods, and new technologies, businesses and their

employees are no longer tied to traditional industrial centers. Businesses looking to relocate or

expand prefer communities with a high quality of life, which includes an abundance of open

space and nearby recreation. The economic value of parks and green space has long been

established and demonstrated by increased demand and pricing of park-side properties (Trust for

Public Lands 1999).

The effect on property values of a location near open space has been the subject of several studies.

Studies have attempted to isolate the effect of open space from other variables that can affect

property values, such as age, square footage, and condition of homes. Isolating the effect of open

space can be difficult and results have been varied. Nevertheless, many studies have revealed

increases in property values in instances where the property is located near or adjacent to open

spaces (NPS 1995). Relative property values were found to be higher near South Mountain Park,

an area similar in character to much of the Decision Areas but located more closely to the Phoenix

Metropolitan Area (Maricopa County 2002b).

While the trend in the Planning Area has been a loss of open space, the Decision Areas have

been maintained as natural desert landscapes. To accommodate increased population growth,

development in Arizona is occurring in the form of planned communities in former rural

areas, creating needs for goods and services and placing demands on public services. These

new communities are also replacing agricultural lands and open spaces. Between 1960 and

1990, Phoenix’ urbanized area grew 199 percent while the population increased 263 percent.

Calculations from aerial photographs show that between 1975 and 1995, some 40 percent of all

agricultural land and 32 percent of all undeveloped desert land was lost to urbanization (Morrison

Institute for Public Policy 2000).

Sense of Place

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 367

Galliano and Loeffler (1999) define sense of place as a “link between social experiences and

geographic areas.” Through association and interaction with geographic areas, whether physically,

spiritually, or through various media, people form values that are attached to geographic places.

Place attachment is customarily passed down through generations (Galliano and Loeffler 1999).

The assessment of place-based values helps to identify and understand the values that people

attach to the lands and resources within the Decision Areas. Understanding issues regarding the

sense of place assists land managers in understanding resource and land use conflicts and how to

approach them most effectively. Things that contribute to sense of place may include personal

memory, community history, physical landscape appearance, and emotional attachment (Galliano

and Loeffler 1999). Sense of place is subjective, and individuals or groups of people may develop

a sense of place based on perceptions about amenities (e.g. recreational opportunities), historic or

symbolic activities and places, or landscape and scenic vistas.

The identification of sense of place issues associated with the study area is based on continuing

public and agency comment. Five community socioeconomic workshops that occurred in

November and December of 2003 were held in Ajo, Buckeye, Gila Bend, Mobile, and Tonopah

to discuss values people associate with their community and how they, in partnership with the

BLM, can protect these values based on current and predicted trends in population growth. The

vision the communities described for themselves during the workshops was consistent: they all

expressed the desire to maintain their current quality of life and general rural character while

gaining additional amenities in their communities (e.g. better jobs, restaurants and movie theatres,

and community services). They all included some values about the natural environment, their

communities, and the role of public lands for recreation and open space. Some of the commonly

expressed values among all the communities included wildlife, flora and fauna, rural character,

solitude/peacefulness/quiet/ remoteness, “small town” character, and open space. Many expressed

the values of accessing public lands for a wide range of uses (Sonoran Institute 2003b).

Protection of the ecological landscape (e.g. wildlife and habitat) was identified as a priority

by many individuals throughout scoping. The potential for conflict with livestock grazing and

recreational activities such as motorized vehicle use and recreational shooting, among other

concerns, was raised when wildlife and habitat protection were perceived as a top priority for

public lands. Some people also supported ranching activities in the area as a means to preserve

open space and the area’s Western heritage, and to promote stewardship.

Many of the sites visited by tourists also contribute to Planning Area residents’ sense of place.

Local residents also value many prehistoric and historic sites that are not formally designated.

Some scoping participants characterized both ranching and mining as an important basis of the

area’s sense of place. The complex cultural issues that contribute to a sense of place include

issues of site protection, issues of tribal and family history, in addition to issues involving public

access and education.

3.5.3.4. Environmental Justice

Bureau of Land Management environmental justice policy calls for the fair treatment and

meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income

with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people, including racial, ethnic,

or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
368 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of

Federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

Fair treatment also means that the BLM cannot cause a disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effect during implementation of its programs, policies, and

activities on minority populations, low-income populations, and Native American tribes.

The BLM performed the following analyses to identify populations to be considered for

environmental justice issues. After identification of the populations eligible for consideration

under environmental justice guidelines, the BLM then considered what effects, if any, agency

actions might have on specific populations.

For purposes of this analysis, minorities and low-income populations are defined as:

● “Minorities” describes people of Hispanic or Latino origin of any race, Blacks, American

Indian/Alaska Natives, and Asians or Pacific Islanders (without double-counting people of

Hispanic/Latino origin who also are contained in the racial groups).

● “Low-income” describes people living below the poverty level. The U.S. Census Bureau

uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who

is below the poverty level. The most recent detailed income information is from Census

2000, in which questionnaires gathered information on respondents’ incomes for 1999. The

poverty level for a family of four having two children under the age of 18 was $16,895 (U.S.

Census Bureau 2002a).

A community is considered to have a concentration of minority and/or low-income residents if

the proportion of such people in the community exceeds their proportion in a larger geographic

area of reference. Communities located near the Decision Areas and those most likely affected

by management decisions made regarding these lands were analyzed to determine their

minority and low-income status. Census data are tabulated for incorporated communities and

Indian reservations. The informal boundaries of several unincorporated communities were

approximated by one or more census tracts and block groups (subgroups within census tracts).

Such unincorporated communities were Arlington, Tonopah, Mobile, Palo Verde, Sentinel, Why,

Stanfield, the area east of SDNM, the Rainbow Valley area, and the area surrounding Florence.

Table 3.40, “Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2003” (p. 368) summarizes the minority and

low-income status of communities within the Planning Area.

Table 3.40. Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2003

Minority

Population

Low-Income

Population

Poverty Rate Geographic Area Total Minority1

>50 % >36.2%

Poverty

Rate2

>50 % >13.9%

Arizona (comparison population) Minority Population: 36.2% Low-income Population:

13.9%

Maricopa County 33.8% No No 11.7% No No

Buckeye 42.7% No Yes 18.8% No Yes

Gila Bend 65.3% Yes Yes 24.8% No Yes

Goodyear 30.2% No No 6.1% No No

Tolleson 81.0% Yes Yes 13.7% No No

Ak Chin Village, Ak Chin Indian

Reservation

98.1% Yes Yes 26.8% No Yes

Gila River Indian Community3 96.7% Yes Yes 52.1% Yes Yes

Census Block Group 0506021 (Arlington) 36.7% No Yes 12.3% No No

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 369

Minority

Population

Low-Income

Population

Poverty Rate Geographic Area Total Minority1

>50 % >36.2%

Poverty

Rate2

>50 % >13.9%

Arizona (comparison population) Minority Population: 36.2% Low-income Population:

13.9%

Census Block Group 0506032 (Tonopah) 36.7% No Yes 25.9% No Yes

Census Block Group 7233022 (Mobile) 65.7% Yes Yes 19.4% No Yes

Census Block Group 0506011 (Palo

Verde)

49.7% No Yes 12.5% No No

Census Block Group 7233023 (Sentinel) 86.5% Yes Yes 19.4% No Yes

Census Block Group 7233021 (Rainbow

Valley Area)

32.8% No No 19.4% No Yes

Pima County 38.5% No Yes 14.7% No Yes

Ajo 45.6% No Yes 22.3% No Yes

Tohono O’odham Nation 95.6% Yes Yes 46.4% No Yes

Census Block Group 0049001 (includes

Why)

35.6% No Yes 7.0% No No

Pinal County 41.2% No Yes 16.9% No Yes

Apache Junction 12.1% No No 11.6% No No

Casa Grande 49.6% No Yes 16.0% No Yes

Florence 50.3% Yes Yes 7.0% No No

Maricopa 79.1% Yes Yes 23.4% No Yes

Census Block Group 0002021 (Florence

and surrounding area)

32.0% No No 12.2% No No

Census Block Group 0017002 (Stanfield) 69.4% Yes Yes 19.0% No Yes

Census Block Group 0017003 (eastern

border of SDNM)

58.0% Yes Yes 19.0% No Yes

Gila County 31.1% No No 17.4% No Yes

Globe 38.5% No Yes 11.4% No No

Miami 57.6% Yes Yes 21.5% No Yes

SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau 2003f, 2003g, 2003h

1 The total minority population includes individuals of Hispanic/Latino origin, but those that are also Black/African

Americans, American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asians, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders are not included

in the total in order to avoid double counting.

2 Poverty rate among individuals, based on poverty status in 1999.

3 The Gila River Indian Community includes lands in both Maricopa and Pinal counties but is listed only under

Maricopa County in this table.

From 2006-2008, out of Arizona's average yearly population of 6,343,952, 32.3 percent were

minorities. Pima and Pinal counties each have a proportion of minority population that exceeds

that of the State, while Maricopa and Gila Counties have a smaller share of minority population

than does the State. All of the American Indian reservations are considered minority communities.

Most of the individual incorporated and unincorporated areas analyzed are minority communities

as well. About half of the communities considered reported minority populations greater than

50 percent, with most being small communities or are Native American lands. All but one of

the communities studied exceed the statewide average of minority residents (see Table 3.40,

“Minority and Low-Income Populations, 2003” (p. 368)).

The low-income and minority communities in the Planning Area were, for the most part,

historically agricultural or mining communities. The forces currently affecting these communities

are not closely related to any BLM action and are instead more related to worldwide market

August 2011

Chapter 3 Affected Environment

Social and Economic Conditions
370 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

conditions and the urbanizing area around Phoenix. Fluctuating mineral prices worldwide is the

primary reason for the downturn in the economy of mining communities. The conversion of

agricultural lands to housing developments has been the primary reason for the loss of income

in agricultural communities. Some of these communities, however, have been directly and

indirectly affected by current BLM actions. For example, Ajo is currently aiming to convert its

economy primarily from mining to retirement, recreation, and art. The Lower Sonoran, Organ

Pipe Cactus National Monument, and Cabeza Prieta NWR are all important components of the

quality of life and tourism economy Ajo is building. The community of Mobile has been affected

by a disproportionate number of projects, including landfills, power lines, and pipelines through

the community.

Historically, several of the high minority/low income communities have had relatively robust

economies and diverse populations, particularly the mining communities during periods when

the mines were open and producing; however, in recent decades, these communities have been

identified as environmental justice communities. Over the last several years, many of these

communities are experiencing rapid changes due to urbanization and an influx of large numbers

of new residents. These trends may eventually change the demographics of these communities

such that they no longer consist of primarily minority or low income populations. While this

trend is largely unrelated to BLM actions, in some cases, past BLM actions have affected these

communities. Ajo and Miami-Globe in particular have had economies driven by local mineral

resources, resulting in several boom-bust cycles. These communities are currently attempting

to diversify their economies; however, public lands in the vicinity hold the potential for future

mineral discoveries that could cause mines to open, providing high paying jobs and drawing

additional people to the Ajo and Miami-Globe areas.

The community of Mobile has also been historically affected by BLM-related management

actions, particularly involving development of utility lines through the community. Three utility

corridors that cross the Lower Sonoran and SDNM converge at Mobile and currently include one

power line, with two more planned, and several gas pipelines, with one additional planned. In

addition, this community has been affected by the location of several landfills on private lands

and a railroad. The community was successful recently in stopping an oil refinery from being

built in the area. In 2007, Mobile was annexed into the City of Goodyear and much of the private

land in the community was purchased by a developer for a master-planned community, displacing

many local residents.

Chapter 3 Affected Environment August 2011
Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 373

4.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the environmental impacts that likely would result from implementing

the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the four Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C,

D, and E). Of these, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has chosen Alternative E as the

agency Preferred Alternative. Throughout this chapter, the impacts have been separated between

the Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) Decision Areas, unless the

text specifies that the impact is the same for both.

Impact analyses and conclusions are based on interdisciplinary team (IDT) knowledge of the

resources and the Planning Area; information provided by experts in the U.S. Department of the

Interior, BLM, or other agencies; and information contained in pertinent, existing literature.

The baseline used for the impact analysis is the current condition or situation, as described in

Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251). Analytical assumptions have also been developed to

help guide the determination of effects (see Section 4.1.2, “Overall Assumptions” (p. 373)).

Because the draft resource management plan (RMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS)

provide a broad management framework, the analysis in this chapter represents a best estimate of

impacts because exact locations of development or management often are unknown.

4.1.1. IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS

To perform the analysis, each program area (i.e. resource, resource use, special area designation,

and social and economic condition) first developed a set of indicators to quantitatively measure

the impacts on their specific program from other programs’ actions proposed in Chapter 2,

Alternatives (p. 27). If quantifying impacts was not possible, a list of qualitative terms was

created for select program areas to describe the level of intensity an impact would have on that

program. Third, a set of program-specific assumptions was developed to adequately analyze

impacts and establish a consistent analysis. Finally, the program areas that would have measurable

impacts on a specific program area were identified, as well as those that would not have impacts.

4.1.2. OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS

The following general assumptions and guidelines were used in the analysis of environmental

consequences. Other assumptions specific to a particular program area, where applicable, are

presented in that program area section.

● Funding and personnel would be sufficient to implement any of the alternatives described in

Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) of the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Draft RMP/EIS.

● All BLM management activities, which include all management decisions proposed by the

alternatives in this Draft RMP/EIS, are consistent with applicable law. Some of the major

laws, regulations, and policies that guide BLM management are listed in Appendix B,

Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies (p. 1003).

● RMP decisions are landscape in scale. Before implementation actions are taken, additional

site-specific planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis would occur.

● All alternatives would support meeting land health standards (Standards).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Introduction
374 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● In the event paleontological, geologic, or cave resources are discovered on lands in the

Decision Areas, management actions to protect these resources would be implemented.

● The cleanup of hazardous materials and wastes would be managed to minimize impacts to

resources while protecting public health and safety.

● Short-term impacts are those that would last no more than 5 years after implementation of

the action that triggers the impact. Long-term impacts are those that would persist longer

than 5 years.

● Attempts to manage or regulate environmental conditions could be affected by activities on

adjacent lands that are beyond the BLM’s authority (i.e. fugitive dust generation on adjacent

lands that affects air quality on public lands).

● Existing decisions from wilderness management plans will be carried forward in the proposed

RMP for the administration and management of the six congressionally designated wilderness

areas that are within the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Area.

4.1.3. LEVELS OF ANALYSIS (PROGRAMMATIC &

IMPLEMENTATION)

There are two separate levels of analysis presented in this chapter that are dictated by the type of

decisions set forth in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27).

Programmatic or RMP level analysis addresses impacts from RMP level decisions, which are

decisions set forth to achieve the goals and objectives of a specific program area within the

RMP. Analyses for these decisions are broad in scale and focus on the scope of the individual

alternatives and environmental effects. Programmatic analysis is typically regional in scope and

accounts for differing land use scenarios, with an emphasis on cumulative effects from multiple

activities and future projects (of which the location and details are not yet known). Refer to

sections 4.2 through 4.23 for RMP-level impact analysis.

Implementation or activity-specific analysis addresses impacts from a specific project or activity.

Emphasis on this type of analysis is based on the project site, the site’s immediate surroundings,

and a well-defined proposal, which includes different ways to meet a common objective. Unlike

programmatic or RMP level analysis, implementation level analysis focuses on direct and

indirect effects from one defined activity, rather than a slew of multiple activities and future

projects. Refer to Section 4.25, “Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906) for implementation

level impact analysis.

4.1.4. TYPES OF EFFECTS (DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND

CUMULATIVE)

Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are considered in the effects analysis according to

guidance provided in 40 Code of Federal Register (CFR) 1502.16.

Direct effects are caused by an action or the implementation of an alternative and occur at the

same time and place.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Levels of Analysis (Programmatic & Implementation) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 375

Indirect effects result from implementing an action or alternative but usually occur later in time or

are removed in distance. They are reasonably certain to occur.

Cumulative effects are the direct and indirect effects of a proposed action’s incremental impacts

when they are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, regardless of who

carries out the action (40 CFR Part 1508.7).

Effects are quantified where possible, primarily by using Geographic Information System (GIS)

applications. In the absence of quantitative data, best professional judgment is used; impacts are

sometimes described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms.

4.1.5. QUALITATIVE TERMS FOR THE INTENSITY OF

IMPACTS

A range of qualitative terms have been used to gage the intensity of each impact from one

program area on another. Only adverse impacts have been quantified. Positive impacts are

discussed in detail within the text and at times have lessened the intensity of the adverse impacts.

Some program areas have further defined these terms specific to their program with particular

thresholds. These definitions and thresholds can be found in the beginning of each program area’s

impacts analysis. The qualitative terms used for describing the intensity of impacts are presented

in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

Table 4.1. Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts

Negligible Minor Moderate Major

Lower Sonoran

No known impacts to

resources or resource uses.

Any change is undetectable

and immeasurable.

Direct effects are apparent,

measurable, small,

localized, and contained

within the footprint of the

action.

Indirect effects are

undetectable.

Direct effects would be

readily apparent and

measurable over a larger

area, but are still mainly

within the footprint of the

action.

Indirect effects are apparent

and measurable, but do not

exceed much beyond the

footprint of the action.

Direct effects would be

highly noticeable and

extend well beyond the

footprint of the action.

Indirect affects would

be readily apparent and

measurable well beyond the

footprint of the action.

Sonoran Desert National Monument

No known impacts to

resources or resource uses.

Any change is undetectable

and immeasurable.

Objects are preserved

throughout the Monument.

Direct effects are apparent,

measurable, small,

localized, and contained

within the footprint of the

action.

Indirect effects are

undetectable.

Objects are preserved

throughout the Monument

Direct effects are readily

apparent and measurable

over a larger area, but

are still mainly within the

footprint of the action.

Indirect effects are apparent

and measurable, but do not

exceed much beyond the

footprint of the action.

Objects may be affected on

site and in the vicinity of the

activity, but are maintained

within the Monument

Direct effects would be

highly noticeable and

substantial.

Indirect effects would

be readily apparent and

measurable well beyond the

footprint of the action.

Objects, or some elements

of the objects, would be

permanently altered on

site, as well as affected

over a larger portion of the

Monument.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts
376 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.1.6. REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT

SCENARIOS

Analytical assumptions may include any reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenarios for

program areas. A RFD scenario is a baseline projection for activity for a defined area and period

of time. Though commonly used in minerals development, these scenarios may be used for other

program areas as well. These scenarios are derived from the existing conditions and projected

trends expressed in Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251) for each program area.

General Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios for the Planning Area

Population growth in Arizona is anticipated to be about 20 percent per decade over the next three

decades. Population projections for the tri-county area (Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties)

indicate that growth will continue and that Arizona’s population ranking among the fifty states is

projected to move from 20th to 10th by 2030. The most dramatic growth would occur in Pinal

County, where the population already has nearly doubled from 2000 and 2010. By 2030, Pinal

County’s population could reach approximately 852,000, Maricopa County’s population could be

6,208,000, and Pima County’s population could be 1,442,000. The tri-county growth over the

three decades likely will be higher than in the State of Arizona as a whole so that by 2030, the

area would have an 82.2 percent share of the State’s residents. The area’s share of the State’s total

population in 2000 was 80.3 percent, with approximately 8,503,000 residents in the tri-county

area and 10,348,000 in Arizona as a whole.

In addition:

● The cities and communities of Maricopa, Goodyear, Buckeye, and Gila Bend will continue

to expand their boundaries through annexation. Other communities may also incorporate.

The majority of the Decision Areas will border on or be included in incorporated cities and

towns, with little county-administered land. The SDNM could be entirely surrounded by land

annexed into cities or towns within ten years.

● For the majority of Maricopa County, western Pinal County, and western Pima County, the

Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas will continue to serve as undeveloped open space

as the private and State lands are developed.

● Undeveloped land, or open space, will decrease as population increases. Historical trends

indicate the urban edge will advance 0.5 miles per year until build-out is reached. An

increasing percentage of State and private lands around the Planning Area will be developed

and no longer available for “backyard” community recreation. Recreation uses displaced by

development will shift to public lands. Public lands administered by the BLM will become the

only remaining “open space” as private and State trust lands used for recreation disappear

due to development.

● Tourism will continue to be a major industry in Arizona, especially for some rural areas.

This will create a demand for tourism-related recreational opportunities and increase the

need for management.

● In-migration from other U.S. states, mostly California, is expected to continue. New residents

are not likely to be familiar with desert ecosystems. Place-based values and culture are less

likely to be shared by the majority of residents in rapidly changing communities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 377

The following RFD scenarios are separated by program area and are list in alphabetical order:

Air Quality

Air-quality management and compliance issues will grow more challenging as the counties within

the Planning Area attempt to meet Federal air quality standards for particulate matter smaller

than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in diameter

(PM10), and fugitive dust. The regulation and limitation of public off-highway vehicle (OHV)

travel on dirt roads and washes will be among measures applied to meet air quality and fugitive

dust standards over the life of the plan. Restrictions will increase over the life of the plan. Such

restrictions will include use limits and closures on use of dirt roads and changes in operating

procedures for all surface disturbing activities in areas not meeting air quality standards. These

areas are designated as nonattainment areas. Air quality regulation boundaries for PM2.5 and PM10

will expand to encompass the majority of the Decision Area, in parallel with population growth.

Climate Change

Future increases in global temperature are projected to occur with increased atmospheric green

house gas concentrations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models

predict that further June to August temperature increases of 3.6F to 9.0F are possible by 2040

to 2069 for western North America, while the most extreme warming scenario currently

considered possible suggests that annual mean temperatures in the southwestern United States

potentially could increase by up to 14F before the end of the century. Impacts could include

less precipitation, higher temperatures, and overall less water for natural resources, including

vegetation, agricultural production, industrial supply, and human populations. Drought could

become more intense and long lasting, affecting natural resources and livestock production. Fire

season could become longer with more frequent and intense fires. Air pollution problems could

be worsened as increased temperatures and drought contribute to ozone (O3), PM2.5, and PM10

production. Changing vegetation regimes also are likely to result in animal species migration or

extinction, which affects recreation opportunities and BLM management.

Lands & Realty Management

Land Tenure. Land disposals via exchanges, sales, and recreation and public purposes (R &

PP) patents may increase for parks and other recreational facilities as communities grow. The

expected total would be one to two per year, approximately 100 acres/year.

Land Use Authorizations (Including Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development). Population growth in both urban and rural areas will increase infrastructure demand for new highways,

roads, power lines, and communication sites. Increased demand for infrastructure will result in an

increase of approximately three to four major linear land use authorizations (LUAs), including

ROWs for high voltage power lines, large pipelines, and solar power plants every year. Other

minor linear and nonlinear LUA requests, such as for roads, or smaller voltage transmission lines,

will increase to an additional seven to eight proposals per year.

In addition:

● According to the Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States Draft PEIS

(December 2010), the estimated acres foreseen to be developed for solar energy facilities on

BLM administered lands would be 21,816 acres within the State of Arizona. The Gillespie

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS
378 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Solar Energy Zone (the only SEZ proposed in the Planning Areas, totaling 2,618 acres) is

projected to be fully developed, as presented in the DPEIS’s preferred alternative by the

end of the life of this Plan.

● Renewable energy, primarily solar energy, will continue to be of high interest in the Planning

Area. For the past three years, the numbers of solar energy applications for ROWs submitted

to the Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO) have plateaued. Two of the seven pending ROW

applications for solar energy development sites (as of March 2011) have progressed through

the site-specific environmental analysis. Reasonable assumptions can be made that two

additional proposals could progress to the environmental studies every year, for the next 20

years. The utility-scale solar power plant proposals are generally 4,000 acres to produce

250 to 500 megawatts of electricity. After considering the number of prohibited, high and

moderate-sensitivity conflict areas for utility-scale renewable energy developments (as defined

in Appendix N, Analysis for Renewable Energy Sensitivity (p. 1263)), it is anticipated that

the number of accepted applications for solar energy development on public lands will not

increase from the current numbers and that most of the development would occur within the

low known conflict sensitivity areas (ranging from a minimum of 5,100 acres in Alternative D

to a maximum of 40,600 acres in Alternative B).

Livestock Grazing

Livestock numbers are expected to remain at or near current levels, which fluctuate based on local

climatic conditions. In the areas around metro Phoenix, Tonopah, and Maricopa the expected

increase in population will result in an increase in recreation on public lands. This potentially

could cause increased conflicts with livestock operations. In addition, permittees’ ability to

manage allotments could be negatively affected due to increased damage to improvements (e.g.

cut fences and damaged waters) and harassment of livestock. This trend is expected to be more

pronounced in allotments with substantial private inholdings due to development of the private

lands.

In the Ajo, Gila Bend, and Globe areas, the general population increase will have some of the

same impacts as mention above but to a lesser degree, with the exception of borderland impacts.

No other significant changes would be expected from current conditions.

Minerals Management

Leasable Minerals. Leasable minerals are expected to continue as a minor component of the

mineral development in the Planning Area. It is expected that if any leasable minerals are

developed, oil and gas would be the most likely. It is anticipated that up to 10 exploratory oil and

gas wells could be drilled in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. Each well site would average 10

acres, all of which would be reclaimed.

Locatable Minerals. Locatable minerals have high potential in some parts of the Lower Sonoran,

particularly in the Ajo and Globe-Miami areas, and moderate potential in several other areas.

There could be up to 10 exploration-level operations every year, three to five new small mines

every 10 years, and one to two larger operations. Exploration would disturb an average of one to

three acres, small mines would disturb 20-50 acres, and large mines would disturb 100-500 acres.

Most mining activities would be surface mines. Most of the surface area of a producing mine

would be reclaimed to the prevailing standard at the conclusion of operations.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 379

Salable Minerals. Salable mineral development would be expected to continue expanding in

response to population growth, urban development, and infrastructure needs. On average, one

to two new pits would be opened, or existing pits would be expanded, every year to meet the

need. Production at existing and new pits would average 100,000-1,000,000 tons per year. Pits

would disturb anywhere from 20-500 acres per operation. Reclamation of disturbance to required

levels would occur either at the completion of operations or as an integral, ongoing part during

continuing operations.

Priority Wildlife Species & Habitat Management

Without management intervention, wildlife populations are expected to continue a downward

trend over the next 25 years.

Wildlife Waters. Surface disturbance of approximately 1 acre for each catchment is expected.

Approximately five buried catchments are expected to be constructed each year. Areas of

disturbance will be reclaimed. In the Lower Sonoran, the total expected amount of disturbance is

expected to be approximately 50 acres over the next 25 years.

Pronghorn Enclosures. Under all alternatives, up to three permanent holding pens of up to five

acres each will be constructed for the housing and release of Sonoran pronghorn. Enclosures will

be constructed to be predator resistant. Fencing will be buried to repel burrowing animals.

Burrowing Owl Enclosures. Up to five temporary 1-acre enclosures may be constructed to

acclimate burrowing owls into suitable habitat. Enclosures will be constructed of PVC pipes

and netting.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise Habitat. Potential artificial housing for displaced Sonoran desert

tortoises will be constructed.

Public Safety & Hazardous Materials. Illegal immigration and smuggling will continue to

impact public lands at current or increasing levels. Impacts may shift as illegal immigrants and

smugglers adapt to new border enforcement techniques.

Damage to natural and recreation resources, and related public safety concerns, will increase as

resource crime and vandalism incidents swell in the growing public land-urban interface. The cost

to patrol, repair, restore, and monitor crime and vandalism will grow and require more agency

resources over the life of the plan.

Rapid growth of metropolitan areas will increase illegal dumping in the boundary lands.

Hazardous materials and spills may also increase in these areas.

All abandoned mines within the Planning Area will be identified and inventoried in an effort to

proceed with permanent closures.

All hazardous waste sites (including Superfund sites) within the Planning Area will be identified

and inventoried in an effort to proceed with permanent closures.

Recreation Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS
380 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In the Lower Sonoran

Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA): In the Ajo Desert Recreation

Management Zone (RMZ), it is anticipated that minimal road maintenance and construction

will occur. The route system would remain in maintenance intensity levels 1 to 3 (intensity

levels are defined in IM 2006-173 Roads and Trails Terminology Report). Routes rated intensity

level 1 would be managed as primitive roads and routes rated intensity level 3 as roads. The

maintenance levels of major access “stub routes” and parking points, may also be upgraded to

level 5 as demand warrants. At this time, there is no timeline envisioned for such construction

and maintenance because camping and other outdoor recreation activities are expected to remain

primitive and undeveloped. In the Gateway RMZ, the route system generally would be maintained

for two-wheel-drive passenger car access to developed recreation and interpretive sites. Up to

three parking/staging areas (up to ten acres total) providing access to the Ajo Desert RMZ may be

constructed on previously disturbed areas. Additionally, a 40-acre OHV/all-terrain vehicle (ATV)

recreation area for unrestricted motocross bike riding and other motorized recreation activities

will be located and built in a previously disturbed area near Ajo. Facilities may include two

visitor-contact and three access points, with the area of new disturbance anticipated to total up to

10 acres. In the Gunsight Wash RMZ, facilities are expected to remain primitive; however, if

demand warrants, the camping area will be upgraded to include a gravel-surfaced route system

maintained for two-wheel-drive passenger car access (up to 3 miles in extent), gravel-surfaced

camping sites with picnic tables and steel fire rings (up to 60 sites at 0.15-acre each, or 6.5 acres),

two gravel-surfaced group areas (up to 10 acres total), and three two-vault toilets.

Arlington Community SRMA: To provide motorized loop opportunities, up to 25 miles of new

roads may be constructed and approximately 60 miles of existing roads would be upgraded

to maintenance level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive access. The remainder of the road system

(approximately 140 miles) would be maintained at levels 1 to 3 to provide primitive motorized

experiences. Additionally, up to two parking/staging areas would be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel-surfaced parking, picnic tables, and fire rings totaling 20 acres

of new disturbance.

Buckeye Hills SRMA: In the Buckeye Hills East RMZ, RFD scenario varies substantially by

alternative. In Alternative B, development would be directed toward motorized recreation

activities. Although maintenance of the travel system is anticipated to remain at levels 1 to 3, up

to six staging/parking areas may be developed with standard amenity facilities such as gravel

surface, picnic tables, and fire rings (up to 30 acres total) and two large staging areas not to

exceed 10 acres each. In Alternatives C and E, development would be directed toward a balance

of motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities. The route system would be maintained at

levels 1 to 3; up to six staging/parking areas may be developed with standard amenity facilities

such as gravel surface, picnic tables, and fire rings (up to 30 acres total) and one large staging area

not to exceed 10 acres. In Alternative D, development would be directed toward nonmotorized

recreation activities. The route system would be maintained at levels 1 to 3, and up to four

parking areas may be developed with standard amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic

tables, and fire rings (up to 20 acres total). In the Buckeye Hills West RMZ, maintenance of the

travel system is anticipated to remain at levels 1 to 3, and all visitor facilities would be placed on

the Maricopa County Buckeye Recreation Area Regional Park.

Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA): No new road construction, maintenance

upgrades, or new facilities will be constructed except in response to visitor health and safety or

conflicts with other resource uses.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 381

Gila Bend Mountains SRMA: Ninety percent of the existing road system (325-465 miles)

would be maintained at level 1, and 10-15 miles may be upgraded and maintained at level 5 to

provide short access routes for two-wheel-drive vehicles. A campground and interpretive site at

Sundad may be constructed, consisting of up to 2 miles of improved roads maintained at level 3 to

5, 20 campsites (0.15-acre each, 3 acres), picnic tables, and fire rings. The campground would

be constructed on previously disturbed areas and total about 80 acres. The intent is for the Gila

Mountains to remain generally undeveloped. In Alternative D, no facilities would be constructed

except to resolve conflicts with other resource uses.

Saddle Mountain SRMA: In Alternative B, development would be directed toward a balanced

mix of motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities. Up to six trails for nonmotorized uses

(up to 20 miles total), 10 miles of new road construction to create motorized loop routes, three

parking/staging areas (30 acres total), and eight primitive camping and interpretive sites (120

acres total) are envisioned. In Alternatives C and E, development would be directed toward

nonmotorized recreation activities. Up to six trails for nonmotorized uses (up to 30 miles total)

would be constructed, minimal upgrades to existing roads would occur to provide access, and up

to four interpretive sites (60 acres total) are envisioned. In Alternative D, no facilities would be

constructed except to resolve conflicts with other resource uses.

Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA: In the Gila River RMZ, road construction and maintenance

would be minimal, with up to 16 miles upgraded to allow for two-wheel-drive passenger car

access. This access is anticipated to provide for public visitation and interpretation at the

Butterfield West Site, nearby petroglyph sites, Oatman Mountain, and other attractions. Facilities

would be modest in scope and scale and would be constructed on previously disturbed areas to

the extent possible. Types of facilities generally would include unpaved parking, short (less than

two 2 miles) visitor trails, interpretive and regulatory signs, picnic tables, and vault toilets if

demand warrants. The total extent of these developments is not anticipated to be more than 8

acres. In the Painted Rock RMZ, road construction and maintenance would focus on the existing

campground road system, totaling approximately 3 miles of gravel roads for two-wheel-drive

passenger car access. If demand warrants, these roads and parking areas may be improved,

including paving. Other routes in the Painted Rock RMZ are anticipated to remain at maintenance

level 1 to 3. Expansion of the Painted Rock Petroglyph Campground is not anticipated, although

the two group areas may be surfaced with gravel.

Painted Rock Mountains SRMA: If implemented, an undeveloped and unfacilitated motorized

recreation opportunity would be offered. The designated motor vehicle travel system would

consist of primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, although up to 10 miles of roads may be

maintained at level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive access. One parking/staging area would be

developed, not to exceed 5 acres. Under Alternative D, four parking areas, three access routes,

and nine campsites would be constructed. The facilities, to the extent possible, would be located

on 10 previously disturbed acres.

San Tan Mountains SRMA: In Alternative B, the BLM would maintain existing facilities. No

new construction of roads and facilities is envisioned. Under Alternatives C, D, and E, the area

would be disposed of as an R lease.

In the SDNM

Under Alternatives B, C and E, there would be one 24-site campground, up to three visitor contact

sites of 0.25-acre each, three group campsites, one equestrian corral, one OHV/ATV parking area,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS
382 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

one day use and interpretive area, and one 6-mile nonmotorized trail through Butterfield Pass, all

situated in the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT) management zone. To the

extent possible, these facilities would be located in areas previously disturbed; thus, the area of

new disturbance would total approximately 6 to 10 acres. Under Alternative B, C and E, up to 12

additional 0.25-acre visitor contact sites or other small pullouts would be provided in the Desert

Frontier Management Zone on the SDNM. These facilities would be located in areas previously

disturbed to the extent possible; thus, the area of new disturbance would total up to 3 acres.

In Alternative D, up to 15 0.25-acre visitor contact stations and minimal pullouts would be

provided. These facilities, to the extent possible, would be located in areas previously disturbed

and may total up to 4 acres of new disturbance.

Water Resources

Land Use Authorizations. Population growth likely will cause increased demand for LUAs for

roads, power lines, highways, and other developments that would increase surface disturbance

and runoff from public lands. Disturbance and storm runoff are likely to increase erosion and

sedimentation. Additional public land sources of water quality degradation are likely to come

from spills of hazardous materials. As population and land use increase, the probability of hazard

material incidents increases.

Minerals. Mineral exploration and development is probable in the Ajo and Globe-Miami areas

and in other parts of the Decision Area. New roads are usually sources of dust and sediment, and

increase the risk of erosion.

Travel & Recreation. Total miles of new road and acres of new disturbance from recreation

activity will vary depending on the alternative, but potential future recreation development will

include 20-50 miles of new low maintenance roads and 300-400 acres of new recreation sites.

These disturbances will increase the probability of erosion and the quantity of sediment reaching

the Gila River. Impacts will vary depending on the location and timing of new developments, and

the level of maintenance.

Wild Horse & Burro Management

Wild horse and burro numbers are expected to remain low in the Planning Area. The Painted

Rocks Herd Area will need occasional removal of nuisance animals around private farmlands.

Soil Resources

In the areas around metro Phoenix, Tonopah, Maricopa, and Gila Bend, the expected increase

in population will result in an increase in recreation on public lands. This potentially could

cause increased impacts to soil resources. These impacts would occur on the existing roads

and trails, which will have accelerated erosion with increased use, and in adjacent areas due to

cross-country travel.

Land Use Authorizations. Population growth likely will cause increased demand for LUAs for

roads, power lines, highways, and other developments that would increase surface disturbance

and runoff from public lands. Disturbance and storm runoff are likely to increase erosion and

sedimentation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 383

Minerals. Mineral exploration and development is probable in the Ajo and Globe-Miami areas

and in other parts of the Decision Area. New roads are usually sources of dust and sediment and

increase the risk of erosion.

Recreation. Total miles of new roads and acres of new disturbance for campgrounds and

interpretative areas vary depending on the alternative, but potential future recreation development

will include 20-50 miles of new low-maintenance roads and 300-400 acres of new recreation sites.

These disturbances will increase the probability of wind and water erosion. Quantities of soil loss

will vary depending on the location and timing of new developments and the level of maintenance.

Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs). No RFD scenarios have been identified

for ACECs.

National Byways. No RFD scenarios have been identified for National Byways.

National Historic Trails. The vision for the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT is that it will become a

long–distance historic trail corridor with a recreational track along it that provides public access

in several locations. The Anza NHT historic route segments will be marked so the public would

be able to identify the recreational trail tread. The Anza NHT will include sites for interpretation,

kiosks, interpretive signs, trails, overlooks, improved roads, parking areas of up to 1 acre, vehicle

barriers, picnic tables, garbage facilities, restrooms, and other facilities that may be installed in or

near the area in order to enhance the visitor experience.

Wilderness Areas. No RFD scenarios have been identified for wilderness areas.

Travel Management

For the Lower Sonoran, an RFD scenario for potential route designations has been created for all

alternatives to give a basis for assessing impacts. The scenarios’ mileage numbers are based on

interagency route evaluations that were completed for the Lower Sonoran. These route mileage

predictions are not displayed on a map in this plan to avoid confusion with the route designation

process that will officially designate individual routes after the completion of this RMP.

Route by route analysis was done using the process identified in the Route Evaluation

Methodology (Appendix S, Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311)). The

analysis conducted created a hypothetical route network based on what allocations for each

alternative would likely guide the travel system, during actual route designation after completion

of this RMP. The individual route reports from this analysis are available to the public upon

request and are on file for public review at the Phoenix District Office.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

As mandated by 43 CFR 1502.22, agencies evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse

effects on the human environment in an EIS must identify incomplete or unavailable information

if that information is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives. This Draft RMP/EIS is

based on the best available data for each impact topic; however, there are few detailed resource

surveys and inventories for the Planning Area. For example, little of the Planning Area has been

surveyed for cultural or paleontological resources. Additionally, water quality and visitor use

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS
384 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

information is very limited. In absence of such data, the best professional judgment of BLM

resource specialists at the LSFO was used in the impact analysis.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 385

4.2. IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

A qualitative comparison approach was selected for the analysis of impacts to air quality based on

an understanding of the current air quality conditions within the Planning Area. The Planning

Area includes some land within the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area for PM10, O3,

and nonattainment with a maintenance plan for carbon monoxide (CO). The Planning Area

also includes Globe-Miami (currently categorized as a nonattainment area for PM10 and an

attainment with a maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide [SO2]), and Ajo (currently categorized as a

nonattainment for PM10, and an attainment with a maintenance plan for SO2). Active management

to achieve air quality standards is occurring in the Phoenix metropolitan nonattainment area, all

of Maricopa County, and parts of Pinal County. Various activities common to all management

alternatives have the potential to impact the air quality status of the neighboring nonattainment

areas. A landscape-scale analysis has thus been used to describe the impacts of the alternatives.

The method used in this air quality analysis involved identifying the pollutants associated with

a proposed planning element, describing the relative magnitude of emissions changes, and

indicating the extent of potential impacts. The primary air quality measure affected by activities

on public lands is particulate matter, PM10and PM2.5. While significant across the landscape,

CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), volatile organic compounds, SO2, and O3 are unlikely to be

substantially changed by actions on public lands. Impacts to air quality are assessed for the

different alternatives to ensure that the overall air quality goal of managing use in the Decision

Areas to be consistent with air quality standards is attained. It is important to note that regardless

of the alternative selected, the BLM must continue to comply with applicable State and Federal

air quality control regulations, as well as the identified air quality administrative actions.

4.2.1. Methods of Analysis

4.2.1.1. Indicators

The magnitude and extent of air quality effects resulting from the actions proposed in the five

alternatives are too complex to quantify in a comprehensive fashion due to the wide variability

of potential activities and the time of occurrence. Indicators of change in concentration of

criteria pollutants in a given area are very difficult to apply because they require instruments for

monitoring that often are unavailable. Therefore, impacts will be analyzed using qualitative

terms. Some measurements of indicators that could be correlated with changes in the qualitative

terms when sufficient data becomes available are:

● Measured concentration of criteria pollutants (when available)

● Volume of traffic on unpaved roads in the analysis area

● Miles of road constructed in fine textured soils

● Proportion of areas with fine textured soils that lack surface cover (vegetation, desert

pavement, or cryptogamic crusts)

● Changes in visibility

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Air Quality
386 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.2.1.2. Assumptions

No assumptions were used to analyze impacts from program areas on air quality.

4.2.1.3. Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios

No indicators other than the RFDs identified in 4.1.6 were used to analyze impacts from program

areas on air quality.

4.2.1.4. Program Areas with no Impacts on Air Quality

No impacts to air resources management are anticipated for management actions relating to the

following program areas:

● Air Quality

● Cave and Cave Resources Management

● Cultural and Heritage Resource Management

● Paleontological Resource Management

● Social and Economic Concerns

● Vegetation Resource Management

● Water Resource Management

● Wild Horse and Burro Management

4.2.1.5. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are described using the following definitions:

Negligible: Changes in the concentration of criteria pollutants, changes in the volume of traffic in

the Decision Areas, or changes in other indicators would remain below the level of detection.

Changes in concentration of criteria pollutants over a prescribed period would be below the

level of detection.

Minor: Changes in concentrations of criteria pollutants, changes in the volume of traffic in

the Decision Areas, or changes in other indicators would be small, as would the area affected.

If mitigation is needed to offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to implement and

would likely be successful.

Moderate: Changes in the concentration of criteria pollutants, changes in the volume of traffic in

the Decision Areas, or changes in other indicators would be readily apparent and would affect a

relatively wide area. Mitigating measures probably would be necessary to offset adverse effects

and would likely be successful.

Major: Changes in concentrations of criteria pollutants, changes in the volume of traffic in the

Decision Areas, or changes in other indicators would be readily apparent and long-term and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 387

would substantially change the indicators over a large area. Extensive mitigation measures to

offset adverse effects would be needed, but their success could not be guaranteed.

4.2.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.2.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Wildland Fire Management on Air Quality

Impacts from fire and fuels management would not differ by alternative but may cause temporary

declines in air quality from particulate emissions and smoke. Prescribed burn plans are reviewed

by the BLM and the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). On high-pollution

days, the BLM would not conduct prescribed burns. Impacts would be minor.

4.2.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Air Quality

Mining and mineral extraction activities in the Lower Sonoran would impact air quality in the

immediate vicinity of related surface disturbing activities. Such impacts include particulates

generated from blasting, excavation, loading, and hauling activities. For mining operations

other than casual/recreational mining, plans of operation must be submitted by the claimant and

reviewed by the BLM. Integral to these plans are requirements that all applicable Federal, State,

and local regulation for air pollution control are met, such as requirements for dust control.

Impacts would be minor.

4.2.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals Management on Air Quality

The Monument proclamation prohibits mineral development within the Monument’s boundaries.

As a result, the potential air pollutant emissions (i.e. particulate matter created from surface

disturbing activities) from mineral development activities in SDNM would be eliminated.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

4.2.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.2.3.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both the Decision Areas under Alternative A.

4.2.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty Management on Air Quality

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
388 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Surface disturbance resulting from utility-scale renewable energy development and increased

use of utility corridors and associated LUAs could result in short-term increases in particulate

matter emissions, particularly during construction and maintenance activities. Alternative A

proposes 10 designated utility corridors in the Lower Sonoran, most of which are 1-mile wide.

Because best management practices (BMPs) and dust control during construction would be used

to control these emissions, impacts from utility corridor use on nonattainment areas would be

negligible in the short-term. However, long-term ground disturbance from subsurface pipelines

may result in loss of vegetation, increased erosion, and subsequent increases in particulate

emissions. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Under the No Action Alternative, all public lands in the Lower Sonoran would be open for

grazing with the exception of the Cameron Allotment. Livestock movement would have a

negligible impact on air quality, as any dust emissions produced by these activities would result in

localized, short-term impacts.

Surface disturbance from developing or maintaining livestock developments or other small-scale

construction and ground disturbing activities such as rangeland developments would cause

localized, short-term increases in particulate emissions and an associated short-term decline in air

quality, but would be unlikely to cause regional air quality thresholds to be exceeded. Impacts

would be minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Surface disturbance from developing or maintaining wildlife waters would cause localized,

short-term increases in particulate emissions and an associated short-term decline in air quality,

but would be unlikely to cause regional air quality thresholds to be exceeded. Air quality would

be expected to decline over the short term as a result of increased dust associated with the

construction of wildlife water developments or trucks supplying water to the developments in the

Decision Area. Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Motorized recreation is expected to grow along with population growth, which would increase

the likelihood that regional air quality thresholds would be exceeded. Areas in close proximity

to the urban interface are most likely to be affected. Because Alternative A does not include

decisions to address and manage this recreation use, namely allocating locations for intensive

motorized recreation use or requiring specific mitigation for dust control, uncontrolled recreation

under this alternative would result in increased dust emissions, potentially causing particulate

matter thresholds to be exceeded. High speeds typical in OHV races would result in increased

CO and particulate matter pollution; however, these events typically occur on weekends, when

air pollution across the nonattainment areas is within regulatory limits (Maricopa Association of

Governments [MAG] 2008). It is thus unlikely that OHV races would cause air quality thresholds

to be exceeded. Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Special Designations Management on Air Quality

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 389

Alternative A would retain the 8,900-acre Coffeepot Botanical area of critical environmental

concern (ACEC) designation in the Lower Sonoran, which has restrictions on air pollutant

emissions, including avoiding surface-disturbing activities and restricting motor vehicle use. Air

pollutant emissions in the ACEC would thus be reduced. Impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Motorized travel on 1,670 miles of existing road designated open for travel on 819,500 acres

would contribute to CO. Travel on unpaved routes would contribute to PM10 emissions in the

form of fugitive dust. Under the No Action Alternative, 280 miles of routes that would be open

for motorized use within PM10 nonattainment areas. (See Table 4.2, “Miles of Routes in PM10

Nonattainment Areas for the Lower Sonoran” (p. 389).)

Table 4.2. Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the Lower Sonoran

Route Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Open 280 200 170 120 165

Closed 0 0 60 110 50

Seasonally Limited 0 35 0 0 35

Administrative Use

only

0 10 10 15 15

Single-Track 0 35 30 0 35

All-Terrain Vehicle

(ATV)

0 0 10 0 0

Nonmotorized 0 0 0 35 15

Dust emissions produced by utilization of nonmotorized routes (e.g., hiking and equestrian

activity) would result in localized, short-term negligible impacts. In the long term, as population

growth leads to increased recreation, nonmotorized trail development, both planned and

user-created, would contribute to the production of dust in localized areas. Impacts would range

from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resource Management on Air Quality

Assuring projects, uses, and activities are compatible for management of visual resources under

the No Action Alternative may require restoration of disturbed areas to protect visibility and

scenic quality. This would decrease the likelihood of particulate emissions from erosion and dust,

especially in visual resource management (VRM) Class I and Class II areas. Alternative A would

allocate 91,800 acres in VRM Class I and 116,300 acres in Class II in the Lower Sonoran. In

the long term, vegetation restoration projects and protection of scenic quality in these areas

would decrease particulate matter emissions due to reduced surface disturbance and erosion of

the soil. Overall impacts would be negligible.

4.2.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Surface disturbance resulting from the development and increased use of utility corridors and

associated LUAs could result in short-term increases in particulate matter emissions, particularly

during construction and maintenance activities. Three 1-mile wide utility corridors traversing

portions of the SDNM would be designated under the No Action Alternative. Surface disturbance

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
390 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

resulting from use of these corridors could result in increased particulate matter emissions.

Because BMPs and dust control during construction would be used to control these emissions,

impacts from utility corridor usage on nonattainment areas would be negligible in the short-term.

On the other hand, long-term ground disturbance from subsurface pipelines may result in loss

of vegetation, increased erosion, and subsequent particulate emissions. The vulnerability of

soils to disruption would be assessed on a case-by-case basis for projects in the Sand Tanks

Mountains area, which would help to keep future emissions below required thresholds. Impacts

would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran,

except that they would be much less extensive in the Monument because it is largely closed to

grazing, e.g., allotments south of I-8 and areas determined unavailable to grazing by the grazing

compatibility analysis. (See Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on

the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039).) Impacts in areas where grazing would be

allowed in the SDNM would be minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations Management on Air Quality

Alternative A would retain the 3,500-acre Vekol Valley ACEC in the SDNM, which include

requirements that would reduce air pollutant emissions, including avoiding surface-disturbing

activities and restricting motor vehicle use. Air pollutant emissions in these areas would thus be

reduced compared to areas outside special designations. Impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Under Alternative A in the SDNM, motorized travel on approximately 570 mile of existing

road designated open for travel on 325,200 acres would contribute to CO. Travel on unpaved

routes would also contribute to PM10 emissions in the form of fugitive dust. In addition, 280

miles of roads would be designated open for motorized use within PM10 nonattainment areas.

(See Table 4.3, “Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the SDNM” (p. 390)) Impacts

would be minor to moderate.

Table 4.3. Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the SDNM

Route Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Open 5 4.7 2.1 1.1 1.7

Closed 0 0.3 2.9 3.4 3.3

Seasonally Limited 0 0 0 0 0

Administrative Use only 0 0 0.6 0.6 0

Single-Track 0 0 0 0 0

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 391

Route Type Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 0 0 0 0 0

Nonmotorized 0 0 0 0 0

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Assuring projects, uses, and activities are compatible for management of visual resources may

require restoration of disturbed areas to protect visibility and scenic quality. This would decrease

the likelihood of particulate emissions from erosion and dust, especially in (VRM) Class I and II

areas. Alternative A would allocate 158,700 acres in Class I and 91,600 acres in Class II in the

SDNM. In the long term, vegetation restoration projects and the protection of scenic quality in

these areas would decrease particulate matter emissions as a result of reduced surface disturbance

and erosion of the soil. Impacts would be negligible.

4.2.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.2.4.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative B.

4.2.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Impacts from lands and realty actions in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to Alternative A;

however, overall impacts would be reduced under Alternative B because specific decisions would

be in place to manage and control surface disturbing activities to lessen particulate matter release,

particularly on roadways associated with such activities. Adverse impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts nonmotorized would be the same as described under Alternative A, but not as widespread.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A; with the exception that local air

quality would experience a short-term minor decline due to increased dust (particulate matter)

associated with the construction of additional wildlife water developments. Overall impacts

would remain negligible. From Recreation Management on Air Quality Compared to Alternative

A, construction of more recreation facilities to manage recreational uses under Alternative B may

result in more ground disturbance and a greater, though still small, chance to cause regional air

quality thresholds to be exceeded. Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
392 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under this alternative, recreation uses would be managed with an emphasis on motorized

recreation, which would likely result in similar air pollutant emissions as described under

Alternative A. On the other hand, because Alternative B requires management of motorized

recreation, air quality would not deteriorate over the long term compared to Alternative A.

Motor vehicles would be required to stay on designated roads on 828,400 acres of land within

the Lower Sonoran and 101,800 acres would be closed under Alternative B, with approximately

1,639 miles of routes available for vehicle travel (1,241 miles open, 180 miles limited seasonally,

35 miles limited to single track travel, 10 miles limited to ATVs, and 8 miles for administrative

use only). Seventy miles of routes would be closed.

While motorized travel on routes available for such use would contribute to CO and travel on

such routes that are unpaved routes would contribute to PM10 emissions in the form of fugitive

dust, such impacts to air quality under Alternative B would be reduced compared to Alternative

A due 55 miles of roads being closed in the Lower Sonoran. In addition, Alternative B would

result in the reduction of 80 miles of routes open for public use within nonattainment areas,

which would decrease emissions in the form of fugitive dust in such nonattainment areas

compared to Alternative A (see Table 4.3, “Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for

the SDNM” (p. 390)). Dust mitigation measures such as establishing speed limits, adding dust

reducing agents, seasonal closure, or year round closure could also be implemented to minimize

PM10 emissions under Alternative B, further reducing the potential for adverse impacts.

Under Alternative B, a 40-acre site in the Ajo Block, which is on the northern edge of a PM10

nonattainment area in the Lower Sonoran, would be limited to ATV and motorcycle use. Such

use in this area may cause regional air quality thresholds to be exceeded, particularly during

high wind events. In order to ensure that the area maintains compliance with the air quality

standards, dust mitigation measures, such as restrictions on use during dry and/or windy periods,

and restrictions on allowable speeds and use of dust suppressants would be implemented in this

area, thus reducing the intensity of adverse impacts. Impacts from high speeds described under

Alternative A, such as during OHV races, would be eliminated as speed event permits would not

be authorized under Alternative B. Overall, impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except beneficial impacts from

VRM Class II areas would be more widespread in the Lower Sonoran due to an increase of VRM

Class II acres by 51,400 under Alternative B. In addition, Alternative B would place an emphasis

on active vegetation restoration projects with specific restoration goals, which would likely

result in larger areas being rehabilitated more quickly, thus having a greater ability to decrease

particulate emissions compared to Alternative A. Overall, impacts would remain negligible.

4.2.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for SDNM. From Livestock

Grazing on Air Quality Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for

the Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 393

From Livestock Grazing Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts from removal of the special designation for the Vekol Valley ACEC in the SDNM would

be negligible as the area would still be managed to meet the requirements of the Monument

proclamation.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except that

and the extent of impacts would be reduced due to 45 more miles of roads being closed in the

SDNM under Alternative B. Overall, impacts would remain in the minor to moderate range.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Impacts from assigning the SDNM to the various VRM classes would be similar to those

described under Alternative A, although beneficial impacts would be more extensive under

Alternative B due to an increase of VRM Class II areas by 127,400 acres, decreasing the

likelihood of particulate emissions from erosion and dust in Class I areas. In addition, placing an

emphasis on active vegetation restoration projects with specific restoration goals under Alternative

B would result in larger areas being rehabilitated more quickly, leading to decreased particulate

emissions compared to Alternative A. In addition, requiring restoration methods until the soil is

stabilized, 60 percent of the expected vegetation on the site is present and established, and the

area meets the requirements in the designated VRM class would further decrease the possibility of

particulate emissions. There would be negligible to no adverse impacts under this alternative.

4.2.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.2.5.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative C.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
394 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.2.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

While impacts from utility-scale renewable energy development, the use of utility corridors,

and associated LUAs that could result in short-term increases in particulate matter emissions

would be similar to Alternative B, overall intensity of adverse impacts would be reduced under

Alternative C due to managing and controlling surface disturbing activities to lessen particulate

matter release. In addition, the extent of impacts would be reduced under Alternative C due to

identifying or allocating WHAs, SCRMAs, ACECs, and lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics as avoidance areas for utility-scale renewable energy development and other LUAs

that are outside designated utility corridors. Overall, impacts would remain minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternatives A, just less widespread, as there are

more areas closed to grazing under this alternative.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

In the Lower Sonoran, allocating four WHAs totaling 425,900 acres and wildlife movement

corridors, which include restrictions on surface disturbance activities or require additional

mitigation for surface-disturbing activities, would reduce air pollutant emissions. As a result,

adverse impacts to air quality would decrease in these areas compared to Alternatives A and B.

Adverse impacts from developing or maintaining wildlife waters described under Alternative A

would be reduced as no new wildlife waters would be developed under Alternative C. Impacts

would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Managing recreation uses under Alternative C with a balance between motorized and

nonmotorized recreation, while minimizing impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources,

would potentially reduce motorized recreation opportunities in the Lower Sonoran. This, in turn,

could result in less localized air quality impacts related to such use compared to alternatives A

and B. Impacts from nonmotorized (hiking and equestrian) use would be similar to Alternatives

A and B, albeit slightly reduced due to the use of designated access points that would reduce

the proliferation of user-created trails that destabilize the soil and make it vulnerable to wind

erosion. Overall, impacts from all forms of recreation use under Alternative C would range from

minor to moderate.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts from ACEC allocation would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except

that beneficial impacts would be more widespread due to over seven times more acres being

within ACEC designation in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C. While benefits would be

more intense within the ACEC, overall beneficial impacts would remain negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 395

While motorized travel on routes within the Lower Sonoran would contribute to CO and travel on

unpaved routes would contribute to PM10 emissions in the form of fugitive dust, such impacts to

air quality would be reduced under Alternative C compared with Alternative A and B because

123 and 80 more miles, respectively, would be closed to motorized use in the Lower Sonoran.

In addition, compared to Alternatives A and B, 110 and 80 fewer miles of routes, respectively,

would remain open for public use within the PM10 nonattainment areas under Alternative C

(see Table 4.3, “Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the SDNM” (p. 390)). This

would decrease emissions in the form of fugitive dust within nonattainment areas compared to

Alternatives A and B. Impacts from active management practices that would be instituted in OHV

recreation areas would be similar to those described under Alternative B, thus further reducing

impacts to air quality. Impacts from a 40-acre ATV and motorcycle area and OHV vehicle races

would also be similar to Alternative B, although fewer areas would be available for vehicle

races under Alternative C, thus reducing the extent of impacts. In addition, Alternative C would

close washes with suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy owl habitat to OHV use for 6 months of

the year, which would reduce air pollutant emissions in this localized area during this time.

Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would increase VRM Class I and Class II

acreage, which would require restoration of disturbed areas to protect visibility and scenic

quality. This would decrease the likelihood of particulate emissions from erosion and dust on an

additional 271,500 acres over Alternative A and 322,900 acres over Alternative B in the Lower

Sonoran. Overall, impacts would remain negligible.

4.2.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

While impacts from utility-scale renewable energy development, the use of utility corridors,

and associated LUAs that could result in short-term increases in particulate matter emissions

would be similar to Alternative B, overall intensity of adverse impacts would be reduced under

Alternative C due to managing and controlling surface disturbing activities to lessen particulate

matter release. In addition, the extent of impacts would be reduced under Alternative C due to

identifying or allocating WHAs, SCRMAs, ACECs, and lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics as avoidance areas for utility-scale renewable energy development and other LUAs

that are outside designated utility corridors. Overall, impacts would remain minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternatives A, just less widespread, as there are

more areas closed to grazing under this alternative.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

In the Lower Sonoran, allocating four WHAs totaling 425,900 acres and wildlife movement

corridors, which include restrictions on surface disturbance activities or require additional

mitigation for surface-disturbing activities, would reduce air pollutant emissions. As a result,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
396 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

adverse impacts to air quality would decrease in these areas compared to Alternatives A and B.

Adverse impacts from developing or maintaining wildlife waters described under Alternative A

would be reduced as no new wildlife waters would be developed under Alternative C. Impacts

would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Managing recreation uses under Alternative C with a balance between motorized and

nonmotorized recreation, while minimizing impacts on sensitive natural and cultural resources,

would potentially reduce motorized recreation opportunities in the Lower Sonoran. This, in turn,

could result in less localized air quality impacts related to such use compared to alternatives A

and B. Impacts from nonmotorized (hiking and equestrian) use would be similar to Alternatives

A and B, albeit slightly reduced due to the use of designated access points that would reduce

the proliferation of user-created trails that destabilize the soil and make it vulnerable to wind

erosion. Overall, impacts from all forms of recreation use under Alternative C would range from

minor to moderate.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts from ACEC allocation would be similar to those described under Alternative A, except

that beneficial impacts would be more widespread due to over seven times more acres being

within ACEC designation in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C. While benefits would be

more intense within the ACEC, overall beneficial impacts would remain negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

While motorized travel on routes within the Lower Sonoran would contribute to CO and travel on

unpaved routes would contribute to PM10 emissions in the form of fugitive dust, such impacts to

air quality would be reduced under Alternative C compared with Alternative A and B because

123 and 80 more miles, respectively, would be closed to motorized use in the Lower Sonoran.

In addition, compared to Alternatives A and B, 110 and 80 fewer miles of routes, respectively,

would remain open for public use within the PM10 nonattainment areas under Alternative C

(see Table 4.3, “Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the SDNM” (p. 390)). This

would decrease emissions in the form of fugitive dust within nonattainment areas compared to

Alternatives A and B. Impacts from active management practices that would be instituted in OHV

recreation areas would be similar to those described under Alternative B, thus further reducing

impacts to air quality. Impacts from a 40-acre ATV and motorcycle area and OHV vehicle races

would also be similar to Alternative B, although fewer areas would be available for vehicle

races under Alternative C, thus reducing the extent of impacts. In addition, Alternative C would

close washes with suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy owl habitat to OHV use for 6 months of

the year, which would reduce air pollutant emissions in this localized area during this time.

Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would increase VRM Class I and Class II

acreage, which would require restoration of disturbed areas to protect visibility and scenic

quality. This would decrease the likelihood of particulate emissions from erosion and dust on an

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 397

additional 271,500 acres over Alternative A and 322,900 acres over Alternative B in the Lower

Sonoran. Overall, impacts would remain negligible.

4.2.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.2.6.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative D.

4.2.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Impacts from utility-scale renewal energy developments and utility corridors would be similar

to those described under Alternative C, although adverse impacts would not be as widespread

due to more acres identified as exclusion and avoidance areas for utility-scale renewable energy

development and LUAs outside of designated utility corridors. Consequently, adverse impacts

associated with increased emissions from surface-disturbing activities such as construction and

maintenance would be minimal compared to the other alternatives, therefore, impacts decrease to

negligible to minor levels.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Under Alternative D, all allotments would be closed to grazing once current permits expire,

existing wildlife waters would be removed. As a result, Alternative D would result in the least

amount of impacts to air quality in the form of localized, short-term particulate emissions due

to surface-disturbing activities compared to the other alternatives. Adverse impacts would be

reduced to negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative C, although benefits from WHAs

would be slightly more extensive due to 17,700 more acres being assigned within the Gila Bend

WHA under Alternative D in the Lower Sonoran. Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Managing recreational uses under Alternative D for sustainable and compatible levels

of motorized and nonmotorized activities, while enhancing nonmotorized recreation and

emphasizing the conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources, would result in

the least motorized activity taking place in the Decision Area. This would reduce localized air

quality impacts from motorized recreational use more than Alternatives A, B, and C. Adverse

impacts from recreational activities would be reduced to minor.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
398 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts from ACEC allocation would be similar to those described under Alternative A, although

the extent of impacts would be much greater as approximately 30 times more acres in the Lower

Sonoran would be under ACEC designation. While impacts would be more extensive, overall

impacts would remain negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Alternative D specifies the fewest miles of routes open and most miles of routes closed to

motorized vehicle use among all the alternatives, which would decrease the likelihood of

particulate emissions from vehicles use. In addition, compared to Alternatives C, 50 fewer

miles would be designated as open within the nonattainment areas (see Table 4.2, “Miles of

Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the Lower Sonoran” (p. 389)), which would further

decrease emissions in the form of fugitive dust within nonattainment areas; more so than under

any other alternative. Impacts from dust mitigation measures would be the same as described

under Alternative B. Closing washes with suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy owl habitat would

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative C, but the reduced emissions would

be extended to nine months, and some washes would be closed entirely, which would increase

the extent of beneficial impacts. Impacts from a 40-acre ATV and motorcycle use area in the

Ajo Block area of the Lower Sonoran would be the same as under Alternative B. Localized,

temporary impacts from OHV races would be reduced compared to Alternatives B and C because

fewer areas would be available for this use. Overall adverse impacts from transportation under

Alternative D would be reduced to minor.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Alternative D would allocate the most acreage to VRM Class I and II in the Lower Sonoran

among all the alternatives. In the long term, protection of scenic quality in VRM Class I and II

areas by reducing surface disturbance would decrease particulate matter emissions over a broader

area under Alternative D than under any of the other alternatives. Although beneficial impacts

would be more extensive, they would remain negligible.

4.2.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Allocating the entire Monument as an LUA exclusion area with no multiuse utility corridors would

minimize adverse impacts associated with increased emissions from surface-disturbing activities

such as construction and maintenance. Overall, adverse impacts would be reduced to negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts related to wildlife water development would be the same as those described under

Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 399

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Alternative D specifies the least miles of routes open and greatest miles of routes closed to

motorized vehicle use, which would decrease the likelihood of particulate emissions from

vehicles use. Speed events would be prohibited in the SDNM, eliminating such impacts to air

quality in the Monument. Overall, adverse impacts would be reduced to minor. From Visual

Resources on Air Quality Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative D for the

Lower Sonoran due to more lands in the Decision Area being assigned to VRM Class I and

VRM Class II compared to the other alternatives. Although beneficial impacts would be more

extensive, they would remain negligible.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran due to more

lands in the Decision Area being assigned to VRM Class I and VRM Class II compared to the other

alternatives. Although beneficial impacts would be more extensive, they would remain negligible.

4.2.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.2.7.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative E.

4.2.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing Management on Air Quality

Impacts from grazing in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to those described under Alternative

A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts from WHA designation in the Lower Sonoran would be the same as identified under

Alternative D. Impacts to air quality would be less intense compared to Alternative B due to

decreased dust associated with the construction of one wildlife water development per section

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
400 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

or trucks supplying water to the developments in the Decision Areas. Impacts to air quality

would be more intense compared to Alternative C and D under Alternative E due to the possible

development of additional wildlife waters, although increased dust associated with construction

would be mitigated, temporary, and localized. Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Impacts from recreation uses in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to those described under

Alternative C.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Beneficial impacts from ACEC designations in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to those

described under Alternative D, except that they would be less widespread due to 155,100 fewer

acres within an ACEC designation. Impacts would remain negligible.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Air quality impacts associated with travel on roads would be similar to Alternative C Decision

Area due to similar miles of routes open, limited, and closed. In addition, compared to

Alternatives C, 50 fewer miles would be designated as open within the nonattainment areas

nonattainment (see Table 4.2, “Miles of Routes in PM10 Nonattainment Areas for the Lower

Sonoran” (p. 389)), which would slightly decrease emissions in the form of fugitive dust within

nonattainment areas nonattainment. Impacts from dust mitigation measures and a 40-acre ATV

and motorcycle use area in the Lower Sonoran would be the same as described under Alternative

B. Impacts from closing washes and OHV races would be similar to those described under

Alternative C. Overall, impacts would remain in the minor to moderate range.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

Impacts from assuring projects, uses, and activities are compatible with management of visual

resources would be similar to Alternative B, although beneficial impacts would be more

widespread as Alternative E would allocate 172,300 more acres to VRM Class II. Overall impacts

would remain negligible.

4.2.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the SDNM.

From Livestock Grazing on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 401

From Recreation Management on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM.

From Special Designations on Air Quality

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM.

From Travel Management on Air Quality

Air quality impacts associated with travel on roads would be similar to Alternative C in the

SDNM due to similar miles of routes open, limited, and closed., with impacts remaining in the

minor to moderate range.

From Visual Resources on Air Quality

In the SDNM, Alternative E would also allocate VRM classes similarly to Alternative B, with

157,500 acres in Class I and 328,900 acres in Class II, although no acreage would be allocated to

VRM Class III. Alternative E would thus decrease the likelihood of particulate emissions from

erosion and dust in SDNM compared to Alternative A because it would allocate 237,000 more

acres to VRM Class II. However, even though Alternative E allocates more acreage to VRM Class

II than the other alternatives, Alternative E would increase the likelihood of particulate emissions

compared to Alternatives C and D because it would allocate 136,100 and 321,800 fewer acres,

respectively, to VRM Class I. Impacts would be negligible.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
402 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.3. IMPACTS ON CAVE RESOURCES

Although no caves or cave resources have been identified in the Decision Areas, Paleozoic

limestone outcrops in the Sand Tank Mountains may potentially contain caves and cave resources.

In addition, two lava tubes located in the Sentinel Plain area of the Lower Sonoran are considered

cave resources in this section. In the event caves or cave resources are discovered within

the Decision Areas, management actions to protect these resources and any associated water

resources would be implemented.

Impacts to caves and cave resources may take various forms. The discovery of new caves may

generate recreational opportunities for spelunking or for development as a tourist attraction. The

discovery may also expose the habitat of threatened or endangered species (e.g. bats) to impacts

by humans. Additionally, although less obvious to the casual observer, modification or damage to

soils or watersheds may impact caves by introducing sediment or contaminated water to the cave.

Due to the fact that limited caves and cave resources have been identified in the Planning Area,

the impacts on caves and cave resources are not discussed in detail. During implementation or

project-specific planning, the BLM would evaluate proposed actions for site-specific effects on

natural resources, including caves and cave resources, focusing on management actions that could

disturb or damage soils, watersheds, outcrops or structure at or near cave openings.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Cave Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 403

4.4. IMPACTS ON CULTURAL & HERITAGE RESOURCES

The extent of impacts on cultural resources among the alternatives varies in regard to three

primary factors: (1) the types and intensities of uses of public land, especially the extent of ground

disturbing activities, (2) the extent of areas specially designated to protect cultural resources, and

(3) location of uses. Some impacts on cultural resources result from ground disturbance such as

cross-country OHV travel, wildfires, unauthorized collection, vandalism, trash accumulation, and

trampling due to human or livestock activities. Other impacts, including permanent destruction of

site features, result from recreational target shooting activities, especially those that are intensive,

repetitive, and concentrated. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be

affected by natural weathering and erosion processes.

Cultural resources are subject to an active discovery process, so additional cultural resources

may be found on public lands, but quantity and quality cannot be properly evaluated until

discovered. The impacts described below would occur only if cultural resources are present

in the area affected by the impact.

The BLM reviews activities and other authorized uses of the public lands, including route

designation, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Section 106 reviews assess impacts on cultural resources, which may include consultation with

the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other interested agencies and parties. Proposed

activities and uses are designed to avoid adverse effects on cultural resources eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to implement measures to reduce or mitigate

adverse effects that cannot be reasonably avoided.

Management decisions for resources found to impact cultural and heritage resources include

priority wildlife species and habitat management, vegetation resources, cultural and heritage

resources, watershed and soil resources, visual resources, livestock grazing, recreation, travel

management, lands and realty, energy and minerals, and special designation areas. Actions

intended to maintain vegetation, protect or stabilize soils, or stop erosion, also would generally

protect cultural resources. Ground disturbing actions associated with these resources, including

installation of fencing, facilities, erosion control devices or similar activities, or removal of

invasive species could have localized impacts to cultural resources. Many uses, e.g. LUAs and

livestock facilities, may have secondary effects because they create new vehicle access, which

often leads to inadvertent damage from vehicle traffic and increases in the threat of vandalism of

fragile cultural resources. By altering the local environment, these developments also can affect

the integrity of nearby cultural resources if their settings are important aspects of their historical

values. Activities that are not subject to the permitting process, such as dispersed recreation use,

also have the potential to disturb or permanently damage cultural resources.

In addition, cultural resources may be affected by certain actions associated with wildland fire

management, public safety, and hazardous materials management. These impacts would not vary

substantially by alternative and are described in under the section common to all alternatives.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Cultural & Heritage Resources
404 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.4.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.4.1.1. Indicators

The assessment of impacts to cultural and heritage resources is based on specific indicators that

allow specialist to qualify them. Provenance or context is the element that gives the features and

artifacts meaning and a place in history. A cultural site has full integrity when its elements or

attributes remain in place as originally deposited. Cultural resources are evaluated for their

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The

following list describes many of the types of impacts to cultural and heritage resources that

diminish or destroy integrity:

● Impacts on site integrity — These impacts to surrounding conditions result from circumstances

or events that affect the site’s context:

1. Damage to the arrangement or structure of features,

2. Artifacts missing or rearranged,

3. Site elements rearranged,

4. Ground surface disturbed,

5. Subsurface cultural deposits disturbed.

● Impacts on site setting/visual integrity — These types of site damage affect relationships of

artifacts or features within a site:

1. Damage to physical environment of site,

2. Damage to historic sense of a particular period of time or feeling of site’s context.

4.4.1.2. Assumptions

This impact analysis focuses on the extent of changes in site integrity associated with the

alternatives detailed in Chapter 2, Alternatives (p. 27) and their potential to modify the risk of

impacts on cultural resources. The following assumptions regarding the resource base and cultural

resources management practices were considered in the analysis:

Before the BLM authorizes any project with potential to affect cultural resources, law and

regulation require that the agency identify whether sites are present, evaluate potentially impacted

sites for NRHP eligibility, and stipulate measures to reduce effects. Impacts may be reduced by

avoidance or mitigation measures, such as data collection or project redesign.

Ground- and surface-disturbing activities can vary in nature. Ground-disturbing activities from

mechanical and vehicular sources are assumed to have the potential to impact cultural resources

by damaging features, crushing or compacting subterranean features, rearranging features,

pushing soils to remove or excavate the original surface, or disturbing the contextual arrangement

of features and artifacts. Ground-disturbing activities from wildlife and livestock sources can

occur when an animal burrows or wallows in soft soils and damages features. Other animal

activities can disturb original subsurface cultural soil horizons, crush or compact surface artifacts,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 405

and rearrange the context of artifacts and features. Human-caused ground disturbance can occur

from fire contamination, trampling, digging, vandalism, and unauthorized collection.

Little of the Planning Area has been inventoried for cultural resources, and there is no predictive

modeling or sensitivity mapping available to estimate or quantify resource density. There is

potential for cultural resources on most of the Planning Area, but the presence and significance of

resources and impacts cannot be quantified.

There is qualitative information that indicates where there is a higher probability that cultural

resources would be present relative to the whole Planning Area. These include river corridors,

spring locations, historic trails, and high quality arable land in proximity to rivers. Highly

disturbed or recently developed areas would be less likely to include intact cultural resources.

Measures that withdraw land or restrict surface development to protect resources can provide

direct and indirect protection of cultural resources from disturbance and from incompatible

and unauthorized activities.

Natural processes, such as erosion or weathering, will degrade the integrity of many types of

cultural resources over time. Human visitation, recreation, OHV use, livestock grazing, fire and

non-fire vegetation treatments, and other activities can increase the rate of deterioration through

natural processes. While the effect of a few incidents may be negligible, the effect of repeated

actions or visits over time is likely to intensify impacts.

Vandalism or unauthorized collecting can destroy cultural resources in a single incident.

Increased access to areas where cultural resources are present can raise the risk of vandalism or

unauthorized collection of cultural resources.

Site monitoring, non-project-related inventories, interpretive development, site stabilization and

other proactive management activities would continue and may have negligible to minor impacts

on cultural resources.

4.4.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The qualitative terms for intensity of impacts are generally the same as that adopted (see

Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375)) elsewhere in this chapter. In

addition to the definitions/thresholds identified for the SDNM, impacts specific to cultural and

heritage resources will be measured as follows:

Negligible: Impacts would be extremely short-lived, would not extend beyond the footprint

of the action, and would not affect the character-defining features of any historic or cultural

Monument object.

Minor: Impacts would not affect the character-defining features of any of the historic or cultural

Monument objects.

Moderate: Impacts may result in alteration of a character-defining feature, but would not

diminish the integrity of the cultural resource Monument object.

Major: Impacts would result in alteration of character-defining feature of the cultural resource

Monument Object, diminishing or damaging its integrity.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
406 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.4.1.4. Program Areas with No Impacts on Cultural Resources

No impacts to cultural and heritage resources are anticipated for management actions relating to:

● Air quality resources

● Cave resources

● Paleontological resources

● Water resources

● Wild horse and burro management

4.4.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.4.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Cultural and Heritage

Resources

Fencing and filling abandoned mine shafts and drift features has the potential to directly affect

sites’ integrity because many historic mines contain closely related features such as adits and

associated above-ground processing areas. The setting of historic mining sites also may be

affected when mining structures are sealed and remediated. Planning for these remediation

projects will enable the development and implementation of mitigation actions where warranted.

In some cases, these actions could result in moderate impacts to sites and Monument objects.

These may be mitigated to minor impact through the development and implementation of

treatment plans.

Emergency hazardous material clean-ups may directly affect cultural resources at a minor to

major level due to ground-disturbing activities from the use of heavy equipment for the short

term in localized areas. For instance, emergency HAZMAT clean-ups could destroy a site

completely if all the soil had to be removed; however, because the effects would be short-term

and site remediation ultimately would public safety, this would be an acceptable overall outcome

– even within the SDNM.

Vehicle use, driving cross-country, grading and other activities of the Department of Homeland

Security and other border-related law enforcement agencies, including pursuit of undocumented

immigrants and illegal drug loads, may affect cultural resources at a minor to moderate

level. Driving cross-country over sites may have direct moderate impact on site integrity.

Law-enforcement agencies are seeking interdiction methods that would reduce the necessity of

cross-country law enforcement travel. However, decisions regarding border law enforcement

interdiction methods are beyond the scope of this document.

Areas such as SDNM Area A and Sentinel Plain, where access is restricted to entry by permit

only, will have a protective effect on all forms of the cultural resources integrity and Monument

objects within those areas. Impacts would be negligible over the long term.

From Soil Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 407

Where the BLM implements measures to improve soil stability and vegetation cover, cultural

resource integrity and setting would be better protected from soil erosion. Site-specific structures

would not be authorized unless the projects were in compliance with existing cultural resources

laws and regulations and appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary, were in effect. Therefore,

impacts on sites would be negligible.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Decisions regarding management of visual resources may affect the integrity of settings of

cultural resources and Monument objects for the long term. Under all alternatives, a mixture

of management allocations is employed for different areas of the Planning Area. Site internal

integrity would be protected via procedures, following law and regulation, protecting cultural

resources from project impacts.

Impacts to cultural resources from implementing management actions in accordance with the

VRM classes would be dependent on the presence of sites and the extent to which the surrounding

landscape would be modified. VRM classes and actions could affect qualities that contribute to

the eligibility of cultural resource sites for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places

by affecting site setting/visual integrity. These qualities include integrity of setting and integrity

of the feeling (or historic sense). Impacts on setting could limit potential public educational

opportunities.

The allocation of VRM Class IV would allow visual intrusions and associated ground disturbing

activities associated with a variety of uses to dominate the landscape at a level that could damage

or destroy historic landscape integrity at a moderate or greater level of intensity in the long term.

Except for Alternative A, VRM Class IV does not occur within the SDNM.

The allocation of VRM Class III would impact the integrity of cultural resources and historic

landscape settings in more localized areas by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and

ground disturbing activities associated with a variety of land uses at a level that would not

dominate the landscape. Nevertheless, at some locations, this could have moderate impact on

sites for which setting is integral to their National Register eligibility.

The areas managed for VRM Class II would see more benefits to the essential characteristics and

attributes of historic landscape integrity. Management of activities and developments would be

more restrictive in terms of visual intrusions and ground disturbing activities on the historic

landscape, leading to more protection of the cultural resources, at a minor to moderate level of

intensity.

Cultural resources and Monument objects managed on lands for VRM Class I has the most

restrictive criteria for project design and mitigation. Classification as VRM Class I excludes most

forms of ground disturbing activities and developments.

From Wildland Fire Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cultural resources would be affected by fires and fire suppression activities. Fires alter the settings

of some kinds of cultural resources visually. Fires remove the vegetation which may allow soil

erosion to damage or destroy the site components. Fire suppression activities may impact cultural

resources, if present, if heavy earth-moving equipment and vehicles are used to cut fire lines.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
408 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Wildfires and fuels treatments can affect cultural resources through direct exposure to fire and

disturbances from the methods used to suppress and manage fires and natural fuels. Fuels

treatment projects in the Decision Areas will usually involve mechanical and, perhaps chemical,

treatment and be preplanned. This will assure that our Section 106 obligations have been met

and that projects have been designed to avoid sites prior to implementation. Impacts to site

integrity and setting will, therefore, be negligible.

Flammable structures and features, such as wooden buildings and mining head frames, are

particularly vulnerable to damage and destruction by wildfire. In addition, fire suppression

methods may entail surface disturbances resulting from staging activities, vehicle tracks, and

use of earth-moving equipment or mechanical treatments to manage vegetation. A policy of

aggressive initial attack on desert fires will ensure that direct effects of fire, itself, to settings are

kept to minor impact intensity. Within wilderness areas and along the NHT corridor, Minimum

Impact Suppression Tactics, that limit use of heavy equipment, will assure that otherwise

moderate impacts to site integrity from ground disturbance would be reduced to minor.

4.4.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Construction, operation and maintenance of roads, utilities, and other types of uses (excluding

renewable energy power plants) may directly impact cultural resources and Monument objects

through associated ground disturbance. In most cases these impacts will be negligible to

moderate and short-term. These impacts may be mitigated to minor through the development and

implementation of treatment plans if warranted.

Construction, installation, operation, and maintenance within major utilities corridors may

impact cultural resources and Monument objects directly by affecting site integrity though

ground disturbance and change in site settings. Project-specific mitigation measures would be

developed and implemented so that impacts would be reduced from moderate to major or minor.

If setting is integral to National Register of Historic Places eligibility of a site, then degradation

of site setting may be expected at the moderate level. This expected moderate impact may be

mitigated to minor through project design, placement, underground placement of utility lines, or

design and color selection of towers.

Concentrated solar power plants requiring development level terrain that is free of vegetation will

have major impacts to sites.

Land tenure adjustments, including disposal or acquisitions, may directly affect cultural resources

either by removing sites from the protections of Federal ownership or by bringing them under the

protections of Federal ownership. The level of intensity of this impact would range from minor to

moderate. Mitigation measures would be applied to reduce or minimize the impacts if significant

sites are present in lands leaving Federal ownership.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cultural resources located on the lands on which the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt had been

designated enjoy additional protections due to the closure to mineral entry and other restrictions

of this designation. Impacts to site integrity due to ground disturbance expected from vegetation

treatments (such as mechanical removal of tamarisk) would be addressed through standard

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 409

procedures required by law and regulation for managing projects with potential to affect cultural

resources. Impacts are expected to be minor and of short-term duration.

4.4.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described for All Alternatives for the Lower Sonoran, except,

the exclusion of utility-scale renewable energy facilities on the SDNM would have a protective

effect on the cultural resources and Monument objects over the long term. Protective effects

would stem from restrictions on construction activities that would disturb, alter, or destroy the

existing ground surface and the cultural resources that are present.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The SDNM is withdrawn from new mineral entry under all alternatives. The withdrawal was

established in the proclamation that established the Monument. This withdrawal will have a

protective effect on cultural resources, as ground disturbance from exploration, prospecting, and

other activities associated with mineral development would be generally prohibited.

In those few parcels (25,800 acres) within SDNM where the surface is owned by the United

States and the subsurface is owned by a non-Federal entity, minerals development may still occur.

Depending upon the extent and intensity of ground disturbance, there may be direct effects on

cultural resource site integrity at a moderate level. However, the BLM, as the owner/manager of

the surface, will work with operators to mitigate impacts to affected sites and Monument objects

and reduce effects to minor. Methods to reach a minor impact outcome would likely include

project redesign or the development and implementation of a treatment plan to reduce or mitigate

effects in compliance with existing law and regulation. However, mineral regulations do not apply

to these types of actions, as they would be managed by the lands and realty program.

4.4.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.4.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Management of cultural resources is usually a non-disturbing activity that involves inventory,

site monitoring, and occasionally installation of site protection measures. Some cultural resource

management activities that are ground disturbing (e.g., installation of protective fencing to

exclude livestock or motorized vehicles and development of interpretive projects or facilities, such

as signs, kiosks, and public events) could cause small scale disturbances of cultural resources but

are, generally, developed as overall protective measures. Pre-project implementation mitigation

measures would ensure that impacts would be negligible. Where protective design features may

be added, the effects may be mitigated through sensitive design. The effects would usually be

negligible to minor.

Excavation for purposes of data collection is a mitigation measure used when sites that may be

impacted by projects cannot be protected by other means, such as project redesign or avoidance.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
410 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In this case excavation in a controlled scientific manner is deemed a method of preservation,

albeit not in situ.

By BLM policy, cultural sites are allocated to specific uses. Allocation of sites to public use

increases opportunities for interpretation and education, but may also increase the disturbance

of these sites. Allocation to scientific use allows the site to be available for consideration of

appropriate scientific studies. Study methods may result in physical alteration or destruction of

site attributes in order to answer important questions posed in a research proposal. Allocation

of sites to traditional use would promote the preservation of cultural traditions. Allocation for

future use would protect and preserve significant sites by segregating them from all other land

or resource uses that would threaten their present condition or setting. Sites allocated to the

experimental use category would be used to increase knowledge about damage and extent of

damage caused by specific elements on cultural resources. However, cultural sites would be more

subject to damage through certain types of experimentation. Sites allocated as discharged no

longer meet the criteria necessary for protection. Since they cease to be a management constraint,

management can focus on priority sites.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Cultural and

Heritage Resources

Improvements to existing wildlife water developments may affect cultural resources and

Monument objects directly at a minor to moderate level in localized areas in the short term, as old

developments are remodeled. These impacts would have direct impact on site integrity due to

use of heavy equipment and ground disturbing activities to excavate and replace old facilities

and indirect due to changes in adjacent drainage patterns leading to erosion of cultural sites.

These effects would be mitigated to minor or negligible by soil erosion and hydrology BMPs and

standard procedures in compliance with cultural resources laws and regulations.

Seasonal wildlife closure areas will have a protective effect by prohibiting vehicle and public

access into particular areas for the long term, which would reduce considerably the effect of direct

vehicle damage and trampling on cultural sites’ integrity.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

There are no existing management decisions for wilderness characteristics. Under this alternative,

all areas not otherwise protected by special designations would be open to multiple uses and

development. Effects of any proposals for use would be evaluated in compliance with Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. One would expect that impacts would, at most,

be moderate with the opportunity to reduce them to minor with mitigation measures (including

avoidance, project redesign or data collection).

4.4.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Livestock may tend to gather in certain areas where water, soft soil, or shade is available. Site

integrity may be affected directly by intense trampling of the surface soils at a minor to moderate

level of intensity in localized areas or indirectly by denuding the vegetation and allowing erosion

to accelerate. Erosion may ultimately affect site integrity at a minor level outside the immediate

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 411

impact area. Livestock development may be redesigned or mitigation measures developed to

reduce impacts to a negligible level.

Areas unavailable to grazing or left un-leased would have a protective effect upon the cultural

resources over the long term, since livestock would be excluded from gathering and trampling

activities on sites. Under Alternative A, this condition would remain unchanged and have

negligible impact on site integrity.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Currently, 713,300 acres of the Lower Sonoran are open mineral development, whether locatable,

leasable or saleable. Depending upon the extent and intensity of ground disturbance and

production in approved plans of operation for mineral exploration and development, there may

be direct effects on cultural resource site integrity at a moderate level. However, mitigation of

impacts to affected sites is expected to reduce the effects to minor. Methods to reach a minor

impact outcome would likely include project redesign and/or the development and implementation

of a treatment plan in compliance with existing law and regulation.

New vehicle routes associated with mineral development may have moderate indirect impacts

on site integrity if project access also opens new areas to site visitation. These impacts may

be reduced to minor through project design.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Construction, operation, and maintenance of new recreational developments may have a direct

effect on cultural resources and Monuments objects in a localized area, due the installation

of parking areas, interpretive media, and other amenities using heavy equipment. However,

prior to approval, the project must be in compliance with all applicable cultural resource laws

and regulations. Impacts, if identified, will be mitigated to the negligible or minor level using

standard cultural resources impact mitigation practices such as avoidance, project redesign, or

the development and implementation of a treatment plan. Increased visitation, brought about by

recreational developments with amenities, may affect cultural resources and Monument objects

directly at a minor level in localized areas due to increased unauthorized collection and indirectly

by increased erosion brought about by increased traffic.

Camping in a dispersed manner may have minor impact on the integrity of cultural resources and

Monument objects due to vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of

unauthorized collection of artifacts.

SRP vehicle events and large group events may impact cultural resources and Monument objects

indirectly by creating new access route patterns, ruts and berms that lead to erosion, and attracting

large numbers of vehicles and visitors which may lead to increased vandalism and unauthorized

collection. All of the impacts from SRP’s are minor in impact.

Increased vehicle-based recreation has lead to an increase of off-road vehicle use which may

have a minor direct impact cultural resources and Monument objects, due to driving over site

features and artifacts.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
412 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza NHT designation with its Comprehensive Management Plan

(NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly the historic sites associated with it for the

long term due to its status as a nationally important resource. As visitation increases, cultural

resources integrity may be impacted directly and indirectly by disturbance due to vehicle use,

trampling by visitors, and unauthorized collection of artifacts. As interpretive media is developed

for the trail, visitation will increase which may impact the cultural resources directly by vehicle

damage to site features and trampling. Development of the Anza Auto Route along major

highways and paved local roadways will have no effect on the cultural resources.

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC closure to OHV use will ensure negligible impacts to site

integrity from off-road driving.

Wilderness designation ensures a major protective effect on cultural resources over the long term.

Prohibitions on the use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and equipment eliminates threats to

the physical integrity and settings of cultural resources.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The use, operation, and maintenance of existing routes may have direct minor impact on cultural

resource and Monument Object integrity due to ground disturbing activities associated with the use

and care of routes. The use, operation, and maintenance of existing routes may indirectly impact

cultural resources and Monument objects by allowing access into sensitive site areas or altering

drainage patterns leading to inundation or erosion. Non-managed transportation routes and the

potential for route proliferation are of particular concern for the management and protection or

cultural resources. Vehicles cutting across cultural sites have the potential to directly impact site

integrity in localized areas. This impact could be moderate to major depending on soil type.

New route development would require analysis and evaluation under the laws and regulations

governing cultural resource management on BLM-managed land. Mitigation measures, including

route redesign and avoidance would ensure that impacts to site integrity would be negligible to

minor. Indirect impacts from opening new areas with improved recreational access would include

impacts to site integrity from those who might drive over sites or collect artifacts. It is anticipated

that these impacts would be minor.

Designation of a few routes to a nonmotorized level of use may have a direct and indirect

protective effect on cultural resources and Monument objects for the long term by prohibiting

motor vehicle use, thereby slightly reducing the number of visitors in a localized area. Limitations

placed on access to particular areas may have an indirect protective effect on the integrity of

cultural resource sites at a minor to moderate level of intensity for the long term across the

Decision area.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Authorization of the removal of native plant material and associated ground disturbance may

impact cultural resources by affecting the integrity of the setting at a minor level, in a localized

area, for the short term. Removal of traditionally and culturally significant vegetation types may

directly impact at a minor level the features and settings of traditional use and harvest areas in

particular locales for the short term.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 413

Woodcutting and associated ground disturbance caused by the use of large vehicles during

vegetation removal may directly impact cultural resources at a minor level for the short term.

Active vegetation management strategies may directly and indirectly affect cultural resources

at a minor level in localized areas for the short term due to the use of heavy equipment which

disturbs or damages surface and subsurface features on sites.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Alternative A includes an allocation for the most acreage of VRM Class IV. This would have

moderate or greater impact on site setting by allowing visual intrusions and ground disturbing

activities associated with a variety of uses to dominate the landscape.

4.4.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Under this alternative, livestock grazing north of I-8 within the Monument would remain

permitted. Livestock tend to gather in certain areas where water, soft soil, or shade is available.

Site integrity may be affected directly by intense trampling of the surface soils in localized

areas or indirectly by denuding the vegetation and allowing erosion to accelerate. Erosion may

ultimately affect site integrity at a minor to moderate levels.

Within areas south of I-8, livestock grazing has been discontinued. This would continue to

have a protective effect upon the cultural resources over the long term, since livestock would be

excluded from gathering and trampling activities on sites. Under Alternative A, this condition

would remain unchanged and have negligible impact on site integrity.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The National Trail designation has a major protective effect on cultural resources and Monument

objects over the long term. This protective effect occurs because of a restriction of certain types

of ground disturbing uses that would not be compatible with the values for which the NHT was

designated. Further, the trail segment within the Monument is considered to be a high potential

route segment for interpretation, which leads to further protection of associated cultural resources.

The Vekol Valley ACEC closure to OHV use has ensured negligible impacts to site integrity from

off-road driving. However, the continued need for the Vekol Valley ACEC has been supplanted

by designation of SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
414 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Wilderness designation ensures a major protective effect on cultural resources and Monument

objects over the long term. Prohibitions on the use of motorized and mechanized vehicles and

equipment eliminates threats to the physical integrity and settings of cultural resources and

Monument objects.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to route designations with the SDNM.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative A, allocation of VRM Class IV could affect qualities that contribute to the

eligibility of cultural resource sites for the National Register of Historic Places. These effects

could be long-term and moderate or greater in intensity. It is unlikely that these effects could be

mitigated to an acceptable minor level of impact for these Monument objects.

4.4.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.4.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas,

except, Alternative B would include a greater number of sites (including Painted Rock, portions

of historic trails in Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas, Sundad, Big Horn Station)

developed to promote public use and heritage tourism than in Alternative A. This, in turn, could

increase public visitation for the long term. Structures added to handle increased visitation

demand may present moderate levels of impacts to site integrity and setting. These impacts,

however, may be mitigated to minor with sensitively designed visitor amenities.

Management of cultural landscapes as a whole entity may have a protective effect on cultural

resources and Monument objects for the long term, due to an increased attention and better

understanding of the interrelationships of the sites to one another and the relationship of these

sites and features to natural topographic features than in Alternative A. These protective measures

would present minor levels of impacts.

Increased monitoring of sites over the level performed in Alternative A would also have a

protective effect on cultural resources and Monument objects directly and indirectly at a minor to

moderate level for the long term.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Cultural and

Heritage Resources

Improvements to existing wildlife water developments and the addition of more developments

would have impacts similar to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 415

Seasonal wildlife closures and the prohibition of vehicle use in certain areas may have an indirect

protective effect on cultural resources and Monument objects within the closure areas because

there would be fewer incidents of vehicle-based surface damage than under Alternative A.

Prohibition of motorized competitive speed events in certain areas may have an indirect protective

effect within the closure areas leading to less vehicle damage on sites. These restrictions and

prohibition would protect site integrity as well as site settings.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

4.4.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative B, 9,400 acres would be closed to entry for development of locatable minerals

(703,900 acres open); 7,000 would be closed to leasable minerals development (713,100 open);

and 20,100 would be closed to minerals materials development (700,000 acres open). Several

of the areas to be closed were selected based upon the sensitivity of the cultural and historic

resources known to be present. This will provide a protective effect over that provided in

Alternative A. Depending upon the extent and intensity of ground disturbance and production in

approved plans of operation for mineral exploration and development, there may be direct effects

on cultural resource site integrity at a moderate level. However, mitigation of impacts to affected

sites is expected to reduce the effects to minor. Methods to reach a minor impact outcome would

likely include project redesign or the development and implementation of a treatment plan in

compliance with existing law and regulation.

New vehicle routes associated with mineral development may have moderate indirect impacts

on site integrity if project access also opens new areas to site visitation. These impacts may

be reduced to minor through project design.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The Decision Area will be divided into two types of management areas: ERMAs and SRMAs. In

Alternative B, the ERMA area will be managed as under Alternative A (both Decision Areas)

and, in those areas, the effects would be similar. The eight SRMAs in Alternative B would be

managed to promote a vehicle-based recreational experience.

In the Buckeye Hills Trails SRMA, a combination of front country experiences and community

interface management has been proposed. In the west section of this unit, the vehicle-based, front

country, two-track, and route exploration would impact cultural resources site integrity indirectly

through erosion, on a negligible to minor level for a short duration, in localized areas.

Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle

incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
416 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

a minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. In the eastern section of this unit,

the community interface level of management implies that areas where camping and day use areas

are designated, impacts would be negligible on cultural resources.

In the Saddle Mountain SRMA, a combination of front country experiences, back country

primitive experiences, and a community interface area is proposed. In the front country areas,

vehicle-based exploration and camping would impact cultural resources directly through erosion,

on a minor level for short duration in localized areas. Areas where camping in a dispersed

manner is prescribed may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions,

trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor

level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. Community interface areas where camping

and day use are designated and activity structured could have direct impacts to cultural resources

from unauthorized collection, but this is expected to be negligible. In the back country, it is

expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly

by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of

artifacts at a negligible to minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the Arlington SRMA, vehicle-based, front country, two-track, route exploration would impact

cultural resources indirectly, through increased ground disturbance. Impacts are expected to be

negligible to minor, for a short duration, in localized areas. Camping in a dispersed manner may

affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible

exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity for

short durations, in localized areas.

In the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA, the area is largely proposed as back country with a few

areas of front country along the main access routes. It is expected that camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling,

and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of

intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration is

anticipated to be complementary to the historic trail features that cross the unit. Under this

alternative, more routes will be open to vehicle-based exploration, which may lead to increased

off-road travel and ground disturbance. It is anticipated that this activity would impact cultural

resources on a minor level for a short duration, in localized areas. Alternative B is expected to

have a greater negative impact on cultural resources than Alternative A. Camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling,

and indirectly by possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor

level of intensity over the long term, in localized areas.

In the Painted Rock Mountains SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration experiences

could lead to ground disturbance associated with route proliferation and vehicle incursions. This

would impact cultural resources on a negligible to minor level for a short duration, in localized

areas. Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by

vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of

artifacts at a minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the Ajo SRMA, a combination of community interface management and back country

management are anticipated. Community interface areas where camping and day use areas are

designated and activity structured would have more structure, oversight and enforcement of

travel. Because of this, it is expected that route proliferation and vehicle incursion would be

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 417

reduced. Therefore, impacts are expected to be negligible or none on cultural resources. In

the back country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of

cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of

unauthorized collection of artifacts at a negligible to minor level of intensity for short durations,

in localized areas. In the back country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner may

affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible

exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a negligible to minor level of

intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the San Tan Mountains Regional Park SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration

experiences could lead to ground disturbance associated with route proliferation and vehicle

incursions. This would impact cultural resources on a minor level in localized areas for a short

duration. Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by

vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of

artifacts at a minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

Overall, the effects of implementation of this Alternative on cultural resources in the SRMAs

would be negligible to minor, compared to the management of these areas in Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza NHT designation with its Comprehensive Management

Plan (NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly, on a minor to moderate level, the

historic sites associated with it for the long term due to its status as a nationally important

resource. As visitation increases, cultural resources may be impacted directly and indirectly by

disturbance due to vehicle use, trampling by visitors, and unauthorized collection of artifacts.

As additional interpretive media is developed for the trail, increasing visitation may impact the

cultural resources directly by vehicle damage to site features and trampling. As vehicle-based

visitation is highly promoted under this alternative, effects to cultural resources are expected to be

greater than that expected under Alternative A. The impact would be at the moderate level.

In Alternative B, ACEC allocation is similar to Alternative A. Impacts would be of the same

intensity.

In Alternative B, Agua Caliente Road would be evaluated for allocation as a scenic byway. This

could impact cultural resource sites indirectly by encouraging increased public use of the area.

More people may venture off Agua Caliente road and visit sites not previously impacted by

recreational visitation. Impact is expected to be minor for site integrity.

In wilderness, impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the Lower Sonoran, action alternatives B through E would be subject to route designation

within 5 years of RMP completion. Until designation, travel would be limited to existing roads

and trails. Existing routes in areas proposed as open or limited may be subject to some level of

cultural inventory and identification to assess potential impacts to sites. Areas where a proposed

designation will shift, concentrate, or expand motorized travel into areas where properties are

likely to be affected, an inventory would be required prior to designation to stay in compliance

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
418 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. These and known sensitive areas will

be considered in determining which roads will be designated as routes.

Alternative B allows for a more extensive network of transportation routes, which could increase

the potential for cultural resource damage. Direct impacts could include disturbance to surface

features, soils and artifacts from vehicle traffic resulting in damage, breakage or displacement. A

more extensive road network would facilitate public access to a greater number of archaeological

sites, increasing their vulnerability to vandalism and artifact theft. Impacts to site integrity are

anticipated to be minor. Conversely, greater access may allow for more opportunities for public

interpretation, which could increase public understanding and stewardship of resources.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Harvesting of certain vegetative materials and woodcutting is generally not allowed, but may

be approved in specific cases. These cases and vegetation restoration treatments in the Fred J.

Weiler Green Belt could directly affect the integrity of site settings, at a minor level, in a localized

area, for the short term. However, these activities would not be approved without compliance

with existing law and regulation governing cultural resource use and protection. Appropriate

mitigation would ensure that impacts would be minor to negligible. Expected impacts would be

similar to those under Alternative A.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

VRM Class IV is reduced to 221,600 acres in Alternative B from an allocation of 442,500 in A.

Class III is increased in B to 551,900 acres from 279,600 in Alternative A. This is likely to result

in less impact than in Alternative A for those sites for which setting is integral to their eligibility

for the National Register of Historic Places.

4.4.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except

fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing (243,749). According to the Grazing

Compatibility Analysis (Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the

Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)), approximately 8,500 acres of Monument objects

(mostly vegetation) was found to be incompatible with livestock grazing, and would be fenced

off under Alternative B. This exclosure would help protect cultural resources. Additionally,

approximately 10 acres around the North Tank on the Anza NHT would be fenced off to protect

that area. The combination of closed areas and a reduction in AUMs would decrease impacts to

minor intensities as more areas where cultural sites could be present would be closed.

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and

Historical SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) within Section 4.25, “Implementation Level

Analysis” (p. 906) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 419

Under this alternative, all parts of the SDNM are allocated to one SRMA. It is anticipated that

this strategy would offer the same level of protection to cultural resources as Alternative A

(both Decision Areas) because the increased management would not be enough to counteract

anticipated sharp increases in public visitation.

In the SDNM SRMA, the majority of the lands would be allocated to back country. In the back

country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner and increased vehicular recreation may

affect the integrity of cultural resources and Monument objects directly by vehicle incursions,

trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor to

moderate level of intensity over the long term, in localized areas.

Under this alternative, more routes will be open to vehicle-based exploration. It is anticipated

that this activity would impact cultural resources and Monument objects on a minor level over

the long term, in localized areas due to vehicle incursions and associated ground disturbance.

Camping in a dispersed manner and increasing vehicle-based recreation may have minor effect

on the integrity of cultural resources and Monument objects directly due to vehicle incursions,

trampling, and indirectly by possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts

at a minor level of intensity over the long term, in localized areas.

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to target shooting within the SDNM.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The development of the Anza National Historic Trail and the promotional emphasis on it as a

heritage tourism destination would lead to increased visitation, vehicular traffic, and amenities

such as interpretive developments. Increased visitation is likely to lead to increased unauthorized

collection of artifacts and trampling on features and artifacts located immediately adjacent to the

trail. These impacts are expected to be minor to moderate compared to Alternative A, directly and

indirectly affecting the cultural resources and Monument objects along the trail for the long term.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) within Section 4.25, “Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906).

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

VRM allocations under Alternative B are increased from Alternative A by 127,400 Class II

acres and decreased by 119,700 Class IV acres. This would have considerably more protective

effect on the settings of cultural resources, due to some additional restrictions on the level of

development as guided by visual intrusion. Overall, because of these added protections, impacts

are expected to be minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
420 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.4.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.4.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Cultural and

Heritage Resources

Proposed avoidance areas and restrictions on development and surface disturbance within the Gila

Bend Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area, the Saddle Mountain Wildlife Habitat Area, the Cuerda

de Lena Wildlife Habitat Area, and the Batamote Mountain Habitat Areas (a total of 425,900

acres) would have a more protective effect on the cultural resources than under Alternative A.

4.4.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Development of sites allocated to public use (Painted Rock, portions of historic trails, and

Sundad) would emphasize protection of site features under Alternative C. Impacts on site

integrity would be minor.

There would be some ground disturbance due to installation of facilities to manage visitation and

protect resources, such as designated parking areas, protective fencing, and/or interpretive media

displays. Impact to site integrity would be negligible to minor compared to Alternative A as

facilities necessary to visitor safety and site protection would be placed and installed to maximize

protection of site integrity and setting. This alternative will include additional evaluation of the

suitability of sites for public use. Evaluation of suitability is conducted to ensure that important

characteristics and values of a site can be protected.

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative C, 2,350 acres would be closed to entry for development of locatable minerals

(710,950 acres open); 250 would be closed to leasable minerals development (713,300 open); and

157,300 would be closed to minerals materials development (528,500 acres open). Several of the

areas to be closed were selected based upon the sensitivity of the cultural and historic resources

known to be present. This alternative will have much more protective effect than in Alternative A

on sites that could be affected due to mineral materials (saleables) development.

Depending upon the extent and intensity of ground disturbance and production in approved plans

of operation for mineral exploration and development, there may be direct effects on cultural

resource site integrity at a moderate level. However, mitigation of impacts to affected sites

is expected to reduce the effects to minor. Methods to reach a minor impact outcome would

likely include project redesign or the development and implementation of a treatment plan in

compliance with existing law and regulation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 421

New vehicle routes associated with mineral development may have moderate indirect impacts

on site integrity if project access also opens new areas to site visitation. These impacts may

be reduced to minor through project design.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The Decision Area will be divided into an ERMA and six SRMAs. In the ERMA, impacts

would be the same as in Alternative A. In Alternative C, there would be fewer SRMAs than in

Alternative B and more emphasis on resource protection overall than in Alternative A.

In the Buckeye Hills Trails SRMA, a combination of front country experiences and back country

primitive experiences are proposed. Vehicle-based, front country route exploration experiences

would lead to impacts from ground disturbance associated with vehicle incursions and route

proliferation onto sites. These impacts on cultural resources are expected to be negligible to minor

for a short duration, in localized areas. Overnight camping would be prohibited in Alternative C,

unless specifically authorized.

In the Saddle Mountain SRMA, a combination of front country experiences and limited

upland areas for back country primitive experiences are proposed. In the front country areas,

vehicle-based exploration and camping would lead to impacts from ground disturbance associated

with vehicle incursions and route proliferation onto sites. Impacts are expected to occur at a

minor level for short duration in localized areas. Areas where camping in a dispersed manner is

prescribed may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling,

and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of

intensity for short durations, in localized areas. In the back country, it is expected that camping

in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources at a negligible to minor

level of intensity for the short term.

In the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA, the area is largely proposed as back country, with a few

areas of front country along the main access routes. It is expected that camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling,

and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of

intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration is

anticipated to be complementary to the historic trail features that cross the unit. It is anticipated

that this activity would lead to impacts from ground disturbance associated with vehicle

incursions and route proliferation onto sites. It is expected to impact cultural resources on a minor

level for a short duration, in localized areas. Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the

integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure

to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity over the long

term, in localized areas.

In the Ajo SRMA, a combination of community interface management close to town, back

country management, and front country management are anticipated. Community interface

areas where camping and day use areas are designated and activity structured, there would be

negligible or no impact on cultural resources. In back country and front country settings, it is

expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly

by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of

artifacts at a negligible to minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. In the

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
422 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

front country areas, vehicle-based exploration and camping would impact cultural resources on a

minor level for short duration in localized areas.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza NHT designation with its Comprehensive Management Plan

(NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly the historic sites associated with it for

the long term due to its status as a nationally important resource. Management of the NHT and

cultural resources would emphasize increased scientific research and would institute a focused

approach on trail corridor protection. Both of these emphases would have a protective effect on

both cultural resources associated with the trail and those that are not associated with it. Impacts

are expected to occur over the long term, at a minor intensity. Overall, negative impacts to

cultural resources are expected to be slightly less than those under Alternative A.

Allocation of the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC will have no impact on cultural resource integrity

and setting. The prescriptions will limit disturbance and access. Development in the area would

be limited.

The designation of Agua Caliente Road as a Back Country Byway would have the effect of

increasing the public visitation levels since byways are advertised and promoted. This increase in

visitation may indirectly effect cultural resources by increasing vehicle-based recreation in the

area, leading to road proliferation which would increase the likelihood of surface disturbance on

cultural sites. Some increased vandalism of sites (with minor effect on site integrity compared to

Alternative A) is possible.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the Lower Sonoran, all the action alternatives would be subject to route designation within

5 years of RMP completion. Until designation, travel would be limited to existing roads and

trails. Existing routes designated as open or limited may be subject to some level of cultural

inventory and identification to assess potential impacts to sites. Where a proposed designation

will shift, concentrate, or expand motorized travel into areas where historic properties are likely

to be affected, an inventory is required prior to designation to stay in compliance with Section

106. These and known sensitive areas will be considered in determining which roads will be

designated as routes.

Impacts to cultural and heritage resources under Alternative C would be similar to those under

Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B for Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative C, VRM Class IV (65,000 acres) would be allocated to small areas around

communities and along LUAs, leading to fewer areas where higher amounts of development

and the associated ground disturbing activities would be expected. Limiting these areas would

assure that major modification of the landscape would be more limited than under Alternatives

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 423

A and B (442,500 and 221,600 acres, respectively). Major impacts to setting would be highly

localized. VRM Class II management would be expanded (by about 271,500 acres as compared

to Alternative A) broadly across the Lower Sonoran, which would have a protective effect on

cultural resources settings and physical integrity due to the restrictions on visual intrusion and the

associated ground disturbing activities and projects at a level of minor to moderate intensity.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Approximately 128,100 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Few development projects would be implemented. Impact on site integrity and

setting would be negligible.

Areas would be designated and managed as limited OHV use areas. This would mean that

motorized vehicles would be limited to designated routes established through subsequent travel

management planning. Impact on site integrity and setting would be negligible. This would have

a more protective effect compared to Alternative A.

4.4.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The emphasis for the Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMA would be on protection of

Monument objects. This would have a protective effect on site integrity, compared to Alternative

A.

Development of sites allocated to public use (such as Big Horn Station and portions of historic

trails) would emphasis protection of site features under Alternative C. Impacts on site integrity

would be minor, compared to Alternative A.

There would be some ground disturbance due to installation of facilities to manage visitation and

protect resources, such as designated parking areas, protective fencing, and/or interpretive media

displays. Impact to site integrity would be negligible to minor under Alternative C, as facilities

necessary to ensure visitor safety and site protection would be placed and installed to maximize

protection of site integrity and setting. This alternative will include additional evaluation of the

suitability of sites for public use. Evaluation of suitability is conducted to ensure that important

characteristics and values of a site can be protected. This would ensure a protective effect

compared to Alternative A.

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except,

fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing (207,431). This is fewer acres open than in

Alternative B. For those acres open to grazing, all allotments would be reclassified as perennial

only. Allotments that are currently designated as perennial/ephemeral would be reclassified as

perennial only, which would also help reduce impacts from livestock grazing to negligible to

minor intensities. Additionally, 44,800 acres would become unavailable for livestock grazing in

the Bighorn, Conley and Lower Vekol allotments. This closure would help protect known and

potential cultural sites and resources. Appoximately 10 acres around the North Tank on the Anza

NHT would also be fenced off to livestock.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
424 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) within Section 4.25, “Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906).

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the SDNM SRMA, 429,000 acres of land allocated to back country ensure that anticipated

impacts to cultural resources and Monument objects are the same as Alternative B. In the Lower

Gila Historic Trails SRMA, the majority of this unit would be allocated to back country use. In the

back country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural

resources and Monument objects directly by vehicle incursions and trampling. Sites would be

affected indirectly by possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at

a negligible to minor level of intensity for short durations in localized areas. This is similar to

the effects detailed in Alternative A. Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level

Decisions on Cultural and Historical SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) within Section 4.25,

“Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906).

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The development of high—potential Anza NHT segments and the limitations on some segments

would minimize the direct and indirect effects to cultural resources and Monument objects at

a minor level of intensity over the long term. Under Alternative C, NHT segments would be

evaluated for suitability more critically than under Alternative A, as subjects of interpretive

developments and public use sites. These trail segments would be included within a defined

historic trail corridor where cultural sites may be located where they would directly benefit from

avoidance and exclusions of certain activities, leading to a reduction or elimination of some

ground disturbing actions.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to route designations within the SDNM.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Under this Alternative, almost the entire SDNM would be allocated to VRM Class I and II (a

total of 426,000 acres). The increased area managed as VRM Class II (175,700 acres more

than Alternative A) will ensure a more beneficial effect than that of Alternative A on the

essential characteristics and attributes of historic landscapes and individual cultural resources.

Management of activities and developments would be more restrictive in terms of visual

intrusions and ground disturbing activities on the historic landscape, leading to a more protection

of the cultural resource settings.

Class III (60,400 acres) would be allocated to areas considered passage zones and areas where

some intrusion by ground disturbing activities may impact cultural resources due to the

installation of amenities for visitors. The impact would be minor in localized areas and could be

mitigated through selective placement and design. The overall effect of these features would be

positive for site integrity compared to Alternative A, since they would be proposed and designed

for improved site protection and public safety.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 425

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Approximately 112,200 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Few development projects would be implemented. Impact on site integrity and

setting would be negligible. This would have a more protective effect compared to Alternative A.

Areas would be designated and managed as limited OHV use areas. This would mean that

motorized and nonmotorized vehicles would be limited to designated routes. Impact on site

integrity and setting would be negligible. This would have a more protective effect compared to

Alternative A.

4.4.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.4.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Eliminating grazing would have the most protective effect on cultural resource integrity in both

the Lower Sonoran and SDNM, than any other alternative, including Alternative A, by removing

those areas of stock gathering and the potential for trampling and accelerated erosion due to

loss of vegetation and topsoil. Some impacts may occur if equipment or vehicles are used to

remove livestock management structures and facilities or to restore developed water sites. Overall

impacts would be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Cultural and

Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

4.4.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative D, only Painted Rock and portions of historic trails would be designated for public

use. There would be some ground disturbance due to installation of facilities to manage visitation

and protect resources, such as designated parking areas, protective fencing, and/or interpretive

media displays. Impact to site integrity would be negligible to minor under Alternative D as

facilities necessary to visitor safety and site protection would be placed and installed to maximize

protection of site integrity and setting. This alternative would have more protective effect than

Alternative A.

More sites are allocated to the scientific use category, including Butterfield West and Sundad.

Restrictions on surface-disturbing research on cultural resource sites may have a direct, more

protective effect than Alternative A on the integrity of cultural resource sites. However, there may

be classes of scientific information that may not be obtainable without excavation.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
426 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In Alternative D, 373,800 acres more than Alternative A would be closed to entry for

development of locatable minerals (339,500 acres open); 373,900 acres would be closed to

leasable minerals development (339,400 open); and 569,900 acres would be closed to minerals

materials development (143,400 acres open). Many areas to be closed were selected based upon

the sensitivity of the cultural and historic resources known to be present. This alternative will

have the most protective effect of any alternative, substantially more than in Alternative A, on

sites that could be affected due to all forms of potential minerals development. Effects on site

integrity would generally be minor to negligible. Site settings would see negligible impact.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The Decision Area would be divided into ERMA and three SRMAs. For the ERMA, impacts

would be the same as Alternative A. Three SRMA units are proposed in Alternative D with

fewer areas promoted as vehicle-based recreational zones. This alternative may lead to fewer

vehicle-based impacts on cultural resources than that proposed for Alternative A.

In the Buckeye Hills Trails SRMA, a combination of front country experiences and back country

primitive experiences are proposed. Vehicle-based, front country route exploration experiences

would impact cultural resources on a negligible to minor level for a short duration, in localized

areas. Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by

vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of

artifacts at a minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas.

In the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration is

anticipated to be complementary to the historic trail features that cross the unit. It is anticipated

that this activity would impact cultural resources on a minor level for a short duration, in localized

areas due to vehicle incursions and route proliferation which leads to damaged site features.

Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle

incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at

a minor level of intensity over the long term, in localized areas.

In the Ajo SRMA, community interface management is proposed for the area close to town. In

the community interface areas where camping and day use areas are designated and activity

structured, there would be no impact on cultural resources.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza NHT designation with its Comprehensive Management Plan

(NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly the historic sites associated with it for

the long term due to its status as a nationally important resource. Management of the NHT and

cultural resources would have a farther reaching protective direct and indirect effect on cultural

resources at a minor to major level of intensity over the long term throughout the area than

under Alternative A. This is because all trail related interpretive facilities and amenities would

be constructed outside of the historic trail corridor and away from cultural and heritage sites,

eliminating the likelihood of damage occurring on sites.

Impacts from scenic byways would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the

Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 427

Coffeepot-Batamote, Saddle Mountain and Cuerda De Lena ACECs will have numerous

restrictions on allowable activities. The result will be negligible or no impact on site integrity

or setting. This would be more protective than Alternative A.

The Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails SCRMA is proposed to protect cultural resources

in the area. The emphasis is on conservation with minimal interpretation and only non-ground

disturbing scientific research. The designation should ameliorate threats to site integrity. Impact

would be negligible. This would provide a more protection than Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the Lower Sonoran, all the action alternatives would be subject to route designation within 5

years of RMP completion. Until designation, travel would be limited to existing roads and trails.

While existing routes will not generally be inventoried for cultural or historic resources, known

sites have been identified during the road inventory. These and known sensitive areas will be

considered in determining which roads will be designated as routes.

Alternative D would close the greatest number (777 versus 15 in Alternative A) of transportation

routes. Restricted access would protect many sites from inadvertent incursions from vehicles and

may reduce the impacts on site integrity of unauthorized artifact collection. Restricted access

would also limit regular monitoring of archaeological sites in remote areas by staff and volunteers,

thereby reducing the effectiveness of some site protection activities. This may make some sites

more vulnerable to vandalism. Restrictions on access for permitted scientific studies would limit

scientific use of sites and gathering information useful for research and resource management.

Overall, however, this alternative would provide the greatest protective effect on cultural and

heritage resources. Impacts on site integrity and setting would be negligible.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B for Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resource on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In this alternative, VRM Class I and Class II allocations dominate the Lower Sonoran, which

offer the most protective management strategy for cultural resources, far more protection than

under Alternative A. This alternative should have a protective effect on the settings of cultural

resources for the long term. Impacts allowed under this alternative would be negligible to minor

in effect on site setting.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Approximately 276,500 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for Lower Sonoran,

except that a considerable increase in acreage (148,400 acres) managed under this allocation

would benefit more sites. This would provide more protective effect than Alternative A.

4.4.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
428 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Restrictions on surface-disturbing research on cultural resource sites (Monument objects) may

have a direct, more protective (albeit negligible to minor) effect than Alternative A on the

integrity of cultural resource sites. However, there may be classes of scientific information that

may not be obtainable without excavation.

Since no new cultural sites (including Big Horn Station) would be developed as interpretive sites,

no impacts due to an allocated public use would be anticipated.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the SDNM SRMA, the majority of this unit would be allocated to back country use. In the back

country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural

resources and Monument objects directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and indirectly by

possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a negligible to minor level

of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. It is anticipated that the proposed restrictions

in travel routes and visitation would have a more protective effect on the cultural resources and

Monument objects than that proposed in Alternative A due to a reduced likelihood of vehicle

incursions onto cultural sites and Monument objects.

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) within Section 4.25, “Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906).

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Under Alternative D, interpretive and visitor facilities would only be developed outside of the

historic trail corridor, this would have the effect of addressing potential impacts to Monument

objects by finding alternative locations for those uses. Impacts on the integrity of the resource and

its setting would be negligible. This would be more protective than Alternative A.

Allocations of SR–238 (18 miles) and I -8 (30 miles) as Scenic Byways would have no effect on

the cultural resources and Monument objects.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to route designation in the SDNM .

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Passive vegetation restoration projects may have a direct or indirect protective effect on cultural

resources and Monument objects for the long term by helping to arrest erosion processes that

damage site features by stabilizing the soil. Impacts on site integrity and setting would be

negligible. This Alternative would have a more protective effect than Alternative A.

From Visual Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

This alternative, under which Class I allocation extends over at least 95 percent of the SDNM,

has far more restrictive decisions than Alternative A for visual resources management resources.

This would have a more protective effect on the settings of cultural resources and Monument

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 429

objects for the long term than provided in Alternative A. Impacts to Monument objects will be

negligible as the objective of this class is preservation of settings.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Approximately 153,000 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran except that an increase in acreage (40,800 acres) managed under this allocation would

benefit more sites. Impacts to site integrity would be negligible and this would provide more

protective effect than Alternative A.

4.4.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.4.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Cultural and

Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

4.4.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Painted Rock, portions of historic trails, and Sundad would be allocated for public use. Sundad

would also be available for scientific research. Impacts would be the same as those discussed

under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In Alternative E, 2,350 acres would be closed to entry for development of locatable minerals

(710,800 acres open); 53,700 acres would be closed to leasable minerals development (659,600

acres open); and 192,300 would be closed to minerals materials development (521,000 acres

open). Several of the areas to be closed were selected based upon the sensitivity of the cultural

and historic resources known to be present. This alternative will have much more protective

effect than in Alternative A on sites that could be affected due to leasable and saleable (mineral

materials) development. Depending upon the extent and intensity of ground disturbance and

production in approved plans of operation for mineral exploration and development, there may

be direct effects on cultural resource site integrity at a moderate level. However, mitigation of

impacts to affected sites is expected to reduce the effects to minor. Methods to reach a minor

impact outcome would likely include project redesign and/or data collection in compliance with

existing law and regulation.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
430 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

New vehicle routes associated with mineral development may have moderate indirect impacts

on site integrity if project access also opens new areas to site visitation. These impacts may

be reduced to minor through project design.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

The Decision Area will be divided into one ERMA and six SRMAs. Impacts from the ERMA

would be same as in Alternative A. Impacts from the SRMAs are detailed below.

In the Buckeye Hills Trails SRMA, a combination of front country experiences and community

interface level of management has been proposed. In the west section of this unit, the

vehicle-based, front country, two-track route exploration would impact cultural resources on a

negligible to minor level for a short duration, in localized areas due to vehicle incursions causing

damage to sites. Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources

directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized

collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. In the

eastern section of this unit, the community interface level of management implies that areas where

camping and day use areas are designated, impacts would be negligible on cultural resources.

More intensive management of this area would ensure that this alternative would have a more

protective effect than Alternative A.

In the Saddle Mountain SRMA, a combination of front country experiences, back country

primitive experiences, and a community interface area. In the front country areas, vehicle-based

exploration and camping would impact cultural resources on a minor level for short duration in

localized areas. Community interface areas where camping and day use areas are designated

and activity structured, there would be negligible or no impact on cultural resources. In the

front country or back country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed manner may affect the

integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure

to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a negligible to minor level of intensity for

short durations, in localized areas. More intensive management of this area would ensure that this

alternative would have a more protective effect than Alternative A.

In the Arlington SRMA, vehicle—based, front country, two-track, route exploration would impact

cultural resources on a negligible to minor level for a short duration, in localized areas due to

route proliferation and vehicle incursions onto sites causing damage. Camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and

possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity

for short durations, in localized areas. More intensive management of this area would ensure that

this alternative would have a more protective effect than Alternative A.

In the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA, the area is largely proposed as back country with a few

areas of front country along the main access routes. It is expected that camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and

possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity

for short durations, in localized areas. Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative A.

In the Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration

is anticipated to be complementary to the historic trail features that cross the unit, since this

SRMA would base interpretive development partially on retracement of the historic routes. It

is anticipated that this activity would impact cultural resources through route proliferation and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 431

vehicle incursions on a minor level for a short duration, in localized areas. Camping in a dispersed

manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and

possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity

over the long term, in localized areas. More intensive management of this area would ensure that

this alternative would have a more protective effect than Alternative A.

In the Ajo SRMA, a combination of community interface management close to town, back

country management, and front country management are anticipated. Community interface

areas where camping and day use areas are designated and activity structured, there would be

negligible or no impact on cultural resources. In front country or back country, it is expected that

camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity of cultural resources directly by vehicle

incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts at

a negligible to minor level of intensity for short durations, in localized areas. In the front country

areas, vehicle-based exploration and camping would impact cultural resources on a minor level

for short duration in localized areas. More intensive management of this area would ensure that

this alternative would have a more protective effect than Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

In the Lower Sonoran all the action alternatives would be subject to route designation within 5

years of RMP completion. Until designation, travel would be limited to existing roads and trails.

While existing routes will not generally be inventoried for cultural or historic resources, known

sites have been identified during the road inventory. These and known sensitive areas will be

considered in determining which roads will be designated as routes.

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B, except for some decrease in the length of the road

network due to elimination of excess routes and routes that are in conflict with sensitive resources.

This may have a long-term protective effect indirectly on the cultural resource sites integrity by

limiting access into remote areas, and directly by removing vehicle routes from encroachment

into site boundaries.

From Vegetation Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B for Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resource on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran, except

that the acreage allocated under this alternative reduced more than 50 percent (55,400 acres

verses 128,100 in Alternative C). This would have the effect of reducing the number of sites that

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
432 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

would benefit from the protective measures offered by this allocation. It still, however, provides

more protection than in Alternative A.

4.4.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Alternative E would designate the Lower Gila Trails SCRMA. Impacts would be the same as in

Alternative C for SDNM.

Big Horn Station would be allocated for public use. There would be some ground disturbance due

to installation of facilities to manage visitation and protect resources, such as designated parking

areas, protective fencing, and/or interpretive media displays. Road access will have to be designed

and constructed to enable safe public access off of I-8. Impact to site integrity would be negligible

to minor under Alternative E as facilities necessary to visitor safety and site protection would be

placed and installed to maximize protection of site integrity and setting. Due to more intensive

management, overall protection for Big Horn Station should be greater than in Alternative A.

Scientific and historical studies at selected cultural sites (Monument objects) allocated to scientific

research may include excavation. Scientific excavation is an acceptable method of data retrieval

and preservation and is, therefore, considered a negligible impact. Alternatives A and E would be

similar in protective effect.

From Recreation Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the SDNM.

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Livestock Grazing on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Alternative E reflects the allotment classifications and corresponding impacts as described

in Alternative A. Outside of Alternative D, (which eliminates grazing from the Monument)

Alternative E would be the most protective alternative for cultural and heritage resources, as only

156,919 acres would be available for grazing.

The closures of 44,800 acres and corresponding impacts would be similar to Alternative C.

Additionally, the Conley Allotment within the SDNM would become unavailable to cattle in order

to protect important Monument objects that have been found to be incompatible with livestock

grazing. This closure would specifically enhance the protection of the Anza NHT. Combined

actions in this alternative would significantly reduce impacts on cultural resources from livestock

grazing to negligible, or minor at the most.

From Special Designations on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the SDNM.

From Travel Management on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 433

Refer to Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907) for impacts related to route designations in the SDNM.

From Visual Resource on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the SDNM. Acreage that

would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics is nearly the same in

both Alternative E (110,900 acres) and C (112,200 acres).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
434 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.5. IMPACTS ON PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

In the Lower Sonoran, the Sentinel Plain lava flow is considered geologically significant. No

other geologically significant areas have been identified in the Decision Areas; however, locally

significant areas may be present. These include geologic formations or outcrops having unique

or unusual features of scenic value, may contain important geologic characteristics, or contain

scientific or educational significance. In the event significant geologic or paleontological

resources are discovered within the Decision Areas, management actions to protect these

resources would be implemented.

Proposed management decisions that involve ground-disturbing actions can impact geologic or

paleontological resources that have yet to be inventoried, such as in areas with unique or unusual

features of scenic value or interest, scientific or educational significance, or contain fossil-bearing

sedimentary rock formations.. The areal extent of ground-disturbing actions would vary under

each alternative and depend on the acreage excluded from ground disturbance to protect or

preserve other resources. Conversely, decisions that restrict or prohibit ground-disturbing

activities would promote the preservation of unique geologic and paleontological resources.

The extent of impacts on paleontological resources varies due to the types and intensities of uses

of public land, especially the extent of ground disturbing activities, as well as the location of uses.

Since certain rock units or outcrops have recreational, scientific, or educational significance, or

contain fossil-bearing rock formations, the areal extent of ground-disturbing actions would vary

under each alternative. It is anticipated that impacts on paleontological resources would result

from ground disturbance such as cross-country OHV travel, wildfires, unauthorized collection,

vandalism, and trampling due to human or livestock activities. Other impacts, including

permanent destruction of fossil locales, result from intensive, repetitive, and concentrated

ground-disturbing activities. Under all alternatives, paleontological resources would continue to

be affected by natural weathering and erosion processes.

Due to the fact that limited paleontological and geological resources have been identified in the

Planning Area, the impacts on these resources are not discussed in detail. During implementation

or project specific planning, the BLM would evaluate proposed actions for site-specific effects on

natural resources, including paleontological and geological resources, focusing on management

actions that could disturb or damage fossil-bearing formations or outcrops. In the event significant

geologic or paleontological resources are discovered within the Decision Areas, management

actions to protect these resources and any associated water resources would be implemented.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Paleontological Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 435

4.6. IMPACTS ON PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES &

HABITAT MANAGEMENT

This section analyzes the impacts of management actions on priority wildlife species and

habitat. Each of the Action Alternatives provide for overall ecosystem health, diversity,

maintenance/enhancement of native wildlife populations, and proper management of threatened

and endangered species and their habitats. The priority wildlife resource objectives stress the

importance of natural ecological processes and functions and focus on land uses and discretionary

actions to support multiple uses that are consistent with sustaining these natural ecological

processes and functions.

The primary impacts to priority wildlife resources stem from resource conflicts with other

management programs within the Planning Area and include loss or alteration of native habitats,

increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and loss of wildlife.

Impacts to wildlife and priority species resources in the Planning Area from other management

programs could include but are not limited to the loss or alteration of native habitats, increased

invasion of noxious weeds and other exotic weed species, decreased water availability, increased

habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, disruption of species behavior

leading to reduced reproductive fitness or increased susceptibility to predation, and direct

mortality. Surface disturbing activities that alter vegetation characteristics (e.g., the structure,

composition, or production of the vegetative community) have the potential to affect habitat

suitability for wildlife and priority species, particularly where the disturbance removes or reduces

cover or food resources. Even minor changes to vegetation communities have the potential to

affect resident wildlife and priority species populations if there is no suitable or available habitat

in close proximity to areas that have been disturbed and are considered unsuitable.

Direct impacts to wildlife and priority species from management activities may result in mortality

or displacement of individuals and alteration of immediate environments through the loss of, or

changes to, key habitat components. Key habitat components include food availability, quantity

and quality of habitat, cover from predators and extreme temperatures, nesting, roosting, denning,

breeding and young rearing habitats, water availability and access, and movement corridors

to promote genetic flow and diversity. Direct impacts may affect wildlife or priority species

populations or habitats for the duration of the action, for a few days thereafter, for several growing

seasons, or may continue indefinitely where the action results in permanent habitat loss.

Indirect impacts to wildlife and priority species resources from management activities could result

from changes in composition, recovery, or rehabilitation of the habitat. These impacts may be

long-term or short-term depending on the severity of the habitat alteration, may change species

assemblages (i.e. the relative abundances or species composition of plant or animal communities),

species behavior, or overall population trends, which would benefit some species while negatively

affecting others. The direct and indirect impacts of management actions on wildlife and priority

species resources may vary widely depending on a variety of factors such as the dynamics of the

habitat (e.g., the community type, size, shape, complexity, stage, and condition of plant or animal

communities); season, intensity, duration, frequency, and extent of the disturbance; rate and

composition of vegetation recovery; change in vegetation structure; soil type, topography and

microhabitat sites; animal species that are present; and the ability of species to adapt, immigrate

to or emigrate from a site following a disturbance.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species &

Habitat Management
436 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The following resources are expected to impact wildlife and priority species: lands and realty

management, livestock grazing management, minerals management, priority wildlife species and

habitat management, recreation management, special designations, travel management, visual

resources management, wilderness characteristics, and wildland fire management.

Of the resource management elements to be addressed by the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMP,

public safety and hazardous materials have the potential to harm wildlife and priority species.

Clean-up of such sites could cause short-term impacts through soil disturbance or vegetation

removal, but in the long-term, these actions could improve the ecological conditions in the

immediate areas of such actions. Grazing by burros in the Painted Rock Herd Area could impact

ecological resources; however, burro numbers are expected to remain near zero in all alternatives.

Livestock grazing, priority wildlife species and habitat, recreation, special designations, travel

management, and lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would impact priority

wildlife species and habitat and are discussed below.

4.6.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.6.1.1. Indicators

Management actions described in the alternatives could result in impacts to the wildlife program.

Indicators used to quantitatively assess management changes include the following:

● Degradation or improvement of wildlife habitat quality due to changes in vegetation

abundance or quality,

● Changes in wildlife populations in general due to changes in population numbers,

● Shifts in wildlife use of habitat due to the availability of movement from one area to another.

4.6.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding wildlife and priority wildlife or plant species are made:

● Wildlife habitat will be managed for wildlife and migratory birds with an emphasis on

priority species;

● Priority species habitat will be managed for the benefit of those species as a priority over

other resource allocations and uses;

● All surface-disturbing activities will include mitigation and adaptive management to reduce

impacts to priority wildlife and priority species and their habitat;

● In general, vegetative communities are considered to be in good condition, but small localized

impacted areas may be present;

● Although some areas are more suitable for different classes and species of wildlife, the impacts

from different classes of wildlife will be similar and would not be discussed separately.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 437

4.6.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and

Habitat Management

Management actions associated with the following program areas are expected to have no

impact on priority wildlife species and habitat: air resources, caves and cave resources, cultural

and heritage resources, paleontological resources, public safety, vegetation resources, visual

resources, water resources, watershed and soils, and wild horses and burros. It is anticipated that

these programs would have no impact, and they will not be analyzed further in this document with

respect to priority wildlife species and habitat.

4.6.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The qualitative terms for intensity of impacts are generally the same as that adopted (see

Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375)) elsewhere in this chapter. In

addition to the definitions and thresholds identified for the SDNM, impacts specific to Priority

Wildlife Species and Habitat management will be measured as follows:

Negligible: Impacts include but are not limited to: wildlife remaining in the area without having

to relocate due to interactions or surface disturbance created by humans, livestock, or other

wildlife. Wildlife expending little to no energy to avoid such interactions or surface disturbance.

Wildlife not being beleaguered during normal everyday routines such as loafing, feeding, or

shading. Populations are expected to remain at current levels or increase. Habitat connectivity

is good and expected to remain that way, and movements, seasonal or otherwise, will not be

effected, and approximately 80 to 100 percent of the habitat is unfragmented. Overall change to

wildlife populations, habitat quality, or habitat connectivity will be undetectable.

Minor: Impacts could include but are not limited to: wildlife having to move small distances,

but remaining in the same vicinity as before the interactions or surface disturbance created by

humans, livestock or other wildlife; wildlife expending minor amounts of energy to avoid such

interactions; and wildlife routines being beleaguered for a short term. Populations would be

expected to remain at current levels or increase. Habitat connectivity would remain good,

and movements, seasonal or otherwise, would be affected only for brief periods during such

interactions. Approximately 60 to 80 percent of the habitat would be unfragmented. Overall

change to wildlife populations, habitat quality, or habitat connectivity would be apparent and

measurable but small and localized with in the footprint of the action.

Moderate: Impacts could include but are not limited to: wildlife vacating the area for a short

time but returning shortly after actions are no longer considered a threat; wildlife expending

moderate energy to avoid interactions or surface disturbance created by humans, livestock or other

wildlife. Populations would be expected to remain at current levels or decrease slightly. Habitat

connectivity could be reduced, and movement corridors, seasonal or otherwise, could be affected

for longer periods of time. Approximately 40 to 60 percent of the habitat would be unfragmented.

Overall change to wildlife populations, habitat quality, or habitat connectivity would be readily

apparent and measurable over a larger area but are mainly within the footprint of the action.

Major: Impacts could include but are not limited to: wildlife moving great distances to avoid

interactions or surface disturbance created by humans, livestock or other wildlife; vacating the

area over the long term or abandoning it altogether; or expending moderate to great amounts of

energy to avoid such interactions. Populations would be expected to decline locally. Habitat

connectivity could be reduced or movement corridors fragmented. Wildlife movements, seasonal

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
438 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

or otherwise, could be affected for long periods of time, and corridors could be eliminated due to

frequency of such uses or other factors associated with them but up to 40 percent of the habitat

would be unfragmented. Overall change to wildlife populations, habitat quality, and habitat

connectivity would be highly noticeable and extend well beyond the footprint of the action.

Short-term: Impacts would generally last less than a single year or growing season.

Long-term: . Impacts would result in a change in a resource or its condition would last longer

than a single year or growing season.

4.6.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.6.2.1. Common to Both Decision Areas

From Wildland Fire Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife

Management

Vegetation communities in both the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas are predominantly

Sonoran Desert types that are not adapted to fire. In these areas, both natural and human-caused

fires would be suppressed. Various resource management objectives would result in modified

fire-suppression activities to limit long-term effects as defined in the management actions below.

A few areas may meet the criteria for utilizing prescribed fire to meet resource objectives.

These objectives include:

● Improve vegetation, wildlife habitat, or watershed conditions;

● Maintain non-hazardous levels of fuels;

● Reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires; and

● Meet other resource objectives.

Areas that could meet these criteria include stretches of the Gila River where tamarisk has

suppressed native riparian vegetation and some parts of the Vekol Valley Grassland where fire

may improve natural conditions of the grassland while protecting non-fire adapted vegetation

communities in the vicinity.

When applying fuels-treatment methods, BLM policies, procedures, and plans are to be followed

in all cases. The manual, chemical, biological, and fire-treatment methods that might be used are

described in Section 4.8, “Impacts on Vegetation Resources” (p. 494). There are several treatment

methods and SOPs that would be used in a vegetation-treatment program. BLM policies and

guidance for public land treatments would be followed in implementing all treatment methods.

Impacts of suppression activities would range from negligible to major, depending on the time of

year and the duration and intensity of the fire. Impacts at this level would be an improvement

compared to impacts in Alternative A.

4.6.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts have been indentified for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area that is common to

all alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 439

4.6.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

All Action Alternatives would remove the Vekol Valley ACEC designation. The Vekol Valley

ACEC currently is within the SDNM, and its protections of Monument objects supercede those

of the ACEC and justify its removal. Negligible impacts would be expected from the ACEC

withdrawal.

4.6.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under this alternative, resources are managed to maintain the present levels of resource use and

quality of public lands. The allocation of lands and resources remains essentially unchanged,

reflecting only those changes identified in current LUP decisions. Some decisions in Alternative

A would support maintaining or enhancing wildlife species and their habitats, but the overall

impact of Alternative A on priority wildlife species and their habitat generally would lead in the

opposite direction. With few specific decisions to manage public uses to protect wildlife and

wildlife habitat, increased loss or alteration of native habitats, increased habitat fragmentation,

changes in habitat and species composition, and loss of wildlife could occur under Alternative A.

4.6.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Priority and Wildlife Habitat Management on Priority Habitat and

Wildlife Management

No specific management objectives for priority species are specified in Alternative A; therefore,

important habitat for priority plant and animal species would be protected on a case-by-case basis

to maintain occupied and suitable habitats of such species. Species of concern include cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl, Sonoran desert tortoise, and bighorn sheep.

Constructing wildlife habitat improvement projects and wildlife water sources could cause

short-term loss of vegetation for wildlife habitat; however, wildlife waters provide water

availability for wildlife and support distribution of wildlife in the long term. Implementation of

use restrictions and conservation measures for priority species could also reduce or eliminate

disturbances that would otherwise have affected wildlife resources.

New wildlife water developments would continue to be evaluated and constructed on a

case-by-case basis. Although many wildlife species use water developments, some species (e.g.,

desert bighorn, mule deer, and game birds) use water developments more than others, particularly

during stressful periods such as lambing, fawning, and the summer months (Rosenstock et al.

2004). Impacts to wildlife from localized water developments could result in population expansion

of some species in both numbers and distribution. The effect on wildlife populations is expected

to be minor to moderate. Additional wildlife water sources could increase the ability for wildlife

to transverse from one area to another, creating a minor to moderate improvement to habitat

connectivity. Wildlife water sources also would improve the quality of habitats that currently

are void of water sources, resulting in a minor to moderate impact to wildlife. New wildlife

waters could have a negligible negative impact if they attract wildlife in numbers great enough to

displace or damage animal and plant species that are already present in the area. Wildlife also may

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
440 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

become dependent on these water sources and could be affected if the water source is removed,

not maintained or goes dry. The effect to wildlife could require that a species may have to vacate

the area and find new water sources or a species could face mortality if unable to relocate.

Under Alternative A, the potential for disease introduction into native sheep habitats is reduced

when using the guidelines set forth in IM No. 98-140, including a restriction on permitting

domestic sheep grazing within 9 miles of wild sheep habitats, . The impact of this action would

have a minor effect on the persistence of wild sheep populations. Not allowing domestic sheep

grazing within 9 miles of wild sheep habitat provides a minor improvement of habitats for other

grazing wildlife species, such as mule deer, antelope, and Sonoran desert tortoise. Removing

domestic sheep grazing would reduce competition and improve forage availability.

Existing management actions for categorized Sonoran desert tortoise habitat would continue to

ensure that adequate habitat is protected and available to support viable populations and habitat

of Sonoran desert tortoise consistent with criteria contained in the Desert Tortoise Range Wide

Plan and Arizona Implementation Strategy (BLM 1988, 1990), as amended. Following the Range

Wide Plan, impacts to desert tortoises from other actions and uses would be reduced and could

assist in maintaining or improving habitat and populations.

4.6.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Land tenure adjustments could impact wildlife habitat management practices. The potential

disposal of 18,900 acres under Alternative A could have impacts that range from negligible

to major and vary by area if the disposed parcels contain important wildlife habitat areas or a

reduction of habitat available for wildlife use. However, most of the parcels identified for disposal

are small in nature, are surrounded by lands that are not managed by or are inaccessible to the

BLM, and have abundant habitat available next to or in close proximity to the disposal areas.

Therefore, negligible to minor impacts to wildlife are expected.

Development of energy projects, mainly solar, would have impacts on wildlife habitat

management ranging from minor to major. Development of such projects would decrease the

amount of available forage for wildlife species – as well as the destruction of dens, nests, or

burrows and the mortality of species in the area because solar development practices include

clearing vegetation and leveling the ground. For wildlife to not be affected, the proposal would

have to be located in areas where habitat values are so poor or fragmented that wildlife cannot

occupy it. Conflicts could be avoided by employing adaptive management and BMPs to allow

multiple uses with minor impacts on wildlife.

Designating up to ten utility corridors through the Planning Area could lead to new access roads

and associated increased vehicle traffic. Impacts would likely be negligible from conflicts

between vehicles and wildlife where the corridors are limited to administrative access or current

projects already exist. Overall impacts from Alternative A lands and realty management on

wildlife are expected to range from negligible to major.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts on wildlife or priority species from livestock grazing could include competition for space,

forage, cover, and water resources throughout the Decision Areas. Localized changes in plant

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 441

community composition and wildlife/priority species populations could result. Impacts associated

with grazing range from negligible to major.

Research indicates that there is a high probability disease is transmitted from domestic livestock

to wildlife, particularly when there is direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep.

The major disease that poses a threat to bighorn sheep is Pasturella. Pasturella is a bacterium

occurs in nasal passages of both bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats. When Pasturella is

introduced to bighorn sheep, it can cause respiratory issues such as pneumonia and can ultimately

lead to mortality of individuals or entire herds.

Constructing rangeland development projects and new water sources would cause short-term

losses of vegetation for wildlife habitat by removing or trampling vegetation but could improve

water availability for wildlife and support distribution of wildlife in the long term. Moderate

impacts typically occur within areas where livestock are concentrated, such as water sources,

salting and supplement areas, or areas in which livestock are trailed or worked.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Mineral development could impact wildlife habitat management by disturbing surfaces and

decreasing vegetation. Wildlife may vacate the area during active mineral operations, thus

reducing occupancy by wildlife and reducing available space and habitat. However, small

mining operations less than 5 acres in size would have minor impacts on wildlife. The size of

an operation and the amount of human activity would dictate the level of impacts to wildlife

species and could be moderate depending on the amount of habitat fragmentation and human

activity. Some wildlife species could become accustomed to the activity over a relatively short

period of time and negate the impact by habituation on their own concurrence. If so, impacts

could be minor to some wildlife species. The level of impact on wildlife would vary by the size of

the mineral development but generally would be minor in scale. Overall impacts to wildlife are

expected to range from negligible to moderate under Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the Lower Sonoran, current levels of recreation management do not adequately address

impacts to priority wildlife species and habitat. Informal, unauthorized recreational use areas are

developed continually and cause habitat loss and disturbance. The existing management identified

recreation opportunity spectrum for primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, semi-primitive

motorized, roaded natural, rural, and urban. Primitive areas with low visitation, and intensively

used areas with high visitation are intermingle and dispersed throughout the Planning Area.

Overall impacts from recreation classifications on wildlife are expected to range from negligible

to major depending on the intensity, duration, and concentration of recreational uses.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Currently, the Coffeepot ACEC encompasses approximately 8,900 acres of public lands

under Alternative A. This ACEC was designated for the protection of the endangered Acuna

cactus. There are scattered populations of this cactus within the boundaries of the ACEC, and

management is focused on this single species. The area does contain an active gas pipeline

and numerous routes that could affect the existence of the species. The ACEC also is in close

proximity to the town of Ajo, and recreation and mining uses do occur within the ACEC, which

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
442 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

could lead to further habitat fragmentation for the cactus. Impacts to the Acuna cactus are

expected to range from negligible to moderate under current conditions of the ACEC.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Travel on 819,500 acres of public lands in the Lower Sonoran would continue to be allocated

as limited to existing routes. Travel on 110,700 acres would be closed, with approximately

91,750 acres designated as wilderness areas, and 8,900 acres allocated for the Coffeepot Botanical

ACEC. Travel on 21,400 acres would be limited to designated routes. Impacts to wildlife

resources are expected to be minor to moderate.

The designation of wilderness affords the highest level of protection for unfragmented habitat.

Wilderness areas contain priority wildlife habitat for Sonoran desert tortoise, desert bighorn

sheep, and potential foraging habitat for lesser long-nosed bats.

The number of open routes under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran could cause impacts due to

conflicts between wildlife and vehicles that could range from negligible to moderate. However, a

well-designed route system could support wildlife management by facilitating access for wildlife

movement and wildlife developments across the landscape. Closed or limited routes would

generally be expected to reduce the level of conflict, and impacts from vehicles to wildlife habitat

management impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Under Alternative A, few restrictions would be placed on motorized or nonmotorized users

accessing the public lands in the Planning Area other than the prohibition of motorized cross

country travel. Multiple access points could result in habitat fragmentation through the creation of

multiple routes, increased soil erosion and compaction, and loss of vegetation as routes proliferate

and the hydrologic flow is altered or diverted. Increases in surface disturbance may result in

increases in noxious and invasive weeds from importation from vehicles, urban developments,

roadways, livestock, equestrian users, and hikers, all of which could reduce native vegetation,

alter vegetative composition, and reduce habitat suitability to some wildlife species. Some

wildlife or priority species may be displaced or face mortality as a result of increased human

interaction and habitat alteration. Impacts from interactions between humans and wildlife vary

greatly, from negligible to major.

Typically, negligible and minor impacts to wildlife are expected where use is infrequent and

human interactions are few. Interactions are fewer in areas where roads and trails are infrequently

used, such as rough roads or wilderness trails. In Alternative A, there are approximately 34 miles

of nonmotorized trails and approximately 582 miles of primitive roads where wildlife impacts are

expected to be negligible to minor. Moderate to major impacts typically occur where use is more

frequent and interactions between wildlife and humans are greater. These are typically routes

and roads that are maintained for more frequent, higher speed travel. In Alternative A, there are

approximately 16 miles of maintained roads where impacts are expected to be moderate. At

this time it is expected that there would be no major impacts associated with travel for any of

the alternatives.

Sonoran desert tortoise habitat would continue to be managed consistent with the objectives of

the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan (BLM 1988) and Strategy for Tortoise Management on

Public Lands in Arizona (BLM 1990. Identification and managing OHV use under limited would

continue to be a challenge in controlling route proliferation and unauthorized uses. Habitat

fragmentation and direct disturbance to wildlife resources would occur.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 443

Overall impacts would be expected to range from negligible to moderate, depending on the

location and duration of surface disturbing activities.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Because no lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under

Alternative A, no impacts would occur.

4.6.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

The designation of three utility corridors north of I-8 could lead to new access roads and

associated increased vehicle traffic. The areas designated for transmission LUAs could increase

perching opportunities for raptors, as well as increasing wire line strikes and electrocutions for

some avian species. The corridors also could serve as areas where wildlife would travel from one

area to another with the removal of vegetation. Removing vegetation in areas could assist wildlife

in short term dispersal in a relatively secure manner; however, it also could increase predation on

some species with the removal of cover for escape. Overall impacts from the utility corridors

would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Livestock grazing authorizations south of I-8 in the SDNM were terminated when existing

grazing permits expired as directed by Presidential Proclamation 7397. Grazing in the SDNM

north of I-8 would continue as perennial use, consistent with historical stocking rates and with

ephemeral use authorized through ephemeral permits. Within these open areas, wildlife would

compete for space, forage, cover, and water resources. Localized changes in plant community

composition and wildlife or priority species populations would be maintained or decreased.

Constructing rangeland development projects and water sources would cause short-term losses

of vegetation for wildlife habitat by removing or trampling vegetation but could improve water

availability for wildlife and support distribution of wildlife in the long term. Moderate impacts

typically occur within areas where livestock are concentrated such as water sources, salting and

supplement areas, or areas in which livestock are trailed and or worked. Overall impacts would be

minor to moderate.

Domestic sheep and goat grazing would continue within the Monument. Research indicates that

there is a high probability that disease is transmitted from domestic livestock, particularly when

there is direct contact between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. The major disease that poses a

threat to bighorn sheep is Pasturella. Pasturella is a bacterium occurs in nasal passages of both

bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats. When Pasturella is introduced to bighorn sheep, it

can cause respiratory issues such as pneumonia and can ultimately lead to mortality of individuals

or entire herds. Mitigation measures would be required to decrease the impacts associated with

sheep grazing to wildlife, therefore impacts would generally be negligible to minor.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
444 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Within the SDNM, mining would have negligible to minor impacts to wildlife habitat. The

proclamation withdrew future and existing claims for mineral activities within its boundaries.

Overall impacts are expected to range from negligible to minor to objects within the Monument.

This would be common to all alternatives for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Recreation uses in the SDNM would be allowed to the extent it is consistent with protection of

Monument objects. Overall impacts to wildlife are expected to be negligible to minor.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Currently, there are 3,500-acres of public lands within the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC, which

lies within the SDNM; however it was designated before the conception of the SDNM. A decision

in a previous RMP closes the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC to OHV use and remains in effect. In

all other alternatives except Alternative A, the Vekol Valley ACEC designation would be removed

as the SDNM proclamation contains prescriptions that protect the area with better conservation

measures than the ACEC. Impacts of retaining the ACEC would range from negligible to minor

based current restrictions within the ACEC.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to travel management.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Because no lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under

Alternative A, no impacts to wildlife would likely occur.

4.6.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.6.4.1. Common to Both Decision Areas

From Priority and Wildlife Habitat Management on Priority Habitat and

Wildlife Management

Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A except that the lesser long-nosed bat foraging

habitat, populations, and connectivity would be protected under Alternative B. Protecting these

habitats from fragmentation would ensure species foraging capabilities within both Decision

Areas and would protect objects within the Monument, particularity saguaro cactus. Impacts to

the lesser long-nosed bat would be negligible to minor from all alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 445

Pronghorn habitat would be protected to achieve recovery goals as set forth in the Sonoran

Pronghorn Recovery Plan. Sonoran pronghorn habitat would be open to all locatable and

leasable minerals exploration and development, as well as mineral material disposals. Surface

disturbance associated with locatable and leasable minerals exploration and development and

mineral material disposals could reduce habitat availability, habitat connectivity, and localized

populations of the Sonoran pronghorn. Allowing these surface disturbing activities within the

pronghorn habitat could have major impacts to both the species and its habitat within the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area.

Southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Yuma clapper rail habitats in the

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt and the Gila River bed would be maintained or improved. Under

this alternative, attention would be focused on reducing the amount and number of non-native

invasive species in the Green Belt riparian zone. Projects would be engineered to improve habitat

quality, increase localized populations, and improve connectivity of riparian habitats. Habitat

improvement projects could impact some species by removing the non-native invasive species

and creating areas that are void of plant structure as natural communities of riparian vegetation

reestablish themselves. Impacts to the two species would be expected to be minor to moderate

from habitat improvement projects form all alternatives.

Bat species and habitat would be maintained or improved in coordination with the AGFD. Bat

roosts associated with natural caves and abandoned mines would be gated to restrict access by

humans but still allow bats the use of such features. Gating these features would provide bats

areas of refuge from harassment by humans and could increase localized populations. Impacts to

bats are expected to be negligible to minor for both Decision Areas for all alternatives.

Suitable or occupied habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl would be maintained or

improved by avoiding surface disturbing activities within 0.5 miles of occupied nest sites from

February 1st through July 15th. Avoiding surface disturbing activities during this time would

allow the pygmy-owl to breed, nest, and fledge young in relative seclusion. Impacts to the

pygmy-owl are expected to be negligible to minor.

Sonoran desert tortoise habitat would be maintained or improved as outlined in the Desert Tortoise

1988 Range Wide Plan. Category I, II and III tortoise habitat would be open to all land uses and

activities and would be managed through existing regulations. Mitigation and compensation may

be required to achieve the no net loss criteria in the range wide plan. This alternative would allow

surface disturbance at a small scale to accommodate land uses that could impact the tortoise.

Impacts to desert tortoise are expected to be minor to moderate under this alternative.

Raptor habitat would be maintained or improved under all alternatives. By maintaining or

improving habitat for raptors, it is expected that localized populations would remain stable or

increase. All alternatives would avoid authorizing developments, uses, or activities within 300

meters (328 yards) of occupied raptor nests and may require developments to be relocated

or seasonally limited to avoid disturbing raptors during the nesting season. Authorized

developments, uses, and activities within 0.5 mile of communal raptor nesting areas would be

avoided as to not disturb communal nesting areas. Impacts to raptors from these types of activities

would be negligible to minor for all alternatives.

Wildlife movement corridors would be managed for habitat connectivity to improve habitat

quality, increase local populations, and connect habitat areas for wildlife usage. Impacts to

corridors would be mitigated to reduce effects of possible collisions with vehicles and human

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
446 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

interactions. Impacts to corridors are expected to me negligible to minor for wildlife species in

both Decision Areas.

Existing wildlife waters would be maintained or redeveloped as necessary to provide year-round

water sources for wildlife species. Additional wildlife waters could be developed, and existing

wildlife waters would be removed and potentially relocated to higher priority areas if a water

catchment is not needed or does not attract wildlife use. Such actions would be done in

cooperation with AGFD to provide the density and distribution of wildlife waters needed to

sustain and enhance native wildlife population numbers or distribution across their range. Impacts

to wildlife from wildlife waters would be negligible to minor in both Decision Areas.

Non-native, invasive animal species would be prohibited unless peer-reviewed scientific literature

states that the introduced species would have no detrimental effects to any native wildlife species

within in the Planning Area. Typically non native species out-compete native species for

resources; however if an introduced species does not cause competition for resources utilized for

the continued existence of native species they could be introduced. Impacts to wildlife would

negligible to minor in both Decision Areas.

4.6.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In general, impacts from utility corridors, energy projects and LUAs on wildlife habitat

management would be similar to Alternative A. However, development of new energy projects

and allowing minor and non-linear LUAs to be located outside of designated corridors could

affect wildlife habitat, leading to moderate impacts on wildlife due to the removal of acreage

and habitat available for wildlife usage, the potential to fragment habitat and the likelihood of

additional road development and access. Overall impacts from Alternative B would be expected

to range from negligible to moderate.

Impacts from land tenure adjustment on wildlife habitat management in the Lower Sonoran

would be similar to the scale of impact as described under Alternative A. However, more habitat

could be impacted because approximately 36,300 acres that would be available for disposal

under Alternative B. Overall impacts from land tenure is expected to range from negligible to

moderate under Alternative B.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Managing perennial grazing allotments with a reduction in the authorized grazing preference

will have a minor impact to wildlife habitat management. The reduction in livestock numbers

would improve quality and quantity of habitat for most wildlife species. Requiring changes

such as intensive management of livestock operations would generally improve wildlife habitat

conditions. Land health standards and guides were established to maintain or improve habitat for

wildlife and vegetative components utilized by both wildlife and livestock. Habitat improvement

for some wildlife species (such bighorn sheep, desert tortoise and other grazers) would be

moderate under this alternative but only minor to negligible for other species of wildlife that

compete less with livestock. Allotments that are meeting or exceeding standards would be

considered as providing habitat for healthy sustainable wildlife populations. Domestic sheep and

goat grazing would be prohibited within nine miles of bighorn sheep habitat as in Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 447

Very few livestock grazing practices fragment wildlife habitats. The effect of changing grazing

practices in Alternative B would have a negligible to minor impact to habitat connectivity, which

would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from Alternative B would less than Alternative A. Mineral development on wildlife

habitat management would increase habitat availability by requiring plans of operations and

minimizing the footprint of mining operations in areas of important wildlife habitat for all wildlife

species, with an emphasis on priority wildlife habitats. Overall impacts to wildlife are expected to

range from negligible to moderate under Alternative B.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Designation of SRMAs and RMZs are intended to direct and control the amount of recreation

uses to reduce conflicts with other resources. Recreation use in the front country zone is expected

to be higher and closer to the urban interface. Approximately 263,300 acres, or 34 percent of

the Lower Sonoran, would be allocated in the Front County Zone. Increased uses in this area

could result in impacts to wildlife resources that range from minor to major, depending on the

species and habitat impacted. Development of recreation facilities would result in habitat loss

and disturbance. All authorized action would be implemented with BMPs and SOPs to minimize

impacts to wildlife resources.

Approximately 347,200 acres, or 45 percent of the Lower Sonoran, would be allocated in the

Back County Zone. Impacts to wildlife resources area expected to be less in the back country

zone. Emphasis in this zone would be natural primitive landscapes, resulting in limited access and

less ground disturbance to vegetation and wildlife habitat. Impacts could be negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Under Alternative B, impacts would be similar to Alternative A except that the Coffeepot

Botanical ACEC would be closed to OHV use, reducing fragmentation and the possible crushing

of individual plants. Mining activities would be required to be mitigated to not disturb individual

plants and avoid known populations for the cactus reducing habitat fragmentation and allowing

persistence of the species on a small scale. Livestock use would be managed to perpetuate

botanical diversity and range developments would not be located in areas that would increase

livestock use where local populations of the cacti could be found. Overall impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to moderate. Alternatives C, D, and E do not address the

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Under Alternative B, 101,800 acres would be closed to motor vehicle uses, and 91,750 acres

would be closed with the designation of two wilderness areas. Impacts are expected to be similar

to Alternative A. In Alternative B, routes would be open to designated roads within the Coffeepot

Botanical ACEC. This could result in minor to moderate impacts to biological resources within

the ACEC. The potential for route proliferation in the areas is limited somewhat by terrain;

however, the potential for increased activity does exist. Habitat loss and fragmentation likely

would continue to increase under Alternative B.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
448 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Approximately 825,400 acres would be limited to designated roads and trails. Impacts to wildlife

could range from minor to moderate based on specific route designations and location and type of

use in priority habitat areas. Requiring designated routes should reduce route proliferation and

reduce the potential for habitat fragmentation.

Approximately 40 acres would be designated as open for recreational activities. The proposed

open area is within the current range of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. There are currently

minor impacts associated to pronghorn habitat due to the location of Ajo.

Alternative B would limit travel to designated routes. Impacts associated with unmanaged travel

detailed in Alternative A would be reduced. Under Alternative B, more restrictions would be

placed on motorized and nonmotorized users accessing the public lands in the Planning Area.

Limited access points would reduce habitat fragmentation through minimizing the creation of

multiple routes, reducing soil erosion, compaction and loss of vegetation as routes are controlled,

and hydrologic flow would not be altered or diverted. Decreases in surface disturbance may result

in reduced incidences of noxious and invasive weed importation by vehicles, urban developments,

roadways, livestock, equestrian users, and hikers. Some wildlife or priority species may be

displaced or could face mortality as a result of human interaction and habitat alteration but less

than in Alternative A. Impacts from interactions between humans and wildlife vary greatly from

negligible to major.

Impacts to Alternative B would be similar to impacts in Alternative A except that Alternative B

proposes approximately 38 miles of nonmotorized trails and approximately 495 miles of primitive

roads where wildlife impacts are expected to be negligible to minor. Moderate to major impacts

typically occur where use is more frequent and interactions between wildlife and humans are

greater. These are typically routes and roads that are maintained for more frequent, higher speed

travel. In Alternative B, there are approximately 29 miles of maintained roads proposed where

impacts are expected to be moderate.

Overall impacts to wildlife under Alternative B would be less than Alternative A and are expected

to range from negligible to moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife

Management

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A.

4.6.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors, energy projects, and LUAs on wildlife habitat

management would be similar to Alternative A.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument except that

fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing (243,749 acres); therefore, impact intensities

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 449

would be decreased to minor impacts, as areas where wildlife and livestock would compete for

space, forage, cover, and water resources would be decreased.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM. From

Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management Impacts would be the same

as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the SDNM, impacts would be similar to the Lower Sonoran except that approximately 107,200

acres (22 percent of the Decision Area) would be allocated to front country, and approximately

377,600 acres (78 percent of the Decision Area) would be allocated as back country.

Under Alternative B, up to 12 additional 0.25-acre visitor contact sites or other small pullouts

would be provided. These facilities would be located in areas previously disturbed to the extent

possible; thus, the area of new disturbance would total approximately 3 acres. There would be one

24-site campground, up to three visitor-contact sites of 0.25-acre each, three group campsites, one

equestrian corral, one OHV/ATV parking area, one day-use and interpretive area, and one 6-mile,

nonmotorized trail through Butterfield Pass situated in the Anza NHT management zone. To the

extent possible, these facilities would be located in areas previously disturbed; thus, the area of

new disturbance would total approximately 6 to 10 acres. Localize disturbance would occur but

would be negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Under Alternative B, impacts would be similar to Alternative A except that the Coffeepot

Botanical ACEC would be closed to OHV use, thereby reducing fragmentation and the possibility

of crushing individual plants. Mining activities would be required to be mitigated so as to not

disturb individual plants and to avoid known populations for the acuna cactus, reducing habitat

fragmentation and allowing the persistence of the species on a small scale. Livestock use would

be managed to perpetuate botanical diversity, and range developments would not be located in

areas that would increase livestock use where local populations of the cacti could be found.

Overall impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) within Section 4.25, “Implementation Level Analysis” (p. 906).

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
450 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as described for Alternative A.

4.6.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.6.5.1. Common to Both Decision Areas

From Priority and Wildlife Habitat Management on Priority Habitat and

Wildlife Management

Alternative C introduces Wildlife Habitat Areas (WHAs) in the Batamote Mountains, Cuerda de

Lena, the Gila Bend Mountains, and Saddle Mountain.

Common to all Alternatives for WHAs would be the following:

Retaining public lands within the WHAs would improve habitat quality, maintain or increase local

populations of wildlife and provide connectivity to habitats used by wildlife. Impacts to wildlife

by retaining public lands in the WHAs would be negligible.

Maintenance of utility corridors, including vegetation clearing, would be restricted to the existing

authorized LUA corridor only within the WHAs. This would reduce disturbance outside of utility

corridors, leaving habitat available for wildlife. Some wildlife species use utility corridors as

feeding, resting, or travel areas, as well as using vegetation surrounding the utility corridors for

other day-to-day activities. By limiting vegetation clearing within the existing corridor, habitat

fragmentation would be reduced to only the areas needed for the maintenance of utilities. Impacts

to wildlife would be negligible to minor, an improvement over Alternative A.

Routes that conflict with resource protection and management could be closed, limited by seasonal

restrictions, or mitigated to prevent habitat degradation and fragmentation. Using closures,

seasonal restrictions, and mitigation to prevent habitat degradation and fragmentation would

improve habitat quality, local populations, and the connectivity of habitats for wildlife species.

Impacts to wildlife from resource protection from transportation routes would be negligible to

minor, an improvement over Alternative A.

Through the route-designation process, route densities would be reduced and the designation of

upland routes would be emphasized. Necessary use of access routes in washes would be allowed;

however, these access routes may contain seasonal closures, an improvement over Alternative A.

All new roads or highways crossing public land would be designed to facilitate movement of

wildlife and would be mitigated to minimize disturbance.

Priority habitat areas would be maintained during road improvements (e.g., altering, upgrading,

paving, and widening), and improvements must meet Sonoran desert tortoise-protection

standards. Mitigation may include at-grade wildlife crossings, wildlife under- or over passes,

wildlife-appropriate fencing, speed limits, and other appropriate actions, an improvement over

Alternative A.

Surface-disturbing activities affecting an area greater than 40 acres, including land use

authorizations, utility-scale renewable-energy development, and recreation facilities, would be

avoided. Overall impacts to wildlife under Alternatives C, D, and E are expected to range from

negligible to minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 451

Under Alternative C, surface-disturbing activities affecting an area greater than 40 acres, including

land use authorizations, utility-scale renewable-energy development, would be avoided within

WHAs. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in already disturbed areas.

If no other options exist, activities would be mitigated and managed to ensure consistency with

management objectives, including an emphasis on maintaining wildlife habitat and movement

connectivity. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

Surface-disturbing activities affecting an area smaller than 40 acres would be allowed if the use

and disturbance is mitigated and managed to ensure consistency with management objectives and

emphasizes maintaining wildlife habitat and movement connectivity. Uses would be concentrated

in less sensitive resource areas or in areas already disturbed whenever feasible. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to moderate.

WHAs would be open to extraction of leasable minerals, geothermal resources, and mineral

material sales on a case-by-case basis. All surface-disturbing activities affecting an area greater

than 40 acres must be mitigated and managed to ensure consistency with management objectives

and emphasize maintenance wildlife habitat and movement connectivity. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to moderate.

The construction of new routes would be allowed if they are consistent with natural resource

objectives and do not conflict with wildlife management objectives. Closed roads could be

converted for use as nonmotorized trails if they are consistent with natural resource objectives.

Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Under Alternative C, motorized vehicle use would be prohibited in washes the Batamote

Mountains WHA that are found to contain occupied or suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls

habitat to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season, from February 1

to September 15. All other areas would be limited to existing or designated routes. Impacts would

be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Under Alternative C the Cuerda de Lena WHA would be closed to public use including all

lands, discretionary minerals and recreation activities during pronghorn fawning, from March 15

to July 15, or as determined annually by the Sonoran pronghorn antelope recovery team. The

area would remain open to locatable mineral entry but closed to leasable and salable minerals

actions, including exploration and development. Federal, State and local government employees

and permit holders operating within the scope of their authorizations would be exempt from the

closure. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Motorized vehicle use would be prohibited in washes that are found to contain occupied or

suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls habitat during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season,

from February 1 to September 15. All other areas would be limited to existing or designated

routes. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Mineral material disposals would be prohibited in washes that are found to contain occupied

or suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat. Impacts would be expected to range from

negligible to minor.

Overall impacts to wildlife are expected to range from negligible to moderate under Alternative C

with in the WHAs, an improvement over Alternative A.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
452 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.6.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the Lower Sonoran, impacts from utility corridors, energy projects, and LUAs on wildlife

habitat management would be similar to Alternative B. Impacts from land tenure adjustment on

wildlife habitat management would be greater than under Alternative A and similar to Alternative

B because 36,300 acres would be available for disposal under Alternative C.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Managing all perennial/ephemeral grazing allotments as perennial only, with no additional

ephemeral use, would result in a minor improvement of wildlife habitat by reducing the long-term

competition between livestock and wildlife for important annual forage species. Requiring a

seasonal adjustment in permitted use (approximately 65 percent during the winter-spring season

[October 1 to April 30] and approximately 35 percent during summer season [May 1 to September

30]) would result in a minor improvement to wildlife habitats by increasing available habitat for

wildlife during the winter, spring, and summer seasons. Habitat improvement for some wildlife

species would be moderate under this alternative (including bighorn sheep, mule deer, Sonoran

desert tortoise, and other grazers) but only minor to negligible to other species of wildlife that

competes less with livestock. Domestic sheep and goat grazing would be prohibited within 9

miles of bighorn sheep habitat, and effects would be the same as Alternatives A and B.

Allotments that are meeting or exceeding standards would be considered to be providing habitat

for healthy sustainable wildlife populations. Very few livestock grazing practices fragment

wildlife habitats. The effect of changing grazing practices in Alternative C would have a

negligible impact on habitat connectivity. Management prescriptions in Alternative C would

result in a greater improvement to wildlife habitat than would occur in Alternative A, B, or E,

but less than in Alternative D. Following BLM BMPs and SOPs would ensure that wildlife

continue to thrive in any of the alternatives.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife habitat management would be similar to

Alternative B.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts would be similar to Alternative B except that 186,300 acres (29 percent of the Decision

Area) would be allocated to front country and 423,100 acres (66 percent of the Decision Area)

as back country.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Under Alternatives C, D, and E, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be replaced by the

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC.

Under Alternative C, the proposed Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC would encompass 63,300

acres of public lands. This ACEC is being proposed to protect lesser long-nosed bat and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 453

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitats; the outstanding botanical diversity of the native plant

communities; botanical resources unique to the area such as the Acuña cactus, desert bighorn

sheep, and other diverse wildlife populations; and outstanding landscape and scenic features. The

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC also contains an endangered plant species: the Acuna cactus. The

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl has been petitioned as a candidate for the Endangered Species List,

and habitat is available for it within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 100 percent public lands,

and it is recommended to retain those lands within the ACEC as public ownership. Impacts from

retaining the public lands within the ACEC would be negligible.

New routes in washes would be prohibited within the ACEC unless conflicts with wildlife are

mitigated and minimization criteria are established during route designations. At the time of route

designations, mitigation, adaptive management, and BMPs would be utilized to avoid harassment

and long term displacement of wildlife. By utilizing these techniques, negligible to minor impacts

to wildlife would be expected to occur.

Camping within the ACECwould be limited to dispersed and undeveloped sites. By limiting

camping in this manner, minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur. New utility,

communication, transportation, and utility-scale renewable energy development would be avoided

within the ACEC. If these actions are avoided within the ACEC, impacts to wildlife would be

expected to be negligible to minor.

Motorized vehicle routes would be closed or limited with mitigation to avoid conflicts with

wildlife habitat management, and new routes would be prohibited with the exception of routes

needed for resource-management protection purposes. Mitigation, adaptive management, and

BMPs would be utilized to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. By using

these techniques, impacts to wildlife would be expected to be negligible to minor. Nonmotorized

trails would be permitted within the ACEC as long as they are mitigated and adaptive management

and BMPs are utilized to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. By using these

techniques, impacts to wildlife would be expected to be negligible to minor.

Within the ACEC, new utilities would be required to be buried underground within existing

LUAs to retain the unencumbered view shed. New LUAs would not be approved outside

the existing LUA. Requiring the burial of LUAs and excluding all applications outside the

existing LUAs within the ACEC would likely result in negligible to minor impacts to wildlife.

Mitigation, adaptive management, and BMPs would be utilized to avoid harassment and long

term displacement of wildlife.

Recreational development would be limited to the minimum requirements to protect resources

and provide for public safety. By limiting recreational developments, impacts to wildlife would

be expected to be negligible to minor.

Livestock grazing would be closed in the ACEC, and infrastructure associated with grazing would

be removed. Once grazing is removed, impacts to wildlife would be expected to be negligible

to minor; however, removing associated infrastructure could cause major impacts to wildlife,

especially if water sources are removed. Water is a scarce resource in the Sonoran Desert, and

removing any water source could be detrimental to wildlife species that have become accustomed

to a particular water source. Local populations of wildlife in the area would have to relocate and

possibly face mortality without water.

The ACEC would be closed to all forms of mineral entry, though existing valid rights would be

recognized. Mitigation, adaptive management, and BMPs would be utilized to avoid harassment

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
454 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

and long term displacement of wildlife for existing rights. By using these techniques on existing

valid rights and closing the ACEC to new and future form of mineral entry, impacts to wildlife

would be expected to be negligible to minor.

Overall impacts on wildlife would be expected to range from negligible to minor, an improvement

over Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Motorized use in Alternative C would be limited to designated routes, similar to Alternative

B. Under this alternative, 101,800 acres would be closed to motor vehicle use, and 828,460

acres would be limited to designated routes. No open areas would be designated. Impacts under

Alternative C would be similar to those described for Alternative B. In Alternative C, some routes

(132 miles) would be closed seasonally to reduce conflicts in priority species habitats. These

closures would reduce disturbance and human interactions during breeding, nesting, lambing, and

fledging lifecycles. In Alternative C, there would be approximately12 miles of nonmotorized

trails, and approximately 358 miles of primitive roads where wildlife impacts are expected to

be negligible to minor. Moderate to major impacts typically occur where use is more frequent

and interactions between wildlife and humans are greater. These typically are routes and roads

that are maintained for more frequent, higher speed travel. In Alternative C, there would be

approximately 25 miles of maintained roads where impacts are expected to be moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Approximately 128,100 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics under this alternative. Proactive wildlife management would be limited; however,

allowable uses prescribed to protect and enhance wilderness characteristics would mutually

benefit wildlife resources. Impacts to wildlife resources are expected to negligible to minor.

4.6.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from utility corridors would be similar to Alternative A, but reduced due to the

elimination of the TEP multiuse utility corridor and the reduction in size of the remaining two

corridors to a 0.5 mile wide limit. Overall impacts to wildlife would be expected to range from

negligible to minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except that

far fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing (207,431), which totals fewer open acres

than in Alternative B. In areas open to grazing, allotments would be reclassified as perennial only.

Impacts would be negligible to minor, similar to those described in Alternative A. Within the

SDNM, domestic sheep and goat grazing would be eliminated under Alternative C. Impacts to

Monument objects from eliminating domestic sheep and goat grazing within the SDNM would

be expected to be negligible. Overall impacts would be minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 455

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife habitat management would be similar to

Alternative A From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the SDNM, impacts would be similar to Alternative B except 55,500 acres, or 9 percent of

the Decision Area would be allocated to front country and 383,500 acres, or 88 percent of the

Decision Area, as back country.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the SDNM, impacts would be similar to Alternative B except 55,500 acres, or 9 percent of

the Decision Area would be allocated to Front Country and 383,500 acres, or 88 percent of

the Decision Area, as Back Country.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

There are no special designations proposed for wildlife in the SDNM.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to travel management.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Approximately 112,200 acres of the SDNM would be allocated as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics under Alternative C. Impacts to wildlife would be expected to be

negligible, within the level of protection prescribed in the proclamation.

4.6.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.6.6.1. Common to Both Decision Areas

From Priority and Wildlife Habitat Management on Priority Habitat and

Wildlife Management

Alternative D only addresses the proposal of the Gila Bend Mountains WHA. The other WHAs

Coffeepot-Batamote, Cuerda de Lena, and Saddle Mountain are proposed as ACECs under the

special designations heading under Alternatives D and E. Impacts to the Gila Bend WHA would

be similar to Alternative C except that under Alternative D, the WHA would be an exclusion

area for all surface disturbing activities, including land use authorizations such as seismic,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
456 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

solar, wind, and other renewable energy development; testing and exploration; and recreation

facilities. The WHA would be closed to all locatable and leasable minerals exploration and

development (including geothermal and sodium) and mineral materials disposal. Public lands in

the WHA would be recommended for withdrawal to all forms of mineral entry. Overall impacts

to wildlife from Alternative D would be expected to range from negligible to minor, less than

Alternatives C and A.

4.6.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the Lower Sonoran, impacts from utility corridors, energy projects, and LUAs on wildlife

habitat management would be the least intrusive compared to any other alternative. Impacts from

land tenure adjustment on wildlife habitat management would be greater under Alternative D than

under Alternative A, but less than under Alternatives B or C, because approximately 26,200 acres

would be available for disposal under Alternative D. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Cessation of grazing throughout the Decision Areas would result in the greatest improvement to

wildlife. Removing livestock would improve habitats for wildlife over the long term by reducing

competition for resources. Habitats would be expected to improve and more closely resemble

a natural state. However, the removal of livestock also would shift the burden of maintaining

water facilities from livestock operators to State and Federal wildlife managers. This could

result in declining water availability for wildlife. Overall, habitat quality would improve for

some wildlife species), resulting in major impacts on bighorn sheep, mule deer, Sonoran desert

tortoise, and other grazers, and negligible to minor impacts on other wildlife species that compete

less with livestock. Species that depend on livestock or live synergistically with livestock

(such as the brown-headed cowbird) may see a reduction in habitat quality, and populations of

cattle-dependant species may decline locally. Such declines may in turn increase populations of

species affected by nest parasitism, including the southwestern willow flycatcher.

Allotments that are meeting or exceeding standards are considered to be providing adequate

habitat for healthy and sustainable wildlife populations. Very few livestock grazing practices

fragment wildlife habitats, with the exception of some fencing practices. Fencing would be

considered for removal in areas, and the burden of removal would fall on State and Federal

wildlife managers. Removal of fences would improve movement of some wildlife species that

have difficulty in negotiating passage ways at fences. The effect of changing grazing practices

in Alternative D would have a minor impact to habitat connectivity. Cessation of grazing in

Alternative D would have the greatest improvement to wildlife habitat in general than would

occur in any other Alternative. Overall impacts to the cessation of livestock grazing in the Lower

Sonoran would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife habitat management would be similar to

Alternative B.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 457

This Alternative allocates approximately 78,100 acres to front country and approximately 21,600

acres to back country. There would be less management direction in areas outside of the

management zones. Fewer SRMAs and RMZs would be allocated under this alternative, and

would have impacts similar to Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

There are a total of four ACECs proposed under Alternative D and E. Under Alternative D and E

the ACECs are addressed for wildlife and are as follows: Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC, Cuerda de

Lena ACEC, Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC the Saddle Mountain ACEC. The

intent of the proposed ACECs is to prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural,

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

provide safety from natural hazards.

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC. Under Alternative D, an area of approximately 77,600 acres of

public lands would be designated as the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC to protect habitat and

populations of the endangered Acuna Cactus.

All public lands within the ACEC would be retained. New LUAs, including utility-scale

renewable energy development, would be excluded from the ACECto reduce habitat

fragmentation within the ACEC. Utility LUAs would be excluded from the remaining area to

retain habitat connectivity and natural settings associated with the ACEC.

New routes would be prohibited within washes unless conflicts with wildlife and cultural

resources are mitigated during route designation to minimize habitat fragmentation. Motorized

vehicle use would be prohibited in washes that contain occupied or suitable cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls habitat to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season.

Prohibiting motorized vehicle use in areas that contain occupied or suitable cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls habitat stressors would be alleviated affording the owls the opportunity to complete

life cycle requirements uninterrupted by human activities. The construction of nonmotorized trails

would be permitted within the ACEC as long as mitigation occurs to protect T & E habitats.

Desert washes (xeroriparian) within the ACEC would be closed to all camping from February 1 to

September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season reducing

human caused harassment during critical stages of the owl’s life cycle.

The ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing to protect the outstanding botanical resources.

Closing the ACEC to grazing would allow vegetation to reach desired plant communities and

reduce competition between wildlife and cattle for food, water and space resources. Fencing and

facilities (i.e. corrals, etc) related to the grazing operation would be removed. By removing these

facilities wildlife could move unencumbered with the ACEC; however, if water sources are

removed wildlife may vacate areas that have traditionally held water for livestock. This action

could be detrimental to wildlife in the local area of water removals. The ACEC would be closed

to all forms of mineral extraction; however, valid existing rights would be allowed to continue.

Closing the ACEC to all forms of mineral extraction could retain habitat availability for wildlife.

Overall impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are expected to range from

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Cuerda de Lena ACEC. The proposed Cuerda de Lena ACEC encompasses approximately

58,500 acres of public lands. This ACEC is proposed to protect habitat for the endangered

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
458 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Sonoran pronghorn as well as protect habitat for other wildlife species, including the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl. A vast majority of the ACECis public land with approximately 70

acres of private land and approximately 640 acres of state land. It is recommended that lands

not in public ownership be acquired to further protect habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn as

funding and opportunities arise.

Within the ACECsurface disturbing maintenance associated with LUAs within the ACEC would

be limited to the authorized LUA grant. Mitigation, adaptive management and BMPs would be

utilized to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. By using these techniques

minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur.

It is proposed that the ACEC be closed to public entry from March 15th through June 15th in

accordance to the Sonoran pronghorn recovery team recommendations. This closure to entry to

the public allows the pronghorn females to birth uninterrupted, allows new born antelope the

opportunity to wean without distractions and allows male pronghorn the ability to seek females

for procreation undisturbed. By closing the area to public entry during this timeframe, negligible

impacts to the Sonoran pronghorn are expected. This closure would also assist the lesser

long-nose bat in foraging without human disturbance from the general public and allow the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl to breed, hunt and brood uninterrupted.

Camping within the ACECwould be limited to dispersed and undeveloped sites. By limiting

camping in this manner negligible to minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur. Overall

impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species within the ACEC would be expected to

range from negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

r Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC. Under Alternative D, the proposed ACEC would

encompass approximately 79,100 acres of public lands. The intent of the ACEC would be to

increase habitat availability by limiting surface disturbing activities within its boundaries. Route

designation and the criteria used for minimization would decrease impacts to wildlife by allowing

IDTs to evaluate and reduce the amount of roads, trails and routes that would be in conflict with

wildlife management goals and objectives. Overall impacts to wildlife would be expected to be

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Saddle Mountain ACEC. Under Alternative D, the proposed ACEC would encompass

approximately 48,500 acres. The intent of the ACEC would be to increase habitat availability by

limiting surface disturbing activities within its boundaries with a focus on habitat conservation.

Route designation and the criteria used for minimization would decrease impacts to wildlife by

allowing IDTs to evaluate and reduce the amount of roads, trails and routes that would be in

conflict with wildlife management goals and objectives. Overall impacts to wildlife would be

expected to be negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Motorized use in Alternative D would be limited to designated routes, the same as in Alternative

B and C. No open areas would be designated. In this Alternative approximately 378,300 acres

would be closed to motor vehicle use and approximately 551,900 acres would be limited to

designated routes. The increase in closed areas would improve habitat connectivity and reduce

impacts from human disturbance to wildlife resources which would be an improvement as

compared to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 459

In Alternative D there are approximately 49 miles of nonmotorized trails, and approximately 219

miles of primitive roads where wildlife impacts are expected to be negligible to minor. Moderate

to major impacts typically occur where use is more frequent and interactions between wildlife

and humans are greater. In Alternative D there are approximately 25 miles of maintained roads

where impacts are expected to range from negligible to moderate. Overall impacts to wildlife

from Alternative D would be less than Alternative A, B and C.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Alternative D contains the largest number of wilderness characteristic acreage; at approximately

276,500 acres. Impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative C, except the intensity will

increase slightly due to the larger area covered by the lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics allocation.

4.6.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands and Realty Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife

Management

Impacts from utility corridors, LUAs, utility-scale renewable energy development, and land

tenure would be negligible, as the entire SDNM would be a utility-scale renewable energy

development and LUA exclusion area. No corridors would be allocated in the SDNM.

From Livestock Grazing Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife

Management

Under this alternative, the entire SDNM would be closed to livestock grazing. The impacts

would be similar to those described in Alternative A for the portion of the Monument south of

I8, and would be negligible to minor and similar to Alternative C as related to domestic sheep

and goat grazing. Overall impacts to the cessation of livestock grazing in the SDNM would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife habitat management would be similar to

Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In Alternative D, up to 15 0.25-acre visitor-contact stations and minimal pullouts would be

provided. These facilities, to the extent possible, would be located in areas previously disturbed

and may total up to 4 acres of new disturbance. Impacts under Alternative D would be less than

A, B, and C. Impacts to wildlife are expected to be negligible to minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
460 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

There are no special designations proposed for wildlife in the SDNM therefore no impact is

expected.

From Transportation and Access Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife

Management

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to route designations within the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Approximately 153,000 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. This allocation is 37 percent more than Alternative C and more than any other

Alternative. Impacts to wildlife are expected to be negligible due to the level of protection

prescribed in the proclamation. Impact would be similar to Alternative C, except the intensity

would be greater due to the larger amount of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

4.6.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.6.7.1. Common to Both Decision Areas

From Priority and Wildlife Habitat Management on Priority Habitat and

Wildlife Management

Alternative E only addresses the Gila Bend Mountains WHA. Impacts to the WHA would be

similar to those in Alternative D except; under Alternative E emphasis is given to the conservation

of habitat.

Surface-disturbing activities affecting an area greater than 40 acres, including land use

authorizations, utility-scale renewable-energy development, would be avoided within suitable

habitat. Uses would be concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in areas already disturbed.

If no other options exist, activities must be mitigated and managed to ensure consistency

with wildlife management objectives, with an emphasis to maintain habitat and movement

connectivity. The WHA would be open to leasable minerals and geothermal resources. However,

the area would contain a No Surface Occupancy stipulation within suitable bighorn sheep habitat.

The WHA would be open to mineral material sales on a case-by-case basis. Surface-disturbance

greater than 40 acres, must be avoided within suitable bighorn sheep habitat. Uses would be

concentrated in less sensitive resource areas or in areas already disturbed. If no other options exist

within bighorn sheep habitat, activities must be mitigated and managed to ensure consistency

with wildlife management objectives emphasizing habitat and movement connectivity. Overall

impacts to wildlife from Alternative E would be less than Alternative C and D and would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 461

4.6.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from utility corridors, energy projects and LUAs on wildlife operations in the Lower

Sonoran would be similar to Alternative C due to similarities in the number, width, and location

of utility corridors and reduced acreage.

Impacts from land tenure decisions on wildlife operations in the Lower Sonoran would be similar

to Alternative C, due to similar numbers of acres that would be available for disposal. However

through the identification process impacts to wildlife habitat are expected to range from negligible

to minor under this alternative.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Alternative E represents a combination of Alternatives A and C. Impacts from grazing to wildlife

would be very similar to those described in Alternative C because perennial AUMs are the same.

Ephemeral use and associated impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Alternative E does

include similar seasonal livestock restrictions to those in Alternative C. Impacts as described in

Alternative C related to seasonal livestock restrictions would also be the same in Alternative E.

Utilizing a full suite of allocations to perennial, perennial-ephemeral, and ephemeral would

provide more flexibility to appropriately manage livestock and wildlife habitat as compared to

Alternatives A, B and C. Changes in habitat conditions resulting from management prescriptions

in Alternative E would be similar to C, and A wildlife habitat conditions would improve less than

B with reduced perennial grazing and less than D with livestock cessation. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife operations would be similar to Alternative A,

except that Saddle Mountain would be closed to salable mineral disposal, thus decreasing

potential conflicts with wildlife and wildlife operations. Overall impacts would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impact would be similar to Alternatives B and C except 244,000 acres would be allocated to front

country and 345,100 acres as back country.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC. Under Alternative E, impacts to wildlife and threatened and

endangered species would be similar to Alternative D. However, the reduction in acres under

Alternative E is based on elevation requirements and soil characteristics needed by the Acuna

cactus. Under Alternative E an area of approximately 61,300 acres of public lands would be

designated as the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC.

All camping (vehicle-based and primitive) would be limited to designated sites within the ACEC

from February 1 to September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
462 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

dispersal season. Designating camping areas within the ACEC would allow the general public to

utilize the ACECwhile providing protections to the owl during life cycle requirements.

Motorized vehicle use would be restricted in washes that contain occupied or suitable cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owls habitat from February 1 to September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during

the breeding, nesting, and dispersal season. All other areas would be limited to existing or

designated routes. With restrictions in large washes and limiting motorized use to existing or

designated routes that contain the owl or habitat characteristics for the owl, the public is still

afforded recreational opportunities while protecting the owl and its life cycle requirements.

Livestock facilities could be developed to improve livestock distribution and natural resource

conditions and when the facilities are not in conflict with wildlife or cultural resources. Allowing

grazing within the ACEC could improve habitat characteristics for wildlife species within the

ACEC. Livestock developments would be mitigated to allow passage, such as fences, and use,

such as water sources, by wildlife.

Washes in the ACEC would be closed to disposal of mineral materials. Closing washes to the

disposal of material minerals would retain wash characteristics for wildlife species in the ACEC

and reduce the amount of fragmentation and retain natural settings within the xeroriparian

systems. Management of mineral uses would be through plans of operation. Valid existing rights

would be respected; however, potential surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of

operations where appropriate. Impacts to wildlife are expected to be greater than D; however

impacts would range from negligible to minor with proper management which would be an

improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Cuerda de Lena ACEC. Alternative E is similar to Alternative D. However, under Alternative E,

the ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposals. By closing the area to mineral material

disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid existing rights

will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of operation

where appropriate. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACEC to allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts would be expected to range from

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

r Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC. Under Alternative E, impacts would be similar to D.

However, Alternative E mineral material disposals would not be allowed with in 5oo feet of cliff

faces to protect raptor nesting areas. Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as Alternative

D which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Saddle Mountain ACEC. Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D except: Livestock

grazing would be managed to ensure the resource values of the ACEC are maintained and

protected. Managing livestock grazing in this manner would allow the persistence of habitat for

wildlife species within the ACECand reduce competition for resources needed by wildlife for

life cycle requirements. Overall impacts from Alternative E would be expected to range from

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

As in all other action alternatives, motorized use in Alternative E would be limited to designated

routes. 152,800 acres would be closed to motor vehicle use and 777,360 acres would be limited

to designated routes. No open areas would be designated. The increase in areas closed would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 463

improve habitat connectivity and reduce impacts from human disturbance to wildlife resources.

Impacts in Alternative E would be similar to those described for Alternative C. In Alternative

E some routes would be seasonally closed (141 miles) to reduce conflicts in priority species

habitats. These closures would reduce disturbance and human interactions during breeding,

nesting, lambing, and fledging lifecycles. In Alternative, E there are approximately 38 miles of

nonmotorized trails, and approximately 330 miles of primitive roads in which wildlife impacts are

expected to be negligible to minor. Moderate to major impacts typically occur where use is more

frequent and interactions between wildlife and humans are greater. These are typically routes

and roads that are maintained for more frequent higher speed travel. In Alternative E there are

approximately 29 miles of maintained roads where impacts are expected to be moderate. Overall

impacts to wildlife from Alternative E would be similar to C more than Alternative D, but less

than B and A and would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts would be similar to Alternative C except 55,400 acres of would be allocated as lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics – 60 percent fewer than Alternative C. Overall

impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

4.6.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from Lands & Realty would be the same as those described in Alternative D.

From Livestock Grazing on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Outside of Alternative D (which eliminated grazing from the Monument), Alternative E would

be the second most protective alternative for wildlife, as only 156,919 acres would be available

for grazing. The entire Conley Allotment would be closed to grazing. Areas that would remain

available to graze would have similar impacts to those described under Alternative A for the

Monument. Domestic sheep and goat grazing would be similar to Alternative C. Overall impacts

would be decreased to minor.

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impacts from mineral development on wildlife habitat management would be similar to

Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

In the SDNM, impacts from recreation management would be similar to the Alternative B except

78,700 acres would be allocated to front country and 406,500 acres would be allocated as back

country. Overall impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
464 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

There are no special designations proposed for wildlife in the SDNM therefore no impact is

expected.

From Travel Management on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Refer to Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species

Monument Objects” (p. 920) for impacts related to route designations in the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Priority Habitat and Wildlife Management

Impact would be similar to Alternative C, except 110,900 acres would be allocated as lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative E.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 465

4.7. IMPACTS ON SOIL RESOURCES

The analysis of how Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E would likely affect soil resources emphasizes

management actions that could alter soil productivity and erosion rates and the actions’ effects on

sensitive soils.

4.7.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

General soil types, erosion potential, structure, and function were discussed and impacts were

analyzed. The analysis was based on reference information, site investigations, lab analyses, soil

mechanics and engineering criteria, anticipated effects of management actions by alternative,

and professional interpretation and judgment. Impacts are sometimes described using ranges of

potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate. When impacts are positive, it is so stated.

4.7.1.1. Indicators

Indicators used to assess impacts on soil resources in this analysis are sufficiently quantitative

to compare the future impacts of this plan with the existing conditions of the Planning Area.

They are:

● Bare ground (acres or proportion of a given area),

● Vegetative cover (acres or proportion of a given area),

● Unsurfaced road density (miles of road per section),

● Developments or other activities causing surface disturbance on soils with high wind or water

erosion hazard (number of developments or other surface disturbances),

● Disturbances from management activities that damage the surface cover provided by desert

pavement or cryptogamic biological crusts (acres),

● Soil aggregate stability (time required for a soil aggregate to dissolve in water).

4.7.1.2. Assumptions

The application of vegetation treatments and establishment of desired plant community

implemented in a specific watershed, in combination with suitable tools and techniques, will

improve infiltration and aeration, fertility, and microbial populations.

● Soil and vegetation resources will be managed to meet the Arizona Land Health Standards

and Guidelines.

● Substantial surface disturbance to soil, including exposure of bare ground, loss of vegetative

cover, or rutting on unsurfaced roads will increase water runoff and downstream sediment

loads and lower soil productivity, thereby degrading water quality, altering channel structure,

and affecting overall watershed health.

● The degree of impact attributed to any one disturbance or series of disturbances would be

influenced by several factors, including the disturbance’s location within the watershed, the

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Soil Resources
466 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

time and degree of disturbance, the existing vegetation, and levels of precipitation at the time

of the disturbance.

● New access roads will be properly designed.

● When special management designations, such as ACECs or SRMAs, are proposed and

management actions for resource protection are properly implemented, their impacts on soil

resources will be positive. These positive impacts will exceed any negative impacts that could

accrue from increased visitation caused by the designation itself.

● When a proposed management action includes a use restriction that requires monitoring and

enforcement to be effective, such as routes designated as closed for travel management,

resources will be available to assure that the necessary monitoring and enforcement occurs.

4.7.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Soil Resources

There would be no impacts to soils from actions proposed under the following resource

management programs:

● Air Resources

● Cave Resources

● Cultural and Heritage Resources

● Paleontological and Geological Resources

● Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

● Wild Horse and Burro Management

● Wilderness Characteristics

● Visual Resources

4.7.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are described, where possible, using the following terms:

Negligible: The amount of soil loss or erosion, or changes in soil characteristics, would be at or

below the level of detection. Changes in the area of bare soil, to the desired plant community, or

in extent of surface disturbance are below the level of detection.

Minor: The amount of soil loss or erosion and its indicators or the degree of changes in soil

characteristics would be small, as would the area affected. If mitigation is needed to offset adverse

effects, it would be relatively simple to implement and likely would be successful.

Moderate: The amount of soil loss or erosion and its indicators or the degree of changes in soil

characteristics would be readily apparent and result in those changes over a relatively wide

area. Mitigating measures probably would be necessary to offset adverse effects and likely

would be successful.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 467

Major: The amount of soil loss or erosion and its indicators or the degree of changes in soil

characteristics would be readily apparent and long-term and would substantially change the

indicators over a large area. Extensive mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be

needed, and their success could not be guaranteed.

4.7.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Natural disturbance from fluvial processes are essential to the long-term maintenance of desert

washes and hydrology. Management actions that involve surface disturbing activities may

impact soil and water resources by changing the rates of erosion or deposition, spatial patterns

of erosion and deposition, and runoff conditions – potentially affecting air quality, water

quality, and watershed health. Physical soil properties such as density, strength, infiltration

and water-holding capacity, soil aggregate stability, and productivity may be affected from

site-specific to landscape-sized scales.

Accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils can affect soil

productivity. Erosion affects soil productivity by carrying away soil particles and nutrients

normally held in the soil, such as phosphorous, magnesium and potassium. The ability of the

soil to recover productivity is affected by loss or degradation of the upper layers or horizons.

These horizons have the highest water holding and nutrient storage capacity. Given the low

precipitation and limited vegetation levels in the Planning Area, soil productivity will be slow to

recover once it has been reduced by erosion.

4.7.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Soil Resources

Soils affected by hazardous materials spills are usually removed. If an affected area is not

remediated quickly, the area of soil loss could spread, raising the intensity of the impact from

minor to moderate or major. Delays in cleanup could result in infiltration of hazardous materials

into groundwater, possibly causing major impacts and requiring costly groundwater treatment.

Impacts could range from negligible to major.

From Wildland Fire Management on Soil Resources

Suppression of wildfires in the Sonoran Desert ecosystem would reduce overall impacts to soil

resources by retaining the vegetative communities and stabilizing the soil. This would maintain

normal infiltration and sedimentation rates for soils. Wildfires that are not rapidly contained

may destroy cryptogamic soil crusts and vegetation over broad areas, increasing erosion and

sedimentation rates. Fires that burn with intense heat may create water-repellent layers in the

soil below the surface that impede infiltration and plant growth and increase erosion. Impacts

could range from negligible to major.

From Water Management on Soil Resources

Although many management activities have impacts on soil, few of the impacts are realized until

the disturbed soil surface is exposed to water. Therefore, soil, which contributes to impacts on

water quality, and water, which contributes to erosion impacts on soils, are discussed together

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
468 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

throughout this document. In this sense, the impact of water on soil is common to all alternatives

and will not be discussed under each alternative. Additional discussion of impacts of water on

soil will be included by alternative in Section 4.10, “Impacts on Water Resources” (p. 537).

4.7.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.7.3.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

Ten utility corridors for major linear LUAs would be designated under Alternative A through

the Lower Sonoran. The designation of these corridors would lead to some localized impacts

on soil resources where surface disturbing activities occur during construction or maintenance.

Containing these uses in the corridors would limit their areal extent and represent a minor

impact if corridors are revegetated to reduce bare soil, which in turn would reduce runoff and

erosion. Depending on the soil type, impacts of the roads associated with the LUA could also be

mitigated with surfacing.

LUAs for utility-scale renewable energy development also will have measurable, widespread

affects on soil. Blading large acreages for solar energy facilities, estimated to cover more than

150,000 acres over the life of the plan, is likely disrupt drainage patterns and cause surface

disturbance and soil compaction over a large enough area, resulting in a moderate impact. Large

quantities of groundwater may also be needed for renewable energy production and may affect

soil resources by causing subsidence in localized areas. This impact could be mitigated in future

solar developments by use of dry cooling technology in the steam turbine systems or by using

systems with entirely different means of generating electricity. Assuming that most solar energy

developments built under this plan are solar energy concentration facilities, the overall impact of

LUAs for this use would be moderate, although it would be major in the localized construction

area.

Land disposal actions on up to 18,900 acres in the Lower Sonoran could potentially damage soil

resources, particularly if the proposed future land use involved surface disturbance or removal

of vegetation, such as for housing development or for a solar energy facility. An additional

8,000 acres would be available for exchange, which would only occur under Alternative A.

Overall impacts on soils in the Decision Area would be minor due to the limited acreage of these

lands. Local impacts on the disposed lands are difficult to quantify when the specific actions are

unknown, but impacts in the moderate to major range are probable.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Grazing would continue under the current management system, which would allow surface

disturbing activities associated with livestock operations to continue and potentially increase

erosion when sensitive surface cover provided by desert pavement and cryptobiotic crusts is

disturbed. Exposure of fine material beneath the cover would make soils vulnerable to wind and

water erosion. The limited area of these sensitive surfaces combined with stocking rates low

enough to allow progress toward the desired plant community should keep disturbances small

and site specific. The impact would, therefore, be classified as minor. No decisions related to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 469

cryptobiotic soils and desert pavement has been made under Alternative A, which will decrease

the likelihood that these areas would be monitored and managed.

In years when there is a substantial spring bloom and ephemeral grazing is permitted, the surface

disturbance around grazing developments would increase as compared to years when only a small

perennial herd is present. This disturbance area may be slow to recover. Increased livestock

activity around new water developments would result in moderate localized impacts of soil

compaction, surface disturbance, and damage to vegetation concentrated near the developments.

Soils with a potential for wind erosion are identified in Table 4.4, “Acres of Soils with Potential for

Wind Erosion by Grazing Type under Alternative A” (p. 469): Acres of Soils with Potential for

Wind Erosion by Grazing Type under Alternative A. The total area of moderate to high potential

for wind erosion is about 8 percent of Decision Areas, where ephemeral or perennial/ephemeral

grazing occurs. Wind erosion following surface disturbance from grazing in the sensitive areas

could be moderate, but the total area affected in the Decision Area is small and the overall impact

is minor under current management practices. Loss of vegetative and cryptobiotic cover around

water developments and some other range developments are likely to be readily apparent and

measurable. However, these impacts and the erosion that could result occur in small areas and

are rated as minor overall.

Table 4.4. Acres of Soils with Potential for Wind Erosion by Grazing Type under Alternative

A

Grazing Potential for Wind Erosion

Management High Moderately High Moderate Slight

Lower Sonoran

Ephemeral 38,900 2,000 8,600 273,800

Perennial 200 0 0 151,800

Perennial/Ephemeral 11,200 800 2,200 219,400

Closed 32,300 0 100 49,100

Total 82,600 2,800 10,900 694,100

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

In the Lower Sonoran, mineral development would be allowed to continue on all lands not

currently withdrawn in Alternative A. Impacts of mineral development on soil resources include

potential disturbances including soil displacement and loss or burial of upper soil horizons.

This would reduce water holding capacity (possibly permanently), loss of vegetation leading

to increased erosion, and new roads. If a large mine with leach pads, open pits and tailings

piles were developed, major impacts on soils would occur. Much of the mine footprint would

experience a long-term loss of soil productivity.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Increased wildlife activity around existing wildlife water developments would result in a slight

increase in soil compaction and surface disturbance. However, such impacts would be minor

compared to the compaction and surface disturbance that occurs around livestock waters, which

are minor themselves due to their limited spatial extent. The additional impact of wildlife sharing

livestock water would be negligible.

Overall, the general objectives in Alternative A are to take actions, some specified and some not,

to protect, maintain or improve habitat for Sonoran pronghorn, desert tortoise, bighorn sheep,

ferruginous pygmy owl, and other priority and non-priority species. Since actions would reduce

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
470 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

the impacts of livestock management, and otherwise maintain more vegetative cover, the impacts

on soils would be positive.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

Under Alternative A, recreation uses would continue to be distributed throughout the Decision

Area, with only four SRMAs covering 379,400 acres in the Lower Sonoran, in which active

management of recreation would occur. The remaining 893,300 acres would be allocated as an

ERMA. Damage to soil resources is expected to increase as recreation use increases throughout

the Decision Areas in both SRMAs and ERMAs However, the concentrated activity in the

SRMAs increases the probability of impacts on soils such as erosion from increased storm water

runoff, due to impervious or compacted surfaces of parking areas, structures and trails. These

impacts will be limited in extent and minor. Mitigation and maintenance is planned for facilities

and near historic sites. Impacts are likely to be offset by those planned management actions as

well as the education about natural resource management provided by the SRMAs themselves. In

the dispersed recreation occurring in the ERMAs, disturbed sites may be more numerous, but

impacts to many of the individual disturbed sites will be minor. Dispersed recreation that occurs

in the ERMAs and in undeveloped portions of the SRMAs, soil impacts are likely to increase

as previously unaffected areas are used for camping, hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian

activities. Most of the affected areas will be used for short periods, and will be relatively small.

Campers are encouraged to use existing sites. The impacts are expected to be minor.

Only one established campground and two additional unimproved areas that are currently used for

camping exist in the Decision Areas. Alternative A includes the possibility of establishing an

LTVA. If any LTVAs are created in Ajo or elsewhere, they would be in existing short-term use

campgrounds, which would limit the impact on soils to the approximate area of the campground.

Compaction, rutting, a high proportion of bare ground and a high risk of erosion from storm water

runoff exists in the designated camping areas. Increasing the stay limit to establish an LTVA could

increase impacts if the area of the campground was also increased. Most impacts have already

occurred, so designating an existing camping area as an LTVA would be a minor impact.

Parking and camping are permitted along existing roads for a distance of 100 feet from the road

center line. This provision invites substantial expansion of the road surface impacts: increase

in total area compacted, increase in area of bare surface, decrease in soil aggregate stability.

These impacts increase probability of erosion on and near the road, which often leads to further

expansion of the affected area as vehicle operators drive around damaged road surfaces. There

is no data available on the current extent of this type of damage, or of the number of turnouts

that have developed in the 100 foot zone on each side of the designated routes. The impacts are

classified as minor, since they are individually small areas, and not numerous. However, there

is a high probability that activity will occur, leading to an increased area of disturbance along

the 1,688 miles of road in the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC is the only ACECin Alternative A. An existing management

decision closes the existing roads to all recreational use, which will greatly reduce the risk of

unauthorized travel, widening of existing roads, and most other additional surface disturbance.

On balance, this designation will have positive impacts.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 471

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

Motor vehicle use is currently limited to existing or designated routes, with less than 3 percent of

the Decision Area limited to designated routes, and most of the closed routes in the wilderness

areas. Alternative A decisions on motorized vehicle use leaves the current OHV class designations

and route system in place (see Map 2-15a). Limited to exisitng routes OHV area designations

would have a low to moderate effect on soils by ineffectively managing an incremental expansion

of the route system due to routes not being clearly marked and delineated for the public. This

continued expansion would remove more vegetative cover thus destabilizing soils making them

susceptible to erosion and lower productivity.

Under Alternative A, only 15 miles of routes out of 1,688 total miles would be closed in the

Lower Sonoran. Increased road density increases the risk of rill and gully erosion as described

below, increases bare soil reducing infiltration, and increases wind erosion. The average road

density over the Lower Sonoran Decision Area is 1.15 miles per section, which is relatively low.

However, the density varies in different parts of the Decision Area. If the very low density

wilderness areas are not included in the calculation, the road density increases by almost 50

percent to 1.57 miles per section. The impact due to road density would still be moderate to

low in the rest of the Decision Area.

Public travel in wash bottoms and dry streambeds that are part of the existing route system

would continue, potentially impacting surface drainages, eroding banks, damaging xeroriparian

vegetation, and leading to greater sedimentation during storm water runoff. Use of wash bottoms

as existing, but undesignated travel routes is likely to increase use of new or unauthorized routes

as vehicle operators exit or re-enter drainages. However, streambeds in the Decision Area are

usually sand, and the affected areas are locally small, resulting in a minor impact overall. The

intersections of roads and washes are numerous enough to cause moderate impacts locally where

the intersections occur.

Routes on soils with a high or moderately high potential for wind erosion are vulnerable to

greater soil loss and larger contributions to air quality degradation. Over a third of the miles of

Limited to Existing Routes OHV areas are on soils with high wind erosion potential, creating a

moderate impact on soils (Map 3-6).

Potential for water erosion is substantially greater on roads where storm water runoff is

concentrated, and road drainage is not well developed. Alternative A would keep 99 percent of

the total number of existing routes open, creating a moderate to high impact on soils in the areas

of higher road density. Those areas include Buckeye Hills, the area north of the Signal Mountains,

and in the areas north and southwest of Ajo. Gully erosion, soil loss, increased runoff and

sedimentation in drainages may not be apparent everywhere, but the impacts will be widespread

in the areas of relatively high density of open roads in Alternative A.. The impacts are also rated

moderate to high because mitigation of impacts that have occurred would be impractical and the

outcome would be in doubt, particularly since use of most of the roads would continue.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Decisions intended to protect special status species, particularly those that avoid surface

disturbance or maintain vegetative cover, would also protect soil and water resources. Continued

wood harvesting in the Lower Sonoran would remove roots, limit the amount of debris, and

reduce vegetation cover and increases bare ground. Reduced cover reduces infiltration, and

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
472 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

increases runoff, which could increase erosion. Such impacts, however, would mainly be limited

to the Ajo Block, where the majority of wood harvesting has been occurring. Impacts would be

minor, since they would be site specific in a limited area, and would not require mitigation, unless

vehicle traffic created ruts or disturbances on sensitive soils.

4.7.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

Three corridors major linear LUAs would be designated under Alternative A in the SDNM. The

designation of these corridors would lead to some localized, moderate impacts to soil resources

where surface disturbing activities occur during construction or maintenance. Containing these

uses in the corridors would maintain a moderate level of surface damage. Other land uses

authorized by LUAs, that cause surface disturbance, would have similar localized impacts on soil

resources due to soil compaction, erosion, and sedimentation. Mitigation to re-vegetate, close

and restore temporary roads and other construction disturbances, and keep stormwater runoff in

natural drainages would reduce impacts over time.

Alternative A includes no solar energy development in the SDNM, However, some indirect

effects to soil and water resources on the SDNM could occur in the southeast section of the

SDNM (southern Vekol Valley) from developments that increased stormwater runoff and caused

increased flow, erosion and sedimentation in drainages in the SDNM. These impacts would be

minor and limited in extent.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Under Alternative A, grazing will be discontinued south of I-8, since those permits have expired.

No additional impacts on soils will occur in this area due to livestock grazing. The closures will

end surface disturbance due to grazing with particular benefit to soils vulnerable to wind erosion

in the Vekol Valley. The impact of the closure will be positive.

North of I-8, grazing would continue at current preference levels. The Land Health Evaluations

for the SDNM allotments has shown negligible to minor impacts from grazing on soil resources.

Therefore, grazing impacts are expected to be minor, and similar to those analyzed for the Lower

Sonoran. Minor impacts are potentially due to the effects of grazing on the soils most sensitive

to erosion.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

The SDNM would remain closed to all forms of mineral entry. Any potential impacts from

mining or mineral claims would occur only on existing valid rights. Depending on what actions

occur on existing valid claims impacts could range widely. A small claim for locatable minerals

could disturb soils over a limited area and would have minor impacts. A larger claim by a mining

company could disturb many acres, removing soils in some areas and burying soils in others time

creating a major impact. Restoration requirements would potentially reduce these impacts over.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 473

Impacts from wildlife species and habitat management would be very similar to those described

in the Lower Sonoran discussion. The impacts from water developments would be negligible to

minor, and probably even less than those in the Lower Sonoran. The actions planned in earlier

LUPs to protect, maintain and improve priority and non-priority species habitat would reduce the

impacts of livestock management, and otherwise maintain more vegetative cover, as in the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area. The resulting impacts on soils would be positive.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

Alternative A has an SRMA that is intended to cover the portion of the Gila Trails SRMA that

occurred within the SDMN. It has 143,900 acres which includes the Gila Trail, the Butterfield

Stage Route, the Anza Trail and other historical points. Impacts to soil resources would increase

as additional miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails are constructed exposing disturbed

soils to wind and stormwater erosion; and use of the area increases with increased visitation.

However, management actions are planned that would protect resources values and limit OHV

use to designated routes. The sum of these offsetting actions is likely to have a minor negative

impact. The remaining 342,500 acres of the SDNM would experience minor impacts similar to

those described above for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Retaining the Vekol Valley ACEC in the SDNM would decrease the likelihood of soil disturbances

in these areas, because they would remain closed to vehicle use; thus decreasing ground

disturbance. Impacts on soils from the designation are likely to be positive.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

Decisions in this alternative to allocate OHV area designations as Open/Closed/Limited would

have the effect of the highest levels of soil disturbance of any alternative. Continuing to allocate

the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACECand Wilderness Areas as OHV Closed areas, 110,700 acres,

would minimize the loss of soil through the prohibition of vehicles and bicycles which put high

downward forces into soils. Continuation of OHV area allocation Limited to Existing Roads and

trails on 798,100 acres would have the effect of maintaining high levels of soil disturbance

throughout the SDNM. Disturbance would likely continue to increase as new routes come into

use as a result of a steady net increase in the number of routes.

Under Alternative A, 65 miles out of 632 miles of routes would be closed in SDNM. Public travel

in wash bottoms and dry streambeds that are part of the existing route system would continue,

potentially damaging xeroriparian vegetation and destabilizing channel banks. This would lead to

a moderate level of impact on soil resources, including an increase in sedimentation in drainages

during periodic stormwater runoff events.

In addition:

● Restricting travel to existing routes will limit the impacts to some locally high, but generally

moderate, levels over the Decision Area, assuming the restrictions are enforced.

● The soils along the De Anza-Butterfield trail corridor between the North and South Maricopa

Mountain Wilderness Areas and east and west of Butterfield Pass are deep, loamy and often

have calcareous layers. Typically they are not readily erodible, although some have a

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
474 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

moderately high wind erosion hazard. For example, the Why soil has a moderate-high wind

erosion hazard ranking. Why soils make up about 15 percent of the Denure-Rillito-Why

Complex, the most common soil grouping in the SDNM between the North and South

Maricopa Mountain Wilderness Areas (at the third order soil mapping intensity commonly

used for rangeland management). Despite the relatively low erosion rating for most SDNM

soils west of the Vekol Valley, surface and vegetation disturbance or damage increases

susceptibility to erosion on any soil. These disturbances have occurred due to OHV activity in

this area. To reduce trail damage and control further erosion, the area has been temporarily

closed to OHV traffic. If the temporary closure is lifted as planned in Alternative A, vegetation

damage, surface disturbance, increase in total un-surfaced roaded area, and reduced soil

aggregate stability are very likely to increase due to the lack of site hardening and natural

barriers preventing cross-country travel and camp area expansion. These changes in the

selected soil condition indicators will all contribute to moderate erosion at least and increased

sedimentation in this area.

● The analysis of route designations that distinguished the open from the closed routes

considered the soils associated with each route. The sensitivity of soils to impacts from

motorized travel is part of the basis for the designation. Impacts will be greater on roads

designated as open than on those designated as closed. Depending on a variety of factors

impacts on soils from open roads will usually be moderate, based mostly upon the activities

expected to occur in the Gap Well and North Tank areas. Soil characteristics, intensity of use,

road grade, number of drainage crossings, the speed limit, and other factors will affect the

level of impact in a specific section of road.

● Roads that are designated as open will have a tendency to widen as the 200 foot parking

corridor is disturbed.

● Roads in use will have more impact on air quality by increasing the concentration of PM10

in the air.

● Roads in use will always have loose, fine particles on the road surface making them more

susceptible to entrainment by wind and water.

● Surfaces of roads that are designated closed will slowly stabilize as vegetation recovers and

no new disturbances occur.

● Roads that are closed can be rehabilitated and treated with water bars or other methods to

improve drainage and reduce erosion.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Decisions intended to protect special status species, particularly those that avoid surface

disturbance or maintain vegetative cover, would also protect soil and water resources. Few

specific management objectives for vegetation resources exist under Alternative A. Unauthorized

removal of native plant materials is prohibited, which may provide a small measure of protection

against soil disturbance. Generally vegetation management in the entire Planning Area is guided

by Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (1997).

Progress toward standards includes establishment of desired plant communities which increases

protection for soil surfaces from wind and water erosion and has overall positive impacts.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 475

4.7.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.7.4.1. Lower Sonoran

Alternative B allows an increase in new facilitates and increased public access to the Decision

Area, which would allow a greater number of surface-disturbing activities. As a result, Alternative

B would generally increase the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, and reduced soil stability

as compared to Alternative A. Although mitigation will be planned when there is an acceptable

probability of success, residual impacts, as measured by the six soil indicators, are likely to persist

from grazing, recreation, travel, lands and realty, and mineral management.

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

In the Lower Sonoran under Alternative B, the multiuse corridors would be the same as those

described in Alternative A. As in Alternative A, the impacts would be minor, assuming BMPs for

mitigating corridor impacts are implemented. Other authorized land uses, including utility-scale

renewable energy development, would have the same moderate impact to soil resources as

described under Alternative A.

Approximately 39,700 acres are available for disposal under Alternative B. If disposal of all

available land occurred, the impact could be twice the impact described under Alternative A,

although the total impact would still be moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Under Alternative B, impacts from grazing would be less than Alternative A. Perennial and

perennial-ephemeral allotments would receive a reduction in permitted AUMs to offset the

effects of continued ephemeral grazing. Grazing would continue on the same number of acres

as Alternative A, but permitted use would be approximately half the Alternative A perennial

stocking rate. The reduced grazing would have a positive impact on soils of the Lower Sonoran

grazing allotments, compared to the greater perennial use in Alternative A. Surface disturbance

would be reduced, which would result in lower impact on sensitive surfaces such as cryptobiotic

crusts and finer textured floodplain soils susceptible to wind erosion. Less utilization of perennial

plants would occur, assuming that ephemeral herds were removed in a timely manner, which

would provide a small increase in surface vegetative cover. Since livestock depend on browse

more than perennial grasses in the Decision Area, positive impacts on grasses from reduced

perennial grazing would be minor. Another positive effect of the reduced perennial grazing is to

reduce the size of the herd that is on the allotments year-round. This would result on less pressure

on plants during dry periods of the year when stress is greater. There are positive impacts from

reduced perennial grazing, but the overall impacts are still minor, as in Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A, except

in some RMZs (Painted Rock RMZ, Gunsight Wash Campground), which are proposed for

mineral withdrawal.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
476 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative B would increase the number of new wildlife waters by about 50 percent

(approximately 32 additional water developments) more than Alternative A, and relocate or

remove some existing waters in the Lower Sonoran to meet wildlife habitat and distribution

objectives. These actions could cause a slight draw down of groundwater and impounding of

storm water. These impacts would be negligible. Existing roads required to providing access to

these waters would be used when possible. Any new roads required would be closed to public use

and would have a negligible impact on soil resource indicators. Any increase in compaction or

soil surface disturbance compared to Alternative A would be very slight or negligible.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

Recreation allocations in the Lower Sonoran would include 8 SRMAs. The effects of SRMAs on

soil resources are dependent on the proposed recreation uses and are described in Alternative A.

Impacts on soils from SRMAs in Alternative B are increased due to the additional management

areas. All Lower Sonoran SRMAs in Alternative B allow motorized travel. Motorized travel

within dry washes can destabilize banks, particularly where vehicles enter and exit the washes,

and damage xeroriparian vegetation. Disturbing sensitive soils such as cryptogamic crusts may

result in increased erosion due to exposure of bare soil. Management decisions intended to

control motorized vehicle use, manage vehicle-based camping and recreational target shooting,

and other intensive recreation uses, would help to mitigate impacts to soil resources. Three of

the SRMAs, Buckeye Hills East Trails, Arlington Trails, and Ajo Trails, emphasize motorized

recreation, where erosion from stromwater runoff concentrated on roads would be moderate. This

impact is likely to occur in all SRMAs in Alternative B, which has open routes in all SRMAs and

emphasizes motorized recreation.

Based on the provisions for visitor education and control, plans for mitigation in anticipated areas

of more intense use, and the limited spatial extent of expected impacts, the overall impact of the

additional SRMAs in Alternative B will be minor.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Under Alternative B, designation of the Coffeepot ACEC in the Lower Sonoran would be

retained. Therefore, the impacts would be the same as those in Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

The miles of routes open to various categories of travel decline from Alternative A through D.

Nearly all existing miles of roads are open in Alternative A (1,670 of the 1,688 miles in the Lower

Sonoran). Efects of the making OHV Area designations of Limited to Designated Routes on

828,360 acres would have a minor effect on soils in the planning area. Allocating an Open OHV

area of 40 acres would have a negligible effect regionally since the area is only 0.004 percent

of the total area. Locally, the effects could be moderate if not well managed, since a sand wash

passes through the middle of this area and bank instability could lead to sedimentation during

rainfall. In Limited to Designated Routes, management, including the addition of earthen water

control structures, would have a minor effect on soils whereby soil loss would be reduced or

stopped and monitored periodically. Soil conditions in most areas would be expected to meet

land health standards.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 477

Only 1,241 miles are modeled as open in Alternative B. Alternative B has 198 more miles of

closed routes and 180 more miles of seasonally closed roads than Alternative A. Many miles of

those closures are to protect wildlife habitat management areas in the Gila Bend Mountains and in

the Ajo area. These closures will reduce the impacts on soils, particularly on the sensitive areas

of desert pavement and cryptobiotic crusts that are common in undisturbed areas of the Ajo

Block. Important reductions in rutting, surface and vegetation disturbance and wind and water

erosion will occur wherever routes are closed. In those specific areas where the road closures are

concentrated, the impact on soil will decline from moderate to minor. However, even with the 25

percent reduction in road miles in Alternative B, the overall impact of travel on the indicators of

soil condition in the Lower Sonoran will remain moderate. Alternative B includes plans for only

5 acres with new roads, which will be a negligible impact. Designation of routes in most areas

should decrease OHV impacts over time by decreasing uncontrolled road proliferation, assuming

resources are available for enforcement of designations.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Alternative B would restore and reclaim disturbed areas and control invasive species. Treatment

to eradicate invasive plant species may increase potential for erosion and increased turbidity in

watercourses during storms in the short term but would effectively increase cover, reducing runoff

and erosion, and stabilize soils in the long term. A vegetation resources management objective

is to maintain and restore desired vegetative communities to protect soils from wind and water

erosion. Achieving the desired future vegetation condition appropriate for the ecological site will

also provide a proper proportion of bare ground and increase the probability that erosion will not

be accelerated. Sufficient vegetative cover will increase infiltration of stormwater, reducing runoff

and subsequent rill and channel erosion. Overall impacts of vegetation resources management

in Alternative A and all action alternatives, including Alternative B, are positive. The specific

objective in Alternative B and the other action alternatives to increase cover to protect soil from

wind and water erosion, if achieved, will provide greater protection to soils than Alternative A.

Alternative B plans to minimize surface disturbing activity in priority plant species habitat.

Alternative B also addresses individual plant community composition objectives and plans to

rehabilitate surface disturbances on sites most likely to be responsive. All of these objectives

will increase cover and reduce surface disturbance that leads to erosion. Therefore, the positive

impacts of Alternative B and the other action alternatives would be moderate in many areas

and could be major in disturbed areas, compared to the minor to moderate positive impacts of

Alternative A.

Wood harvesting would be prohibited under all action alternatives, including Alternative B,

maintaining cover and avoiding soil compaction that vehicle use for wood hauling is likely to

cause. This would be a positive impact, compared to the minor negative impacts from the limited

level of woodcutting allowed in Alternative A.

4.7.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

In the SDNM, the multiuse utility corridors would remain the same as Alternative A and the

impacts would be the same.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
478 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Reductions in perennial grazing would occur in the SDNM, although reductions would be

somewhat smaller than in the Lower Sonoran. Positive impacts of the change would be similar,

and the overall impact on soils would remain minor. Elimination of grazing south of I-8 would

result in slow increase in surface cover, and a slow recovery of surface disturbance caused by

livestock movements. Reductions in permitted AUMs in the portion of the Monument in which

grazing would continue, would result in minor impacts on soils overall. Discontinued grazing on

8,500 acres of the monument would have positive impacts on soil resources within the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Impacts on soils from wildlife management plans in Alternative B for the SDNM are similar to

impacts described for the Lower Sonoran with similar positive impacts. Wildlife management in

the SDNM will provide a slightly higher level of habitat protection, and therefore, soil protection,

in tortoise habitat and pronghorn habitat. Some additional trails could be constructed or motorized

routes could be constructed introducing minor impacts, but these would be off-set by route

closures resulting in a net negligible impact.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

In the SDNM, the entire Monument would be established as an SRMA. Within the Decision Area,

two RMZs would be established: The back country RMZ with 433,600 acres and the Anza

Trail RMZ with 52,800 acres. An objective of the Monument is to keep recreation impacts on

Monument objectives from exceeding 2001 levels. This will restrict new recreational facility

development, so few impacts to soils from compaction or surface disturbance are likely to occur.

Most roads will be primitive with low maintenance levels. This could result in erosion during

stormwater runoff that could be compounded by delays in repair. Periodic inspection could

mitigate this impact.

Increases in visitation, particularly on the historic trails, could result in increased impacts from

vehicle traffic. Monitoring of impacts on historic sites is planned, so soil damage from rutting,

or unauthorized expansion of the travel surface is expected to be promptly repaired. Impacts

are expected to be minor.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Under Alternative B, the Vekol Valley Grassland ACECin the SDNM would not be designated

and vehicle use would be allowed on routes in these areas, which would increase the potential for

damage to soils as compared to Alternative A. The impact on soils in the area of the Vekol Valley

Grassland ACEC would increase to moderate in Alternative B. Since Vekol Valley Grassland

is the only special designations in the SDNM, the overall impact throughout the SDNM of its

removal in Alternative B would be minor.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 479

Decisions in Alternative B to allocate OHV area designations as Open/Closed/Limited would

have the second highest levels of soils disturbance of any alternative as a result of designating

the most open routes of any action alternative. Cross-country travel would not be permitted, so

impacts would be limited to the linear routes and use areas adjacent to routes. OHV closed areas

would total 3,600 acres less than Alternative A. Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC would not be

designated and this area would be designated as Limited to Designated Routes, allowing for

limited vehicular and bicycle use on managed routes. Wilderness Areas would be included as

OHV Closed areas (110,700 acres) and effects would be the same as Alternative A. Continuation

of OHV area allocation Limited to Existing Roads and trails on 828,360 acres would have the

effect of maintaining high levels of soil disturbance throughout the SDNM. Disturbance would

liekly continue to increase as new routes come into use as a result of steady net increase in

the number of routes.

All existing travel routes in the SDNM would be designated open, limited, or closed in Alternative

B (and all other action alternatives). About 70 miles would be closed, which is comparable to the

miles of closures in Alternative A (65 miles closed). The differences in impacts due to total route

length and road density between the two alternatives would be negligible. The reduced impacts of

motorized travel due to wilderness area restrictions would also be the same. The wilderness area

size (157,700 acres) and management would be identical in Alternatives A and B.

In addition:

● Impacts of route designations are similar to Alternative A. Road density under Alternative B

would average 1.03 miles per section across the SDNM, excluding the wilderness areas. That

relatively low road density would represent a minor impact. However, in some areas other

factors combine to increase the probability of wind and water erosion, such as:

1. Local areas of higher road density in Buckeye Hills, the land around Ajo, and the area

north of Signal Mountain.

2. Where soils are identified as susceptible to wind erosion by NRCS in the Gila Bend-Ajo

Soil Survey, floodplain soils of Vekol Wash, soils north and west of Mobile, and soils near

the washes east and south of Ajo,

3. Where roads intersect washes and the amount of disturbed, fine-textured soil material is

present.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Impacts on soil would be the same as vegetation resources in the Lower Sonoran outside of

the Monument, except that collection of vegetation and woodcutting would be more restricted

in the Monument. This would have a minor positive impact on soils by protecting a small,

additional amount of cover, including litter, and by reducing motorized vehicle activity by some

small amount.

4.7.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.7.5.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
480 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C, multiuse utility corridors would be reduced to nine

multiuse corridors. As in Alternative A, the impacts would be minor, assuming BMPs for

mitigating corridor impacts are implemented. Other authorized land uses, including utility-scale

renewable energy development, would have the same moderate impact to soil resources as

described under Alternative A.

Approximately 39,700 acres are available for disposal under Alternative C. If disposal of all

available land occurred, the impact could be similar to Alternative B and twice the impact

described under Alternative A, although the total impact would still be moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Impacts on soils from Alternative C grazing proposals would be less than Alternative A,

but greater than Alternative B. Perennial AUMs in Alternative A and C are the same, but

supplemental ephemeral grazing allowed in Alternative A would not occur in C. The reduced

perennial grazing in Alternative B would result in less impact compared to C, even in years when

ephemeral grazing was allowed in B, due to the limited duration of ephemeral spring grazing. The

additional impacts in Alternative C would be largely the result of the higher year-long stocking

rate causing concentration of use near water and forage. The risk of surface disturbance and

possibly compaction would be increased, although overall impacts would remain minor. Higher

intensity of ephemeral grazing in Alternative B, and still higher intensity in Alternative A, when

combined with a larger perennial herd, would reduce the positive impacts on soils of more organic

matter and residual litter associated with the lower use of ephemeral forage in Alternative C.

Evaluating relinquished grazing permits for reallocation to other uses would provide the

opportunity for impacted areas to increase surface cover, reduce bare ground, and reduce impacts

on areas of sensitive cryptobiotic crusts and desert pavement. Impacts from programs for adaptive

monitoring and management of grazing would be similar to Alternative B. These management

actions could result in positive impacts on some allotments.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A, except in

some RMZs (Painted Rock RMZ, Gunsight Wash Campground) which are proposed for mineral

withdrawal. Also, mineral materials disposals would be prohibited in areas that contain cactus

ferruginous pygmy owl habitat, eliminating potential impacts in these areas. These differences

would have a negligible effect on the overall major impact of mineral development on soils.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

As under Alternatives A and B, decisions or actions intended to protect wildlife, particularly if

they involve avoiding or remediating ground-disturbing activities, would also protect soils from

erosion, sedimentation, and runoff. Differing from Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would

allocate 425,900 acres of WHAs in the Lower Sonoran, which would help to reduce surface

disturbances that can cause soil erosion or loss of biological soil crusts and desert pavement.

Positive impacts from many planned wildlife management actions are the same as those in

Alternative B, including wildlife corridors, and protection of pygmy owl habitat. Restrictions on

surface disturbing activities and goals to improve cover for habitat, will increase infiltration of

storm water, reduce runoff, and, therefore, reduce water and wind erosion and maintain sensitive

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 481

surfaces with cryptobiotic crusts and desert pavement. Limits on some recreational activity in

pronghorn habitat will contribute to similar positive impacts.

Four WHAs totaling 425,900 acres will provide positive impact in Alternative C by limiting

surface disturbance in existing LUAs, areas greater than 40 acres, new route construction that did

not support wildlife management objectives, leasable and mineral material sales, road density

in WMCs, and travel in washes with pygmy owl habitat. All of these limitations would reduce

erosion, and risks of damage to sensitive cryptobiotic crusts and desert pavement.

Improving distribution of wildlife by moving wildlife waters as needed, and limiting construction

of new wildlife waters would have a minor positive impact on soil compaction, vegetation

consumption and exposure of bare soil. Limiting these soil impacts will improve infiltration of

storm water, reduce runoff and erosion.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

Five SRMAs would be allocated in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C with total acreage

of only about 139,500 less than Alternative B. Managing recreation use areas for a more even

balance between motorized and nonmotorized uses would decrease the likelihood of impacts

to soils by trampling, rutting, and erosion. Alternative C, would have SRMAs with a larger

proportion of acres in the back country RMZ (423,100acres) compared to community interface

(19,900 acres) and front country (186,300 acres). Compared to Alternative B, this is an increase

of 72,500 acres in back country, which focus on providing for nonmotorized, dispersed activities.

Reduced motorized travel within dry washes and on sensitive soils would decrease the likelihood

of altering surface flow, exacerbating bank erosion, and damaging xeroriparian vegetation

compared to Alternatives A and B. Proposed management actions in the Gila Bend Mountains

RMZ to restore natural conditions of disturbed areas greater than 2 acres will reduce the impacts

on soils in that areas by increasing cover and reducing the risk of accelerated erosion from roads

and campgrounds. Overall impact of Alternative C recreation management in the Lower Sonoran

Decision Area will be minor, assuming planned road and campground maintenance actions

are effectively implemented.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Under Alternative C, designation of the Coffeepot ACEC in the Lower Sonoran would be

expanded to the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC covering 63,300 acres. This action would increase

the positive impact of the ACEC. Impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

A decision to allocate OHV area designations the same acreage as Alternative B would have

similar effects except that increasing the mileage of closed roads, thus allowing vegetative cover

to return and stabilize soils and would have minor effect on soils. There would be no Open area

near Ajo in this alternative, thus the impacts to soils would be greatly reduced due to having

designated routes instead of allowing cross-country travel.

As under all action alternatives, Alternative C would include a framework for vehicle and travel

management that should over time decrease the affects of vehicle use on soil resources compared

to Alternative A. Road density in areas of the Lower Sonoran in areas where, as modeled, 1,141

miles of roads could remain open (wilderness areas and allocated areas managed to protect

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
482 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Wildernes Characteristics are excluded) would be 1.28 miles of open road per section, one of the

higher densities among the alternatives, but still a relatively low value.

Alternative C has 319 more miles of closed routes and 154 more miles of seasonally closed roads

and roads closed to public use than Alternative A. Many miles of those closures are to enhance

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, protect wildlife habitat management areas in

the Gila Bend Mountains and in the Ajo area. Other closures are in designated wilderness areas

and in the area around the Painted Rocks Campground. These closures will reduce the impacts

on soils, particularly on the sensitive areas of desert pavement and cryptobiotic crusts that are

common in undisturbed areas of the Ajo Block. Less rill and gully erosion, surface and vegetation

disturbance and wind and water erosion will occur wherever routes are closed. Ruts do not

deepen. Detours to avoid obstacles, and use of the 100 foot parking area on each side of the road

do not occur. However, the probability of storm water flow being concentrated on unsurfaced

roads and resulting in erosion on and off the road will persist, even on closed roads. Despite the

32 percent reduction in road miles in Alternative C compared to Alternative A, the overall impact

of travel on the indicators of soil condition in the Lower Sonoran will remain moderate.

Alternative C includes plans for only 25 miles with new roads, which will be a negligible impact

on soil indicators.

About 25 percent of the open roads designated in Alternative C are on soils with moderately high

or high vulnerability to wind erosion. Impacts on soils include loss or displacement of fine

material from the road prism, an increased risk of rill and gully erosion during storm water

runoff, and increases in PM10 air pollution.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Objectives, management actions, and impact under Alternative C would be the same as

Alternative B.

4.7.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

In the SDNM, two underground utility corridors would be designated under Alternative C,

increasing the potential for soil disturbance and associated erosion compared to Alternative

B. In addition, communication sites would be prohibited within SDNM, eliminating surface

disturbing activities associated with construction of such sites that can cause impacts to water

resources and soils.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Impacts of Alternative C on soils in the SDNM is very similar to impacts of Alternative C

described above for the Lower Sonoran. The larger perennial herd in Alternative C would create a

greater impact on soils than the smaller perennial herd with the periodic ephemeral grazing

in Alternative B. Alternative A has the greatest impact with both a larger perennial herd and

ephemeral grazing. The additional impacts from the higher use in Alternative C would be minor.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 483

In SDNM, impacts from mining would be the same as for Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from wildlife management are positive on soils. The positive effects of wildlife corridors

from reduced road speed limits, limits on disturbance near washes, and limits on road density are

the same as Alternative B, but provide even more protection due to the corridor that connects the

Sierra Estrella Mountains to the South Maricopa and Sand Tank Mountains in the Monument.

None of the WHAs are located in the Monument, but that is off-set by the protective presence

of the three wilderness areas which limit motorized disturbance of nearly all resource values

within their borders, including the soil surfaces and the vegetation which is key to maintaining

soil health. Protective measures for Pygmy Owls and desert tortoises also protect soil surfaces

through seasonal closures for the owl and the no net loss provision for the tortoise. These positive

impacts apply to all the action alternatives.

Many of these provision could have been implemented under Alternative A, but were not

specifically required as they are in Alternative C and in some of the other action alternatives.

Also, Alternative C is the only alternative to provide the protection of the 117,300 acre Sierra

Estrella-South Maricopa-Sand Tank corridor.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

The entire SDNM would be a SRMA, consisting of the desert back country RMZ and the Anza

and Lower Gila Historic Trails RMZ. Although the Anza Trail is likely to attract increased

visitation, 2/3 of that RMZ and nearly 90 percent of the Desert back country RMZ will be

managed for undeveloped recreation activity. The undeveloped recreation includes 4-wheel drive

touring, which would have characteristic impacts on soils. But overall impacts of Monument

recreation are expected to be minor. Compared to Alternative A, which only has 143,900 acres in

an SRMA and no distinction among categories of use, management of SDNM recreation under

Alternative C would be more active. Under C recreation would probably increase, but most of the

Monument would be managed for undeveloped, back country recreation. Therefore, the impacts

on soils would be similar to Alternative A and minor.

Groups will be limited in size, competitive motor sports will not be allowed, and more than a

third of the miles of road in the Monument would not allow year-long, motorized, public use.

These management actions will reduce damage to the unsurfaced road prism, reduce risk of

further impact from storm water on the road, and reduce the impact on soil erosion near the road.

All of these positive impacts will offset the minor impacts that could be caused by increased

recreational activity.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

No special designations are planned for the SDNM under Alternative C. The impact of the

removal of Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC designation would be the same as the impact of the

same action in Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
484 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Effects of acres allocated as Closed OHV Areas this Alternative would be the same as Alternative

B since they are the same size. There would be no Open area near Ajo in this alternative, thus

the impacts to soils would be greatly reduced due to having designated routes instead allowing

of cross-country travel. Areas Limited to Designated Routes would have the same effects as

Alternative B by limiting cross country travel and confining soil impacts to linear routes. Overall,

effects to soils would be slightly less than in Alternative A, but would still remain at a moderate

level.

Compared to other Alternatives, route closures will be approximately 80 more miles in the

SDNM than in Alternative A; approximately 80 more miles in the SDNM than in Alternative

B. Such route designations should decrease OHV impacts by decreasing illegal off-road use

through the provision of a good map and marked routes. The potential for on- and off-road

erosion and sedimentation usually associated with use of closed roads and closed areas would

also decline As under Alternative B, Alternative C would include a framework for vehicle and

travel management that should over time decrease the affects of vehicle use on soil resources

compared to Alternative A.

Compared to Alternative A, fewer miles of routes in soils with a high potential for erosion would

be left open. Compared to Alternative B, in both Decision Areas there would be fewer miles of

routes open in soils with a high potential for erosion. This would decrease the potential for soil

erosion, particularly wind erosion of fine-textured soils disturbed and displaced by increasing

volume of motorized vehicle traffic. Density of open roads in the Monument would be 1.24 miles

per section. This is a relatively low density, but among the higher densities in the Planning Area

due to the large areas allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The

roadless areas and areas of closed roads are not included in the density calculations.

Management actions are included in all alternatives that will have the effect of mitigating the

impacts on soils from travel, assuming they are implemented. However, numerous illegal

roads have been used by motorized vehicles under current management since the SDNM was

established. Substantial disturbance of soils and vegetation has occurred near the Anza Trail

corridor increasing the risk of erosion, adding to the concentration of dust in the air and sediment

in nearby and downstream channels. Monitoring of impacts and enforcement of laws and closures

is a key to controlling impacts and success of the plan. Due to the risk of continuing damage to

soil, air and water resources, the overall impacts on soils of travel on is expected to be moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Impacts of vegetation resources on soils in the SDNM under Alternative C are the same as

impacts under Alternative B.

4.7.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.7.6.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

Land available for disposal in Alternative D is about 26,200 acres, which is less than the other

action alternatives, and only about 3 percent of the Decision Area. The impact on soils due to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 485

disposal is likely to be minor, depending on how the land was eventually used. Land available for

disposal is less in Alternative A (18,900 acres), but the impact will still be minor.

LUA exclusion and avoidance areas include most of the Decision Area under Alternative D. The

worst case LUA impacts on soils are likely to be minor. For utility-scale renewable energy

development, Alternative D would exclude or classify as sensitive 85 percent of the Decision

Area. If utility-scale renewable energy development occurred in the Decision Area, the soil

impacts would be major in the area where development occurred, but moderate on the overall

Decision Area. Specific impacts would be similar to Alternative A and the action alternatives.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Under Alternative D, all public lands in the Planning Area would eventually be closed to grazing

once all active grazing permits expire (see Map 2-8d). The elimination of all livestock grazing

is in contrast with Alternatives A, B, and C, which would continue livestock grazing at least in

all currently open allotments. Eliminating grazing would reduce impacts to soil resources by

decreasing ground disturbance and allowing additional vegetation cover to develop over time.

These would be positive impacts for soils. During years of increased winter rainfall the fuel load

created from the growth of annual species would not be subject to reduction from livestock

grazing, which could result in increased frequency and/or intensity of fire in these non-fire adapted

ecosystems resulting in the potential increase in soil erosion. Potential effects to soils could vary

from minor to major in intensity, based on the size of the burn area.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Compared to Alternatives A through C, where no new areas in the Lower Sonoran would be

closed to new mineral development, Alternative D would close substantial areas to new mineral

development. The closures would be a positive impact on soils, decreasing the potential for

erosion, soil compaction, and displacement associated with mineral development activities.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Surface disturbing activities would be excluded from the Gila Bend Mountains Wildlife Habitat

Area, Pronghorn Antelope habitat, Category I, II, and III desert tortoise habitat, and wildlife

movement corridors. Mineral development would also be excluded from these areas. These

exclusions and their reduced surface disturbance would be a positive impact to water and

hydrologic conditions in the watersheds of the Lower Sonoran.

Motorized travel within pygmy owl habitat would be prohibited from February thru July.

This would reduce the impact on most routes, especially in washes where channel banks and

xeroriparian vegetation are susceptible to damage that causes sedimentation in downstream

drainages.

New wildlife waters would be installed only in higher elevations under Alternative D. In

Alternative A additional waters for livestock and wildlife would be developed as needed, but are

not mentioned as a specific action since the 1983 land use plan. Water development in Alternative

D would be much more limited reducing overall impacts with less ground disturbance associated

with construction of these developments. Alternative D would represent a positive impact.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
486 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The overall difference between Alternative D and other alternatives is the reduced number SRMAs

in Alternative D. In SRMAs, management actions that are in conflict with recreation are generally

resolved in favor of recreation management. Recreation allocations in Alternative D would

establish two SRMAs; the Buckeye Hills and Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMAs. The effects of

SRMAs on soils are dependent on the proposed recreation uses and are described in Alternative

A. Extent of the impacts from SRMAs in Alternative D are reduced from those in Alternative A

due to fewer acres of SRMAs and a different recreational opportunity emphasis. Recreational

use in the Buckeye Hills SRMA would emphasize nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the

Buckeye Hills East RMZ and dispersed recreational opportunities in the Buckeye Hills West

RMZ. Lesser emphasis on facility development and motorized recreation would result in reduced

surface disturbance, which is generally correlated with reduced soil impacts.

Recreational use of the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA would emphasize a greater level of

development and more extensive motorized travel than the Buckeye Hills SRMA. Increased

development of facilities in this area would result in negligible increases in runoff, erosion and

sedimentation. Management of other recreational activities in the Lower Sonoran would be

similar to other alternatives. Management decisions intended to control motorized vehicle use,

manage vehicle-based camping and recreational target shooting, and other intensive recreation

uses, would help to mitigate impacts to water resources. Fewer SRMAs and less motorized

recreation in Buckeye Hills would result in the lowest soil impact under Alternative D compared

with the other alternatives. The overall impact on soils from Alternative D would be minor.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Ground-disturbing activities would be restricted or excluded in ACECsunder Alternative D,

including utility-scale renewable energy exploration and development. Also, ACECs would be

closed to all locatable and leasable minerals exploration and development (including geothermal

and sodium), and mineral material disposals. Although utilities would be placed underground,

causing surface disturbance and increasing probability of wind and water erosion, similar

disturbances would accrue from above ground utility transmission line construction. Overall,

impacts from special designations under Alternative A, particularly ACECs, on soils would be

positive by limiting soil disturbing activities, which would reduce erosion, compaction and

damage to sensitive surfaces.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

A decision to increase OHV area designations of Closed to 378,300 acres would have a moderate

effect on soils. Allocating the balance of acres 551,900 acres, to Limited to Designated Routes

would have the same effects as Alternatives B and C. As in Alternative C, there would be a 40

acre Open area near Ajo. Thus, effects to soils would be greatly reduced through the management

of designated routes.

Alternative D would have the fewest number of miles open routes among the alternatives.

Alternative D would keep only 47 percent (about 800 miles) of the total number of existing routes

(1687 miles) open, compared to 99 percent of the roads open in Alternative A, 74 percent of the

routes open in Alternative B, and 68 percent open in Alternative C, Road density in Alternative

D is 0.75 miles of open road per section, a relatively low value. Potential for water erosion is

substantially greater on roads where storm water runoff is concentrated, and road drainage is not

well developed.. Depending on the effectiveness of restoration plans for roaded areas, a road is

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 487

likely to remain a water erosion hazard long after it is closed. Therefore, the risk of erosion on the

travel system in the Lower Sonoran is lower in Alternative D than A and the action alternatives,

but it is expected to remain moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

The positive impacts from planned vegetation management actions would be similar to the

impacts of Alternative C. However, the 263,700 acres of ACECs would allow an increase in

vegetative cover over time under Alternative D. Increased cover would increase storm water

infiltration, and reduce runoff and erosion (both wind and water). Also, surface disturbance

would be reduced further reducing the risk of erosion. Overall positive impacts on soil would be

greatest in Alternative D.

4.7.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

In the SDNM, Alternative D would not designate any utility corridors and communication

sites would be prohibited in the Monument. As an LUA exclusion area in Alternative D, new

impacts on soils would be negligible. Additional limitations for desert tortoise habitat would be

implemented specifically to reduce surface disturbance, which would be a positive impact under

Alternative D. Continued use of existing multiuse corridors could experience surface disturbance

and associated erosion risks. Those would be moderate, but limited in aerial extent.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Under Alternative D all public lands in the SDNM would eventually be closed to grazing once

all active grazing permits expire (see Map 2-8d). The elimination of all livestock grazing is

in contrast with Alternatives A, B, and C, which would continue livestock grazing at least in

all currently open allotments. Eliminating grazing would reduce impacts to soil resources by

decreasing ground disturbance and allowing additional vegetation cover to develop over time.

These would be positive impacts for soils.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mining in the SDNM would be the same as under Alternative A, except in areas

withdrawn from mineral development and disposal due to wildlife considerations. Impacts in

those areas would be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

The impacts on soils from wildlife habitat management are positive under all action alternatives

compared to Alternative A. Of all the alternatives, D is the most restrictive on management

activities that disturb soil surfaces and reduce vegetative cover. Impacts under D are similar to

Alternative C, but are more positive. Restrictions and exclusions for pronghorn, pygmy owl,

and desert tortoise are all broader under Alternative D. Area in wildlife corridors is greatest in

Alternative D, which will result in the least surface disturbance and the best maintenance of

vegetative cover, protecting soil surface, increasing infiltration and reducing runoff and erosion.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
488 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

Under Alternative D, the entire SDNM would be managed as a single SRMA of 486,400 acres

with a market strategy to present the Monument as primarily suited for “undeveloped” recreation.

Ninety percent of the Monument would be managed as back country. The resulting impact on

soils is likely to be a lower level of disturbance throughout the Decision Area, but a wider area

of disturbance. All routes will be primitive, and designated from among existing roads. The

impacts characteristic of roads include channeling of storm water on erodible surfaces leading

to rills, gullies and sedimentation in natural drainages. The impacts will be locally moderate,

if designations are followed, but will be minor overall throughout the SDNM compared to

Alternative A. The lower level of impacts will result from the large proportion of the Monument

that will be closed to motorized use in wilderness areas and areas allocated as lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics.

Restrictions on length of camping stays, target shooting, group size, management infrastructure,

and competitive activities would all contribute to reduced surface disturbance compared to

Alternative A, although many of those restrictions also apply to the other action alternatives.

The restrictions would contribute to the overall minor level of impact on soils. Disturbance of

vegetative cover is one of the major sources of surface disturbance and erosion. This impact

would be most limited under Alternative D.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Impacts from special designations and the removal of the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in the

SDNM would be the same as all the action alternatives. The ACEC would not be designated

because the Monument status provides adequate protection against invasive weed species and

impacts of OHV use. The impact on soils would be negligible, since the vegetation cover

would be retained. With sufficient vegetation cover, soil surface protection would be good, bare

ground would be consistent with ecological site, and runoff and subsequent erosion would not be

accelerated. Under these conditions, soil impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

Effects of acres allocated as Closed OHV Areas this Alternative would be the least of all

alternatives since 41% of the area would be closed to public vehicle use and the building of any

public use roads. Areas Limited to Designated Routes would have the same effects as Alternative

B by limiting cross country travel and confining soil impacts to linear routes. Overall, effects to

soils would be slightly less than in Alternative A, but would still remain at a moderate level.

Only 200 miles of routes would remain open under Alternative D. In calculating the road density,

however, more acres are excluded for wilderness and areas with wilderness characteristics than

any other Monument alternative. The road density for the Alternative D is 2.08 miles per section,

highest in the Planning Area but somewhat anomalous. Compared to Alternative A, fewer miles

of routes would be open in soils with a high potential for wind erosion and more miles of routes

would be closed in these areas. Impacts on soils from route designations in the Monument are

similar to impacts in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative D. Although more roads have been

closed this alternative, moderate impacts will sill occur due to continuing, although declining,

erosion after closure. All other action alternatives have more miles of primitive routes open

than Alternative D. Since there is a strong correlation between miles of road in use and wind

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 489

erosion from road surfaces and from storm water runoff from roads, Alternative D would have

the lowest level of impacts on soils. The impact would be minor throughout the SDNM, except

for local eroded road segments that would be moderate. Additional assessments of road impacts

are discussed in the recreation section for Alternative D above.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

The positive impacts from planned vegetation management actions would be similar to the

impacts of on soils in the SDNM are the same as impacts under Alternative B.

4.7.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.7.7.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

Impacts on soils from land tenure changes would be similar to Alternative A and minor, except on

the specific disposed lands. About twice as many acres would be available for disposal, but those

36,800 acres are less than 4 percent of the Decision Area. Also, land available for exchange in

Alternative A is not available in Alternative E. The impact on soils in the Decision Area is minor,

and essentially the same as the impacts described in Alternative B.

Impacts due to land use authorizations are essentially the same as Alternative C. LUA exclusion

areas are nearly the same in total acreage. Compared to Alternative A, the impacts are positive,

since soil surface and vegetation disturbance and exposure of bare soil associated with LUAs,

would occur on about 344,400 fewer acres. The use of existing utility corridors would remain

essentially the same, resulting in similar impacts.

Impacts on surface acres from solar energy development is similar to those described in

Alternative C. Impacts are positive compared to Alternative A, since Alternative E would have an

additional 196,400 acres in areas of high sensitivity, reducing the probable future soil surface

disturbance under Alternative E.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Impacts from grazing on soils within the Lower Sonoran would be essentially the same as

Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A, except in:

● Some RMZs (Painted Rock RMZ, Gunsight Wash Campground), which are proposed for

mineral withdrawal; and

● The Cuerda de Lena pronghorn recovery area, which would be closed to some mineral

exploration and development.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
490 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In these areas, risks of impacts from surface disturbance would be slightly reduced but would be

the same as Alternative A if mineral development did occur.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Impacts on soils from protecting wildlife habitat through retention and acquisition of public land,

limitations on LUAs, and travel restrictions are similar to Alternatives C and D. The impacts are

positive, because they tend to minimize soil disturbance, retain vegetative cover, and assure

consistent, long-term protective management of important habitat.

Acreage in the Gila Bend Mountain WHA proposed for Alternative E is the same as Alternative

D. However, Alternative E provides less protection against surface disturbance in WHAs than

Alternative D. Nevertheless, in making the WHA an avoidance area for surface disturbance and

providing a high level of mitigation for mineral leasing activities, the soil impacts from WHA

implementation and management under Alternative E will still be positive or negligible.

Wildlife corridors include 195,900 acres in Alternative E that extend across both Lower Sonoran

and SDNM. Additional protective measures will be taken in the corridors that will also provide

some additional protection to soils. These measures include mitigation of disturbances within 100

meters of large washes, limits on road densities to 3 miles per section (which may occur in some

areas of the Decision Areas), and mitigation for other surface disturbing activities greater than 40

acres. The positive impacts of WHAs and wildlife corridors would not occur in Alternative A,

which has no habitat areas or corridors proposed.

Impacts from habitat management in Alternative E for specific species would be the same

as Alternative C for all species except the desert tortoise. Surface disturbing activities, and,

therefore, disturbance of sensitive cryptobiotic and desert pavement soil surfaces would be

avoided under Alternative E in Category I habitat, but allowed in Categories II and III. Such uses

would have impacts similar to Alternative C, but a small additional measure of protection would

be provided by the case-by-case review of mineral lease applications in Alternative E.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

The impact on soils of recreation management under Alternative E would be similar to the impacts

analyzed under Alternative B, particularly in the distribution of area in SRMAs. Two SRMAs

under Alternative B would not be designated in Alternative E. This could provide a minor positive

impact under E, since less recreational activity would probably occur in the 48,100 acres in those

two SRMAs. One of those two SRMAs, the San Tan Mountains SRMA, is relatively close to

an urban area and would be likely to attract more use under Alternative B than E. The result for

Alternative E would be reduced surface disturbance and less damage to vegetation. This would

limit the increase in bare soil and water and wind erosion. However, even as an ERMA, some

use would occur, so the differences in impacts would be minor. Limiting the San Tan Mountains

SRMA to nonmotorized use would also minimize the differences between Alternatives B and E.

Some additional differences in management between Alternatives B and E also are proposed.

Alternative E camping stay lengths and infrastructure would be more limited, possibly resulting in

less soil compaction, vegetation and soil surface damage, and damage to banks and xeroriparian

vegetation in adjacent Gunsight Wash, less runoff, erosion and sedimention into the wash. This

would be a minor positive impact of Alternative E.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 491

Differences in impacts from management under Alternatives B and E in the Buckeye Hills SRMA

would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Alternative E proposes 247,400 acres for ACEC designation. This is essentially the same acreage

and designations as Alternative D, although Coffeepot-Batamote and Cuerda de Lena ACECs

would be larger in Alternative E. Alternative E would create major positive impacts on soils with

increased motorized travel and resource use and development restrictions.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

A decision to allocate Closed OHV area designations as 152,800 acres and 777,360 acres as

Limited to Designated Routes would have similar effect as Alternative C. Open OHV area effects

for 40 acres on soils would be the same as Alternative B.

Travel management areas identified for future travel management planning are the same size in

Alternative E as in all action alternatives. Acreage of areas with roads classified as closed versus

limited to designated use is similar to Alternative B, so the impacts on soils are also similar. In the

Lower Sonoran, Alternative E proposes approximately 55,400 more acres of closed roads than in

Alternative B. This would reduce the impact of roads in Alternative E as the additional closed

roads begin to recover, re-establish vegetation, and erosion caused by storm water runoff declines.

Compacted road prisms may also recover some of their original soil structure, but that would

be a very long process. Use of the 100 foot parking area on each side of roads in the Decision

Area would not occur, further limiting disturbance of the soil surface and vegetation. Despite the

reduced impacts under Alternative E, the overall impacts would remain moderate in the decision,

though local impacts where roads are closed would slowly decline to a minor level.

Impacts to soil resources in both Decision Areas from open and closed routes in the areas with a

high potential for wind erosion would be similar to Alternative B. Overall impacts on soils from

travel on over 1100 miles of mostly unsurfaced roads, a density of over 4 miles per section, would

be moderate with some areas of sensitive soils or higher road densities having major impacts.

However, road density in Alternative B is only about 2/3 that of Alternative A. As road density

increases, soil surface and vegetation disturbance, including disturbance to the 100 foot parking

area on each side of the road prism, and total compacted surface area exposed to erosion during

storm water runoff all increase. Impact on soils from wind erosion would be moderate due to

the limited roaded area on sensitive soils (about 25 percent of the Decision Area), although

mitigation would be impractical.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

Alternative E includes the same proposed management actions for controlling invasive weeds,

meeting desired future vegetation community conditions, management of plant material

collection, rehabilitating disturbed areas and plant communities, and managing the Fred J. Weiler

Green Belt as in all the action alternatives. Therefore, the impacts of vegetation resources

management under Alternative E would be comparable to Alternatives B, C, and D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
492 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.7.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Soil Resources

Impacts on soils from use authorizations under Alternative E would be positive since the SDNM

would be a LUA exclusion area except in established corridors. Otherwise, the impacts would be

essentially the same as those described in Alternative C.

From Livestock Grazing on Soil Resources

Grazing impacts on soils will be the same as Alternative A for south of I-8, since those grazing

permits have been cancelled. Grazing impacts on soil resources north of I-8 will be the same as

Alternative B, with the addition of the impacts identified from the seasonal adjustment in livestock

numbers from Alternative C. Additionally, the Conley allotment would become unavailable to

livestock, which would have positive impact on the soils in that allotment.

From Minerals Management on Soil Resources

Impacts from mining in the SDNM would be the same as under Alternative A, except in areas

withdrawn from mineral development and disposal due to wildlife considerations. Impacts in

those areas would be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Soil Resources

Positive impacts on soils from wildlife management would be similar to Alternative D and to

Alternative E for the Lower Sonoran except the positive impacts of avoiding and mitigating

surface and vegetation disturbance would be reduced in Alternative E. Total acreage of WHAs

and WMCs in Alternative E would be only about one third the area designated in Alternative D.

Alternative A still provides positive impacts for soils, but to a lesser extent without WHA’s and

corridors.

From Recreation Management on Soil Resources

The entire SDMN will be managed as an SRMA under all action alternatives. Under Alternative

A only about 1⁄4 of the Monument would be an SRMA. Under Alternative E, most of the Decision

Area would be managed as back country, which means undeveloped recreational activity.

Management plans will include limits on restoration of areas damaged by recreation, group sizes,

special actions to control invasive weeds, and restrictions on target shooting. These actions

will result in lower impacts on soils than are likely to occur in SRMAs in the Lower Sonoran.

Impacts on soils will be minor, and similar to the other action alternatives. Impacts are positive

compared to Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Soil Resources

Impacts from special designations and the removal of the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in the

SDNM would be the same as the other action alternatives.

From Travel Management on Soil Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 493

Impacts on soils from travel within the SDNM are essentially the same as impacts from

Alternative B. Acres of OHV allocation areas are the same as Alternative B, therefore effects

would be expected to be the same as B. About 130 more miles of 632 total would be closed to

motorized use under Alternative E. The result would be fewer impacts on soils from reduced use

of unsurfaced, primitive, unmaintained roads, impacts that have been described for Alternative

A, Alternative B and other action alternatives. These impacts generally will be moderate in the

SDMN under Alternative E.

From Vegetation Resources on Soil Resources

The impacts on soil of management actions in the SDNM are the same in all the action

alternatives. New surface disturbance would be restored and stabilized by available rehabilitation

practices. Control measures for invasive species would be implemented. Impacts on soil would

be positive for all alternatives. Positive impacts are similar though greater than Alternative A,

which has the objective to achieve desired plant communities throughout both Decision Areas,

but lacks reference to specific ecological sites, and the objects of the Monument. The action

alternative, including Alternative E, also establishes specific goals for restoration for disturbed

sites, which is also a positive impact for soils.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
494 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.8. IMPACTS ON VEGETATION RESOURCES

The goals established for the proposed Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMP provides that the overall

ecosystem health, diversity, and distribution of native vegetation communities be maintained

or enhanced and that species and their habitats be appropriately managed and conserved. The

vegetative management objectives stress the importance of natural ecological processes and

functions and focus on land uses and discretionary actions to support multiple uses that are

consistent with sustaining these natural ecological processes and functions. The goals and

objectives were identified for the major vegetation communities that occur within the Planning

Area.

4.8.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.8.1.1. Indicators

Indicators of the primary impacts to vegetative resources as they relate to resource conflicts with

other management programs within the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Planning Area include:

● Surface disturbance within a vegetation community

● Direct loss of vegetation

● Changes in ecological conditions necessary to support functioning and healthy vegetation

communities (i.e. impacts to soils or water supply and/or quality).

4.8.1.2. Assumptions

● All surface-disturbing activities would include mitigation and adaptive management to reduce

impacts to priority wildlife species and their habitat.

● In general, vegetative communities are considered to be in good condition but small localized

impacted areas may be present.

4.8.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Vegetation Resources

No impacts to vegetation resources are anticipated for management actions relating to:

● Air Quality

● Cave Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

● Water Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Vegetation Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 495

4.8.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are described using the following definitions:

Negligible: The impact would not be detectable or measurable. There would be no appreciable

change to vegetative resources.

Minor: The impact would be detectable and measurable. There would be a small, but slightly

noticeable change to a plant community and some individual plant loss. The use of standard

operating procedures to offset adverse impacts, including special measures, would be effective.

Moderate: The impact would be very apparent and measureable. There would be a significant

change to a plant community over a large area and substantial individual plant loss. Mitigation

would likely be needed in order to achieve vegetation community DFC’s. The use of standard

operating procedures to offset adverse impacts, including special measures to avoid affecting

special status plants, animals, and important cultural resources, could be extensive, but should be

successful.

Major: The impact would be severe. There would be a substantial change across a large area

within a plant community and DFC’s could not be achieved without substantial input. The

extensive use of standard operating procedures to offset the adverse effects would be necessary,

and their success would not be guaranteed.

4.8.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.8.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Vegetation Resources

Protection of cultural resources would tend to protect vegetation resources. Activities associated

with management of cultural resources would affect relatively small, localized areas and would

not likely have measurable impacts on the overall communities. Even under the most intense

management (i.e. site excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be very small.

Fencing cultural sites would result in protection of the vegetation from other impacts. Increased

heritage tourism and/or use of vegetation for traditional Native American purposes could result in

some disturbance to vegetation, but only in localized areas. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Managing the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT consistent with NPS standards to protect the historic

landscape and visual values could minimize minor impacts to vegetative resources, due to loss of

vegetation from ground disturbance, by increased restrictions on projects such as livestock or

recreation developments.

Managing 249,500 acres as wilderness areas in both Planning Area to maintain naturalness would

limit activities and reduce surface disturbance and therefore limit minor impacts to vegetation

from direct loss of vegetation or soil erosion.

From Soil Resources on Vegetation Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
496 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Restricting developments and ground disturbing activities away from areas of significant desert

pavement, cryptogamic crust, and soils that are vulnerable to disruption or have high wind or

water erosion potential could reduce impacts to vegetation by limiting projects. The intensity

of the impact limited is based on the level of surface disturbance from a project. Most projects,

with the exception of large energy projects, are expected to have a negligible to moderate impact

on vegetation since most projects are likely to occur in the vegetation communities with the

most acreage in the Planning Area.

In addition:

● Restricting facilities not related to water management outside riparian areas and the 100-year

floodplain of washes or water ways and in a manner that avoids changing natural water flow

or watershed dynamics could restrict the impact to vegetation communities either directly

from limiting the loss of vegetation and/or from reducing the impact to the watershed or

floodplain function. The intensity of the impact would generally be minor, but could vary

based on the scale of the project.

● Limiting proposed new water developments to only those that do not adversely affect springs,

streams, tinajas, seeps or decrease water availability at existing wells will limit water loss

required for the vegetation in those areas. Impacts would be minor.

● New erosion control projects could result in negligible or minor impacts to some localized

areas of vegetation, varying by which vegetation community impacted; however, the projects

could result in improved watershed conditions leading to improved conditions for vegetation,

thereby mitigating the impacts.

● Implementing BMPs for activities that have been specifically established to protect streams

from non-point source pollution will reduce the impact, to negligible or minor, from pollution

on downstream vegetation.

● Existing water control structures that are resulting in moderate impacts due to excessive

erosion and vegetation loss could be removed. This could reduce the impacts to minor or

negligible.

From Wildland Fire Management on Vegetation Resources

The Lower Sonoran is largely comprised of non-fire adapted vegetation. The level of impact

would vary depending upon the size of the area burned. Fire in Sonoran Desert plant communities

that are not fire adapted could have moderate to major impacts to those communities in the

long term by removal of vegetation over large areas. Suppression of wildfires in the Sonoran

Desert Ecological Zone would emphasize MIST tactics. These tactics would primarily result in

localized short-term impacts. Suppression actions could also have long term-impacts to native

plant communities and increase soil disturbance, but would reduce the overall number of acres

burned within the Planning Area.

A few areas may meet the criteria for utilizing prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and

biological fuels treatments to meet resource objectives. These objectives include:

● Improving vegetation, wildlife habitat, or watershed conditions,

● Maintaining non-hazardous levels of fuels,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 497

● Reducing the hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fires, and

● Meeting other resource objectives.

Areas that might meet these criteria could include stretches of the Gila River where tamarisk has

suppressed native riparian vegetation, as well as portions of the Vekol Valley Grassland where fire

may improve natural conditions of the grassland while protecting non-fire adapted vegetation

communities in the vicinity. When applying fuels-treatment methods, BLM policies, procedures,

and plans are to be followed in all cases.

4.8.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Vegetation Resources on Vegetation Resources

Requiring surface disturbing activities to minimize, mitigate, or avoid impacts to achieve land

health standards, achieve vegetation community DFC’s and protect Endangered, Threatened, or

Special Status Plants would reduce the intensity of impacts associated with activities or require

projects to relocate. The intensity of the impact limited would vary by the size of the project.

Vegetation treatments, including but not limited to thinning, burning, seeding, transplanting,

watering, closures and use restrictions could impact vegetation and disturb soils in the short term

but would have long term objectives to achieve land-health standards thus mitigating the impacts.

The intensity of the impact would vary by the size of the project.

Using rehabilitation practices, including prioritizing native vegetation, to stabilize and rehabilitate

sites impacted from surface disturbing activities could limit long term impacts, ranging from

minor to moderate based on size, to the vegetation on those sites. Allowing the use of mechanical,

chemical, and biological treatment methods to remove invasive plants, such as tamarisk, in

the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt for the purpose of restoring ecological conditions and function

and reducing fuel hazards could have moderate impacts to riparian vegetation from surface

disturbance and removal of vegetation; however, the control of invasive species would limit the

long term impacts by eliminating tamarisk and allowing native species to return.

Limiting the collection of vegetation products, both living and dead, to personal uses and in small

amounts could limit the impact on vegetation communities to negligible levels.

4.8.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from Minerals Management would be negligible, as the SDNM is protected by the

Monument Proclamation from disturbances related to mining activities.

From Vegetation Resources on Vegetation Resources

Within the SDNM emphasis is placed on protection of the vegetative communities and the

vegetative objects of the Monument. Requiring surface disturbing activities to minimize, mitigate,

or avoid moderate impacts to achieve land health standards, achieve vegetation community DFC’s

and ensure protection of the vegetative objects of the Monument would limit the intensity of the

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
498 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

impact to negligible or minor from the activity or eliminate the project. Limiting the collection

of living vegetation products to authorized uses only could limit the impact on vegetation

communities to negligible levels.

4.8.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.8.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Wildlife management actions that serve to support wildlife populations by closing or restricting

areas to activities, such as recreation use, mining or livestock grazing, would generally limit

impacts to minor levels to vegetation by limiting direct loss of vegetation and impacts to soils.

The intensity of the impact would vary by the area restricted by the action.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative

A for both Decision Areas.

4.8.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Currently, the existing management does not have any guiding management actions related to

renewable energy development, therefore, they would be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Development of renewable energy projects, mainly solar, would have impacts ranging from minor

to major on vegetation communities by direct removal of vegetation and soil disturbance on a

large scale. Current solar technology requires the land to be at less than a 3 percent grade, which

would have an impact primarily on the creosote bush-bursage and desert wash communities.

Under existing management, most LUAs are approved on a case-by-case basis. Development of

future utility LUA’s leading to an increase of transmission lines, pipelines, associated ancillary

facilities and roadways within the Decision Area would result in the direct removal of vegetation

and surface disturbance leading to the increased risk for the introduction or spread of invasive

weed species during construction of these facilities. The impacts could range from negligible

or minor for small projects to moderate for large LUA’s (such as utility-scale renewable energy

developments).

The designation of ten 1–mile wide utility corridor could result in minor impacts to vegetative

resources from new access roads and associated increased vehicle traffic due to direct loss of

vegetation and soil compaction and erosion. Impacts are expected to range from minor to

moderate. Up to 29,600 acres of public land in the Lower Sonoran are identified for disposal.

This could impact vegetation within and bordering the small, isolated parcels although it is not

likely that the impacts would be more than minor to the vegetation communities in general.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 499

Potential impacts identified from heavy livestock grazing on vegetation are: reduced plant vigor,

alteration of vegetation community composition or structure or reduction in plant cover, reduction

of individual plants including desirable forage species, increased soil instability leading to erosion

and soil compaction.

Through the land health evaluation process, any impacts that are identified from livestock grazing

on vegetation and soils that result in the non-achievement of land health standards would require

mitigation. Mitigation to offset these impacts could include livestock management changes such

as adjustments in grazing timing, season, duration and/or adjustments to livestock numbers

and implementation of grazing management systems (rest rotation, deferred, deferred rotation,

seasonal and short duration). Construction of new rangeland development projects and water

sources could result in minor impacts by the direct loss of vegetation and soil disturbance in the

area immediately surrounding the project leading to reduced biological productivity. The size

of the impact area around livestock water developments is estimated at approximately 6 acres

on average. Larger water developments may have minor impacts at up to 1⁄4 of a mile from the

project or approximately 125 acres. Construction of these projects should result in improved

distribution and management of livestock resulting in reduced impacts to vegetative resources

on a larger scale (allotment wide).

The potential introduction or spread of invasive weed species through livestock grazing activities

could result in changes in vegetation communities and/or increase the incidence of wildland

fire in non-fire adapted communities. The impact would vary in intensity based on the type of

invasive species and how the vegetation community is altered.

Under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, 23 of the 40 allotments would continue to be

managed as ephemeral-only allotments. High density stocking rates during ephemeral years of

high annual production could result in increased impacts around concentrated livestock areas

through disturbance to soils and vegetation. These impacts would generally be minor in nature

over the foreseeable future as years without ephemeral use would allow for rest and recovery of

any impacts in these areas.

The remaining 18 allotments would continue to be managed as perennial or perennial/ephemeral

grazing allotments, resulting in more continuous year round impacts to vegetation that vary from

negligible to minor. Moderate impacts could occur during drier periods if livestock operators do

not make appropriate management changes and the drought policy is not implemented. In general,

livestock operators in the Planning Area adjust livestock numbers based on climatic conditions,

allowing for rest and recovery periods to vegetation, which would reduce the intensity of impact

to minor. Additional similar impacts could occur in these allotments associated with the impacts

described above for ephemeral authorizations.

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Mineral development within the 614,900 acres currently open to development could impact

vegetation by disturbing surfaces and direct loss of vegetation. Creation and expansion of

material pits, roads, and ancillary facilities would result in the impacts. Mining operations would

be expected to disturb an average of between 40-200 acres each. The intensity of the impact

would vary depending on the size of the disturbance and the vegetation community impacted.

Development within the creosote bush-bursage and palo verde-mixed cacti communities would

likely have negligible to moderate impacts. Development within communities with smaller

acreage could have negligible to major impacts.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
500 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Noxious invasive weeds could establish in some disturbed areas, potentially impacting

surrounding vegetation by modifying the communities and increasing risk of wildfire.

The impacts from mineral exploration or development activities, resulting from direct loss of

vegetation, is most likely to occur in the Ajo block and the Globe-Miami area where there is more

potential for development.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

The allocation of four SRMAs could provide protection for localized areas of vegetation by

limiting disturbance and loss of vegetation through the concentration of recreation activities.

Within the SRMAs and in roaded natural areas under the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

(ROS), the increase of recreational activities, such as OHV travel and vehicle camping, could

result in minor impacts due to the loss of vegetation and impacts to soils. The areas outside

SRMAs would be allocated as ERMAs (550,800 acres), which are managed to custodial standards

and do not generally provide structured recreation. ERMAs and semi primitive motorized ROS

areas would not typically include the proactive development of facilities or specific management

actions that could increase recreational activities, such as OHV use, resulting in minor impacts due

to the loss of vegetation and impacts to soils. Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized and primitive ROS

areas emphasis nonmotorized uses and would have negligible impacts on vegetation communities.

Requiring SRPs and establishing camping facilities could control the areas where surface

disturbance from recreation occurs, limiting impacts by limiting the loss of vegetation.

The possibility of introduction, establishment and spread of noxious invasive plants could be

increased due to the lack of existing LUP-level decisions regarding required use of weed-free

feed for equestrian recreation. The spread of noxious/invasive plants can have impacts on

vegetation communities that range from negligible to moderate in intensity based on the type of

invasive species and how severely the vegetation community is altered. The potential increase

risk of wildfire from some species could lead to major impacts in the vegetation communities.

Soil compaction through recreational activities, such as OHV use and camping, could modify

hydrologic flow and water infiltration rates and impact vegetation by altering the conditions

necessary to support functioning and healthy vegetation communities. This would generally result

in minor impacts, but could vary depending on the size of the disturbed area. Wood harvesting

activities of up to one cord per individual annually could result in minor to moderate impacts

from vegetation removal, particularly within the Cuerda de Lena area of the Ajo Block, where the

majority of wood harvesting activities occur.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Management prescriptions in the 8,900-acre Coffeepot Botanical ACEC include the mitigation of

mining practices and a restriction on grazing developments that would reduce potential minor

impacts on vegetation resources by reducing surface disturbance and the loss of vegetation.

From Travel Management on Vegetation Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 501

In general impacts associated with travel management on vegetation are: direct loss of individual

plants, increased soil instability, erosion and soil compaction leading to conditions that do not

support functioning and healthy vegetation communities and increased potential for the spread of

noxious/invasive weeds from vehicle traffic.

Under Alternative A, decisions on motorized-vehicle use would leave the current OHV class

designations and route system in place and route designations would be deferred to a later

implementation-planning and decision-making process. Within the Lower Sonoran, 1871 miles

of routes would remain open (183 within desert washes) and 16 miles (1 within desert washes)

would remain closed. Motorized vehicles would be limited to existing or designated routes in

the Decision Area. In general, the closure of routes (currently 15 miles) to motorized use could

minimize the level of impact to vegetation communities by preventing direct loss of vegetation

and preventing further soil compaction and erosion, thus improving the conditions for the site to

reclaim and revegetate. Heavier use trails within the desert washes can have minor impacts by

bank and channel alteration of soils and direct loss of vegetation. Current guidance generally

lacks specific prescriptions for managing motorized and nonmotorized uses. The lack of such

prescriptions and the large number of routes open for public use under Alternative A may result in

continued impacts, as described above, to vegetative resources.

Although motor vehicle use is currently limited to existing or designated routes, few routes have

been designated as open, limited, or closed to use. Such designations provide a clearly delineated

travel network, reduce route proliferation, and could minimize or prevent impacts to vegetation.

Restricting vehicle use to designated roads in the Painted Rock Mountains, restricting entry to

Sentinel Plains and closing the Sonoran pronghorn management area from March 15 to July 15

would minimize impacts, to minor, on soils and vegetation resources in these areas. Prohibiting

off-road and cross-country travel in the Sentinel Plain and Ajo Airport parcels and prohibiting

new route proliferation could limit impacts on these parcels to minor intensity by reducing surface

disturbance and vegetation loss.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Under Alternative A, managing 116,300 acres of the Decision Area under VRM Class II standards

would place some restriction on developments to comply with the visual protection requirements

of the class. This could potentially limit the impacts, to negligible, on vegetation by reducing the

disturbed area of projects. The intensity of the impact limited would vary depending on the size of

the surface disturbance from the project. Managing 722,100 acres of the Lower Sonoran to meet

VRM Class III or IV objectives would place fewer restrictions on developments and potentially

increase the size of disturbance of projects and the vegetation effected. The expectation is that

these restrictions would generally lead to only minor changes to projects and have a minor impact

on vegetation resources. Only wilderness areas would be managed as VRM Class I under all

alternatives. Restrictions on developments would occur mostly from the wilderness designation

and reduce impacts to negligible.

4.8.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
502 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The designation of three 1–mile wide utility corridors north of I-8 could result in minor impacts

to vegetative resources from new access roads and associated increased vehicle traffic due to

direct loss of vegetation, increased risk of invasive plant or noxious weed establishment and

soil compaction and erosion. There are no lands available for disposal within the Monument;

therefore, impacts would be negligible.

In accordance with the Monument Proclamation, utility-scale renewable energy developments

would not be allowed within the Monument. This would eliminate any minor to major impacts

associated with these energy projects.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Livestock grazing authorizations in the SDNM, south of I-8, were terminated when existing

grazing permits expired, as directed by Presidential Proclamation 7397. Grazing in the SDNM

north of I-8 would continue as perennial use, consistent with historical stocking rates and

with ephemeral use authorized through ephemeral permits. Within these open areas, potential

impacts identified from livestock grazing on vegetation are: reduced plant vigor, alteration

of vegetation community composition or structure or reduction in plant cover, reduction of

individual plants including desirable forage species, increased soil instability leading to erosion

and soil compaction.

Construction of new rangeland development projects and water sources could result in minor

impacts by the direct loss of vegetation and soil disturbance in the area immediately surrounding

the project leading to reduced biological productivity. The size of the impact area around

livestock water developments is estimated at approximately 6 acres on average. Larger water

developments may have minor impacts at up to 1⁄4 of a mile from the project or approximately 125

acres. Construction of these projects should result in improved distribution and management of

livestock resulting in reduced impacts to vegetative resources on a larger scale (allotment wide).

The potential introduction or spread of invasive weed species through livestock grazing activities

could result in changes in vegetation communities and/or increase the incidence of wildland

fire in non-fire adapted communities. The impact would vary in intensity based on the type

of invasive species and how the vegetation community is altered. Overall impacts would be

negligible to moderate.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

The allocation of the Gila Trails SRMA could provide long-term protection for localized areas of

vegetation by limiting disturbance through the concentration of recreation activities. However,

within the SRMA, the increase of recreational activities, such as OHV travel and camping,

could result in minor impacts by altering the conditions necessary to support functioning and

healthy vegetation communities. This would be the result of soil disturbance leading to erosion,

modification of the hydrologic flow in the area and the direct loss of vegetation. The majority

of the impacts associated with these uses occur within the creosote bush – bursage community

with some additional use in the palo verde –mixed cacti and desert wash communities. The areas

outside SRMAs would be allocated as ERMAs (342,500 acres), which are managed to custodial

standards, and do not provide structured recreation or development of facilities. ERMAs would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 503

not typically include the proactive or specific management actions that could lead to increased

recreational activities, such as OHV use, generally resulting in less concentrated use and therefore

negligible impacts due to the direct loss of vegetation and impacts to soils.

Requiring SRPs and establishing camping facilities could control the areas where surface

disturbance from recreation occurs, limiting potential minor impacts by limiting the loss of

vegetation.

The possibility of introduction, establishment and spread of noxious invasive plants could be

increased due to the lack of existing LUP-level decisions regarding required use of weed-free feed

for equestrian recreation. The spread of noxious/invasive plants can have impacts on vegetation

communities that range from negligible to moderate based on the type of invasive species and

how severely the vegetation community is altered and the increased potential for wildfire which

could lead to moderate impacts to vegetation.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Continued designation of the 3,500 acre Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in the SDNM would

provide intensive management and protection of the plant community. Erosion control measures

within the ACECcould result in minor or even moderate but short term impacts from erosion

control projects by direct removal of vegetation, however in the long term the impacts would

be mitigated by improving ecological conditions within the native grassland community and

stabilize soils.

From Travel Management on Vegetation Resources

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to travel management.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Managing 91,600 acres of the SDNM to meet VRM Class II objectives would place some

restriction on developments to comply with the visual protection requirements of the class.

This could potentially limit the impacts to the vegetation, negligible to minor, by reducing the

disturbed area of a project. Managing 236,100 acres of the SDNM to meet VRM Class III or IV

objectives would place fewer restrictions on developments and potentially increase the size of

disturbance of a project potentially leading to minor impacts on vegetation. Only wilderness

areas would be managed as VRM Class I under Alternative A and would restrict developments

resulting in no impacts to vegetation.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
504 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.8.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.8.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Wildlife management actions that close or restrict areas to surface disturbing activities, such as

limiting new surface disturbance within 300 feet of the edge of washes located in the desert

washes vegetative community and restricting the maintenance of utility corridors to the existing

authorized LUA corridor only, would generally limit impacts to negligible or minor levels to

vegetation by limiting direct loss of vegetation and impacts to soils. This includes actions for

wildlife movement corridors and T & E species management.

Developing additional wildlife waters and/or relocating existing wildlife waters would have a

negligible impact on vegetation due to surface disturbance and direct loss of vegetation.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative

A for both Decision Areas.

4.8.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Development of new energy projects and the likelihood of additional road development and

access could lead to moderate to major impacts on 478,200 acres, primarily within the creosote

bush-bursage and desert wash communities, due to the direct removal of vegetation and surface

disturbing activities.

Impacts from Land Use Authorizations, would be somewhat reduced from Alternative A within

the Decision Area with 329,300 acres as avoidance areas and 118,400 acres as exclusion areas.

The impacts from surface disturbing projects could range from negligible for small projects to

moderate for large LUA’s (such as utility-scale renewable energy development), depending on

which vegetation community the project is located in. Impacts related to the designation of 10

multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the

Lower Sonoran. Impacts would remain at minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran,

although impacts will not be as widespread or in some cases as intense in the 18 allotments

currently managed as perennial or perennial/ephemeral due to the reduction in the authorized

grazing preference (livestock numbers). Allotments currently classified as ephemeral only would

remain the same and have the same impacts as Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 505

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same, and have the same general intensity, as those described under

Alternative A, except, slightly more widespread, as 38,300 more acres would be open to mineral

entry.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

The overall focus of Alternative B is on identifying the greatest extent of public land area suitable

for the widest potential array of appropriate uses, and on providing opportunities for those uses,

including an emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities.

The impacts to vegetation and the ecological conditions necessary to support vegetation

communities would be associated with development of intensive motorized trails, staging areas,

facilities, developed campgrounds and new road development in certain RMZs within portions

of the Ajo (two RMZs), Buckeye Hills Trails (one RMZ and one SMA), Lower Gila Historic

Trails and the Arlington Trails SRMAs. The increased motorized activity and new facilities in

the 192,300 acres of these RMZs could result in minor or moderate impacts from direct loss of

vegetation, soil disturbance and/or the potential introduction and establishment of noxious and

invasive weeds from trails and camping areas and during construction activities. Providing a mix

of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities on 73,300 acres in certain RMZs within

portions of the Saddle Mountain and Buckeye Hills Trails (one RMZ) SRMAs could have impacts

to vegetation similar to but at a lesser extent, potentially minor impacts, than those described under

the SRMAs above with intensive use areas. These SRMAs are situated closer to metropolitan

areas so they are expected to receive increased visitation from adjacent communities, potentially

offsetting some of the reduced impacts to the vegetative communities. The Sentinel Plain SRMA

would be managed as an ERMA under this alternative and would have similar impacts as above.

The remaining 381,000 acres in RMZs within the Ajo, Gila Bend Mountains, Lower Gila Historic

Trails SRMAs and the San Tan Mountains SRMA and the San Tan Mountains SMA would all

emphasize non- motorized and primitive recreation activities and less intensive development. This

would likely result in negligible to minor impacts mostly resulting from soil disturbance and the

potential introduction and establishment of noxious and invasive weeds from trails and vehicles.

Impacts from ERMAs would be similar to Alternative A, but with only 283,600 acres allocated.

Recreational shooting would have a negligible impact on vegetation communities with the

designation of previously disturbed sites, such as abandoned gravel pits, as target shooting areas.

Front country and community interface RMZ allocations would be similar in effect to the roaded

natural settings under Alternative A. These areas could have minor impacts due to the continuation

of soil disturbance, vegetation loss and increased potential for noxious invasive plant species

introduction in and around recreational use areas and access roads. Recreation management of

the remaining areas as back country and passage RMZs would provide vehicle access with an

emphasis on nonmotorized dispersed use and long distance touring, limiting impacts on vegetation

to mostly negligible. Development of additional motorized routes and nonmotorized trails in

front country RMZ could increase localized vegetation and soil disturbance. Establishment

of additional extended-stay and large-group camping areas could cause minor impacts from

additional vegetation loss and soil disturbance within and adjacent to these areas. Vegetation

impacts to adjacent areas could be reduced if users are restricted to established camping areas.

The decision to encourage equestrian and pack stock users operating under a special recreation

use permit to provide their animals with weed-free feed would discourage the establishment or

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
506 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

spread of invasive species. Livestock and other pack users could continue to be a source of

invasive species as in Alternative A. Impacts from authorizing individuals to remove one cord of

wood annually would be the same as in Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Management of the 8,900 acre Coffeepot Botanical ACECwould the same as Alternative A.

Managing the Agua Caliente road as a Back Country Byway could increase traffic in the area

resulting in minor impacts to vegetation from increase localized vegetation and soil disturbance.

From Transportation and Public Access Management on Vegetation Resources

The proposed route network under Alternative B could impact vegetation similar to that described

under Alternative A on open routes, but slightly less widespread because approximately 429

fewer miles of routes would be open to the public, minimizing impacts, under Alternative B. In

addition, impacts to vegetation could potentially be reduced on 180 miles of routes with seasonal

closures and 8 miles open to administrative use only.

Alternative B would designate 40 acres in the Ajo area as open use. Within this area, vehicles

would not be restricted to designated routes. This would result in a minor impact to the vegetation

in the area from direct loss of plants and significant soil disturbance. Impacts could be minimized

by soil stabilization. Some of these impacts could be mitigated at a larger vegetation community

scale by providing a recreation area and potentially drawing these users off of the surrounding

areas.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran. A

decrease in Class II acreage could lead to an increase in surface disturbing activities and increased

impacts to vegetative communities. The expectation is that these restrictions would generally lead

to only minor changes to projects and have a negligible or minor impact on vegetation resources.

4.8.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except,

management towards surface disturbing activities is slightly more restrictive. The entire

Monument would be designated as a LUA Avoidance area and the I-8 multiuse corridor would

narrow to 1⁄2 mile wide as it passes south of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness generally

limiting the impact to negligible or minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 507

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except, fewer

acres would be available for livestock grazing (243,749). Therefore, impact intensities would

be decreased to minor impacts. Vegetation communities within the 8,500 exclosure would be

protected from livestock grazing.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations and fencing in the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

The overall focus of Alternative B is on identifying an increase of public land area suitable for the

widest potential array of appropriate uses, and on providing opportunities for those recreation

opportunities. The overall impacts on vegetation communities would be slightly less than

Alternative A. Under Alternative B, impacts from the front country allocation and from the Lower

Historic Trails RMZ would likely be similar to those from the roaded natural ROS settings under

Alternative A. Impacts from back country and passage zones and the back country RMZ would be

most similar to semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS settings under

Alternative A. Managing the entire SDNM as an SRMA will restrict development of recreation

facilities, and emphasize nonmotorized access and natural landscapes resulting in negligible

impacts to vegetation by reducing surface disturbance.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

There are no additional special designations under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Travel Management on Vegetation Resources

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to travel management.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A for the Monument. A substantial

increase in Class II acreage and a reduction in Class IV acreage would impose additional

restrictions on surface disturbing developments which could reduce the impact intensity to

negligible on vegetation communities by requiring mitigation or reducing the scope or location

of projects.

4.8.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.8.5.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative C.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
508 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.8.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Development of new energy projects under Alternative C would have the same impacts as

Alternative B although over less acreage available for projects (274,000). The intensity of the

impact would still likely be moderate to major.

Impacts from Land Use Authorizations, would be somewhat reduced from Alternative A within

the Decision Area with 405,900 acres as avoidance areas and 246,100 acres as exclusion areas.

The impacts from surface disturbing projects could range from negligible for small projects to

moderate for large LUA’s (such as utility-scale renewable energy development), depending on

which vegetation community the project is located in. Impacts related to the designation of

multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the

Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

The types of impacts from livestock use would be the same as Alternative A for perennial and

ephemeral allotments, although within this alternative, no ephemeral authorizations would be

permitted. This would eliminate the impacts associated with ephemeral grazing identified in

Alternative A on those allotments. Allotments currently classified as ephemeral would remain the

same and have the same impacts as Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A; however, the intensity would

likely decrease due to substantial areas (324,100 acres) that require mitigation and do not allow

surface occupancy. Development within the creosote bush bursage community would likely

have negligible to moderate impacts and palo verde-mixed cacti communities would likely have

negligible to minor impacts. Development within the less common communities could have

negligible to major impacts.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative B; however 425,900 acres would be allocated for

WHA’s adding additional restrictions on surface disturbing activities which would limit impacts

to vegetation to negligible levels.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

Under Alternative C the proposal is to provide a balance of recreational opportunities while

moderating the impacts to vegetation resources through mitigation. The impacts on the vegetative

communities from motorized recreation would be reduced to negligible from Alternatives A and

B due to a reduction in route density and rehabilitation of closed routes. This would also serve to

reduce the area of potential noxious/invasive species introduction.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 509

Localized impacts to vegetative communities from the allocation of additional extended stay

campgrounds would be the same as described under Alternative B.

Under Alternative C, the majority of the SRMA’s would be retained and the impacts would be

similar to Alternative B. The San Tan Mountains SRMA would now be managed as an ERMA

along with the Sentinel Plain. The impacts would be the same as described in Alternative B

for these areas.

The areas allocated as community interface and front country settings would be reduced and the

areas allocated as back country and passage settings would be increased generally reducing the

impacts as compared to Alternative B.

Alternative C would not allow wood harvesting permits throughout the Decision Area, eliminating

minor impacts on vegetation communities by direct loss of vegetation.

Collection of dead and down wood for use in campfires would be the same as Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Management of 63,300 acres as the Coffeepot-Batamote Botanical ACEC would require the

mitigation of mining practices and a restriction on grazing developments that would reduce

potential minor impacts on vegetation resources by reducing surface disturbance and the loss of

vegetation. Managing the Agua Caliente road as a Back Country Byway could increase traffic

in the area resulting in minor impacts to vegetation from increase localized vegetation and soil

disturbance.

From Transportation and Public Access on Vegetation Resources

The proposed route network under Alternative C could impact vegetation essentially the same

as that described under Alternative B with approximately 100 fewer miles of routes open to the

public. In addition, 154 miles of routes have seasonal closures or are open to administrative

uses only that minimize impacts to vegetation.

Alternative C would designate the 40 acres in the Ajo area to ATV and motorcycle use only. This

would have the same general impacts as Alternative B.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A. An increase in Class II acreage

would impose some additional restrictions on surface disturbing developments which could

reduce impacts to vegetation communities by requiring mitigation or reducing the scope or

location of projects. The expectation is that these restrictions would generally lead to only minor

changes to projects and have a negligible or minor impact on vegetation resources.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
510 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative C has 128,100 acres of lands allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. This allocation would be expected to limit impacts to negligible intensities by

providing protection to vegetation communities by restricting, reducing, or mitigating surface and

vegetation disturbing activities that could result in the loss of vegetation.

4.8.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A and B for the Monument,

except, management towards surface disturbing activities is slightly more restrictive. The entire

Monument would be designated as a LUA Avoidance area generally limiting the impacts to

negligible.

The I-8 and SR-238 multiuse corridors would both narrow to a 1⁄2 wide and would only entertain

underground facilities. Restricting the corridor to underground facilities could result in increased

impacts as compared to Alternative B to vegetation from surface disturbance and the direct

removal of vegetation. The intensity of the impact would be moderate as approximately 13,000

acres could potentially be disturbed from future projects.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except, far

fewer acres would be available for livestock grazing (207,431) which is also fewer acres open

than in Alternative B. For those acres open to grazing, all allotments would be reclassified as

perennial only. Within the SDNM domestic sheep and goat grazing would be eliminated in

Alternative C. This would eliminate the impacts associated with ephemeral grazing identified in

Alternative A on those allotments. Allotments currently classified as ephemeral would remain the

same and have the same impacts as Alternative A. Impacts overall to vegetation would be minor.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM. Approximately 44,800

acres would be unavailable to livestock, which would have positive impacts of vegetation within

exclosure areas proposed in this alternative.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from recreation would be similar to Alternative B; however, fewer areas would be

impacted within the RMZ’s as the allocation of front country would decrease to 51,700 acres and

back country would increase to 429,000 acres. As under Alternative B, extended-stay camping

areas would not be allocated in the SDNM. Firewood collection would be allowed in the back

country RMZ, except in wilderness areas; reducing impacts compared to Alternatives A and B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 511

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Designating Highway 238 as a scenic byway could have a minor impact on vegetation by

increasing traffic in the area resulting in negligible impacts to vegetation from increase localized

vegetation and soil disturbance.

From Transportation and Public Access Management on Vegetation Resources

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to travel management.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM would be the same as Alternative A; however there would be an increase in

49,700 acres in Class II from Class III reducing impacts to vegetation to negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

Alternative C allocates 112,200 acres in the SDNM as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. This allocation would be expected to limit impacts to negligible intensities by

providing protection to vegetation communities by restricting, reducing, or mitigating surface and

vegetation disturbing activities that could result in the loss of vegetation.

4.8.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.8.6.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative D.

4.8.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Development of new energy projects under Alternative D would have the same impacts as

Alternative C although over less acreage available for projects (141,900). The intensity of the

impact would likely be minor to moderate.

Impacts from Land Use Authorizations would be reduced from the other alternatives within the

Decision Area with 239,800 acres as avoidance areas and 567,400 acres as exclusion areas. The

impacts from surface disturbing projects could range from negligible for small projects to minor

for large LUA’s (such as utility-scale renewable energy development), depending on which

vegetation community the project is located in.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
512 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

This alternative would have the least impact (negligible) on vegetation since only 7 multiuse

utility corridor would be allocated.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the elimination of livestock grazing through the

management action to close all currently open grazing allotments. This decision would remove

any livestock grazing impacts on the vegetative and soil resources. In most cases the impacts

identified from livestock grazing on vegetation are negligible. The expectation is that the impacts

to vegetation from eliminating grazing would generally be small and only slightly noticeable

changes to vegetative resources would occur. Where the impacts from livestock grazing on

vegetation are more noticeable the results of removing livestock would be more apparent (i.e.

regrowth of heavily utilized vegetation, reestablishment of vegetation around watering facilities

and heavily used livestock trails). During years of increased winter rainfall the fuel load created

from the growth of annual species would not be subject reduction from livestock grazing, which

could result in increased frequency and/or intensity of fire in these non-fire adapted ecosystems.

Therefore, potential impacts to the vegetative communities could vary from negligible to minor in

intensity.

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A; however under Alternative

D, the majority of the Planning Area is closed to mineral entry. This would restrict surface

disturbance and limit impacts to negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative C for WHAs even though fewer acres (255,700) would

be allocated for WHAs. This is due to the fact that the acres not allocated to WHAs would be

allocated as ACECs and would have the same restrictions on activities and limit impacts to

vegetation.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation

Resources In Alternative D, diverse recreation opportunities would still be provided; however,

this alternative would stress more enhanced nonmotorized activities. The emphasis would also

be to minimize or mitigate impacts to vegetation communities which would be less than those

identified under Alternatives A, B and C.

Fewer SRMAs would be allocated under this alternative, with Ajo and Gila Bend Mountains

being managed as ERMA’s along with Sentinel Plain and San Tan. Impacts would be the same as

those described under Alternative B for SRMA’s; however with only 100,200 acres allocated.

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for ERMA’s; however with

830,000 acres allocated. The type of impacts would be the same as Alternative A; however the

areas allocated as SRMA’s would be reduced from previous Alternatives. This would lead to

fewer impacts, generally negligible to minor, to vegetation from Alternative C as the remaining

acres would be managed as ERMA’s.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 513

No additional extended stay campgrounds would be established under Alternative D, reducing

localized vegetation impacts to negligible when compared to Alternative B and C. Dispersed

camping impacts could be greater than those identified in Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Managing 77,600 acres as the Coffeepot-Batamote Botanical ACEC would have the same

impacts as Alternative A, but over a larger area. Managing 58,500 acres as the Cuerda de

Lena ACEC, 48,500 acres as the Saddle Mountain ACEC and 79,100 acres as the Gila River

Terraces/Sonoran Desert Historic Trails ACEC would place limits on surface disturbing activities

and reduce impacts to vegetation to negligible or minor levels by limiting the loss of vegetation

and disturbance of soils.

From Transportation and Public Access Management on Vegetation Resources

The proposed route network under Alternative D could substantially reduce impacts to vegetation

communities by closing approximately 777 miles of the 1,687 miles of routes. 799 miles would

be open to the public. In addition, 103 miles of routes have seasonal closures and or are open to

administrative use only. 163 of the 183 miles of routes in the desert washes are closed, which

could reduce impacts from vegetation loss and soil disturbance.

Impacts to vegetation, as it pertains to ATV and motorcycle use within the 40-acre parcel in the

Ajo Block, would not occur as the parcel is not allocated in Alternative D. Overall, impacts

would be minor.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A. A substantial increase in Class

II acreage would impose additional restrictions on surface disturbing developments which

would reduce impacts to vegetation communities, generally negligible, by requiring mitigation

or reducing the scope of projects.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

As under Alternative C, allocating lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

limit impacts to vegetation to negligible. Impacts, however, would be limited as more acres

(276,500) would be allocated.

4.8.7. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands and Realty Management on Vegetation Resources

Impact to vegetation from Lands and Realty under Alternative D would be negligible, as the

entire Monument is designated as a LUA Exclusion Area, prohibited from any utility-scale

renewable energy developments,

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Sonoran Desert National Monument
514 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the elimination of livestock grazing through

the management action to close all currently open grazing allotments in the Monument. This

decision would remove any livestock grazing impacts on the vegetative and soil resources.

In most cases the impacts identified from livestock grazing on vegetation are negligible to

minor in intensity. The expectation is that the impacts to vegetation from eliminating grazing

would generally be small and only slightly noticeable changes to vegetative resources would

occur. Where the impacts from livestock grazing on vegetation are more noticeable the results

of removing livestock would be more apparent (i.e. regrowth of heavily utilized vegetation,

reestablishment of vegetation around watering facilities and heavily used livestock trails). During

years of increased winter rainfall the fuel load created from the growth of annual species would

not be subject reduction from livestock grazing, which could result in increased frequency

and/or intensity of fire in these non-fire adapted ecosystems. Potential impacts to the vegetative

communities would be negligible.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

The SDNM would be managed as a SRMA as under the other Alternatives, with Alternative D

limiting impacts to vegetation by allocating all 486,400 acres as the SDNM RMZ. In addition,

ATVs, RVs, trail bikes, motorcycles, and inappropriate new technological vehicles would be

prohibited from using the SDNM. Prohibiting these vehicles would reduce impacts to negligible

by reducing the potential for soil disturbance and vegetation loss.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for Wilderness.

Designating Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways could have a minor impact on vegetation by

increasing traffic in the area resulting in negligible impacts to vegetation from increase localized

vegetation and soil disturbance.

From Transportation and Public Access Management on Vegetation Resources

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to transportation and access.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Sonoran Desert National Monument August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 515

Management of 457,900 acres within the Monument as VRM Class I and 28,500 acres as VRM

Class II would severely limit any projects and would result in, at most, negligible impacts to

vegetation resources from projects.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

As under Alternative C, allocating lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

limit impacts from direct loss of vegetation resulting from surface disturbance. Impacts, however,

would occur over fewer acres as 153,000 acres would be allocated. Impacts would be negligible.

4.8.8. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.8.8.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for both Decision Areas under Alternative E.

4.8.8.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors (8), utility-scale renewable energy projects (296,400 acres

available) and LUAs (360,800 avoidance and 253,700 exclusion) on vegetation in the Decision

Area would be similar to Alternative D due to similarities in the number, width, and location of

energy projects, corridors and LUAs.

Impacts from land tenure decisions on vegetation communities in the Decision Area would be

similar to Alternative C due to similar numbers of acres (30,900) that would be available for

disposal, the majority of which lie within the creosote-bursage community.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C, except, more widespread, as

35,800 more acres would be open to mineral entry.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts to vegetation from management of SRMA’s would be the same as Alternative C, with the

exception of the Saddle Mountain area managed as an ACEC and the Arlington Trials SRMA

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
516 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

managed under the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA. Impacts to vegetation from the termination

of the wood harvesting program in the Lower Sonoran would be the same as described under

Alternative C. Impacts associated with the collection of wood for on-site campfires in the Lower

Sonoran would be the same as in Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives for both

Decision Areas for the designation of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT and for wilderness.

Impacts from management actions for the Cuerda de Lena ACEC, Saddle Mountain ACEC and

the Gila River Terraces/Sonoran Desert Historic Trails ACEC would be the same as Alternative

D. Impacts from management actions for the Coffeepot-Batamote Botanical ACEC would be

the same as Alternative C.

The Agua Caliente Road would be managed as a Back Country Byway and the impacts would

be the same Alternative C.

From Transportation and Public Access Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from travel management on vegetation would be the same as Alternative C due to similar

miles of open (1,134) and closed vehicle routes.

Alternative E would designate the 40 acres in the Ajo area the same as Alternative B with the

same impact level.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A. A decrease in Class II acreage

could lead to an increase in surface disturbing activities and increased impacts to vegetative

communities. The expectation is that these restrictions would generally lead to only minor

changes to projects and have a negligible or minor impact on vegetation resources.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

As under Alternative C, allocating lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

limit impacts to vegetation; however, impacts could occur of more acres in the Planning Area in

Alternative E (55,400 acres allocated) as compared to Alternative C (128,100 acres) or Alternative

D (276,500). The impact would likely be minor in intensity.

4.8.8.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from multiuse utility and LUAs would be the same as Alternative D.

From Livestock Grazing on Vegetation Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 517

Outside of Alternative D (which eliminates grazing from the Monument), Alternative E

would be the second most protective alternative for vegetation, as only 156,919 acres would

be available for grazing. The entire Conley Allotment would be closed to grazing. Areas

that would remain available to graze would have similar impacts to those described under

Alternative A for the Monument, while the areas that are now closed would have similar impacts

discussed in Alternative D. Domestic sheep and goat grazing would be similar to Alternative C.

Overall impacts would be negligible to minor in all allotments except Conley. On the Conley

allotment elimination of grazing would reduce pressure on vegetation resources, resulting in

significant progress toward achieving progress toward achieving land health standards (see

Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National

Monument (p. 1039) and Appendix F, Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert

National Monument (p. 1081) for more details).

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to AUM allocations in the SDNM.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Vegetation

Resources

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Recreation Management on Vegetation Resources

Impacts to vegetation from management of SRMA’s would be the same as Alternative C. Impacts

to vegetation from management of recreation settings would be similar to Alternative C; however

with an increase of 23,300 acres in front country and 20,500 less acres in back country increasing

the potential for minor impacts to vegetation and soils from increased recreation use.

As under Alternative B, vegetation in the SDNM would not be impacted by extended stay

camping areas as they would not be allocated. Wood collection effects to vegetation would

be the same as under Alternative D.

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to target shooting.

From Special Designations on Vegetation Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Monument.

From Travel Management on Vegetation Resources

Refer to Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) for impacts related to travel management.

From Visual Resources on Vegetation Resources

Impacts from VRM Class I would be the same as Alternative A. Class II and III would have the

same intensity of impacts as Alternative C, however with an increase of 27,900 acres in Class

III from Class II.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
518 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Wilderness Characteristics on Vegetation Resources

Managing wilderness characteristics in the SDNM would have the same impact as Alternative C,

but with a decrease of 1,300 acres allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 519

4.9. IMPACTS ON VISUAL RESOURCES

This section discusses potential impacts of the alternatives on visual resources, specifically the

potential for management decisions to create visual changes in or contrasts on the landscape.

Visual resources are generally affected by activities that introduce new elements into the

landscape, changing the features — the form, line, color, or texture of the landforms, water,

vegetation, or structures — that characterize the existing landscape. Generally, the greater the

surface disturbance, the greater the change to the landscape.

4.9.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

This impact analysis and conclusions are based on the visual resources inventory (VRI),

knowledge of resources and the Planning Area, reviews of existing literature, spatial and temporal

analyses, and information provided by other agencies. Effects are quantified where possible.

In the absence of quantitative data, professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

4.9.1.1. Indicators

This impact analysis and conclusions are based on the visual resources inventory (VRI),

knowledge of resources and the Planning Area, reviews of existing literature, spatial and temporal

analyses, and information provided by other agencies. Effects are quantified where possible.

In the absence of quantitative data, professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes

described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms if appropriate.

4.9.1.2. Assumptions

The analysis is based on the following assumptions:

● The objectives of the VRM classes would be adhered to through project design, mitigation,

or avoidance.

● Projects proposed in areas with VRM Class I and VRM Class II objectives may be more

difficult to design and locate to meet visual objectives.

● The majority of changes to landscapes would be long-term impacts.

● The BLM will require mitigation measures to projects proposed in areas with VRM Class

III and VRM Class IV objectives (areas with visual objectives that allow for more landscape

modification) to reduce impacts on visual resources.

● VRM classes are designated and managed only on public lands, but visual impact analysis may

extend to private lands in connected actions or split-estate situations. All surface disturbing

activities, regardless of the chosen alternative or management action, would be subject to the

VRM objectives of the area where those activities take place. The visual resource-contrast

rating system would be used to analyze the potential site-specific impacts of surface

disturbance as well as a facility’s design and placement. Surface disturbing activities and

facilities would be designed to mitigate their visual impacts and conform to the area’s assigned

VRM objective. Mitigation activities could include painting, facility design, and placement.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Visual Resources
520 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.9.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Visual Resources

No impacts to visual resources are anticipated for management actions relating to:

● Air Quality,

● Cave Resources,

● Cultural and Heritage Resources,

● Paleontological Resources,

● Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management,

● Special Designations,

● Vegetation Resources,

● Water Resources,

● Soil Resources,

● Wild Horse and Burro Management,

● Wilderness Characteristics,

● Hazardous Materials and Public Safety.

4.9.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are described using the following definitions:

Negligible: No known impacts to resources. Any change is undetectable. Activities create very

low visual contrast. When the difference between the VRI acreage and proposed management

class acreage is less than 10 percent of the Planning Area, impacts would be considered negligible.

Minor: Direct effects are apparent and measurable but small and localized or contained within the

footprint of the action. Visual contrast from activities may be visible, but it creates only a small

change in the landscape. When the difference between the VRI acreage and proposed management

class acreage is between 11 percent and 35 percent, impacts would be considered minor.

Moderate: Direct effects would be readily apparent and measurable over a larger area but still

mainly within the footprint of the action. Visual contrast from activities may be moderate.

Changes in the landscape may attract the attention of a viewer from a distance. When the

difference between the visual VRI acreage and proposed management class acreage is between 36

percent and 75 percent, impacts would be considered moderate.

Major: Direct effects would be highly noticeable and extend well beyond the footprint of the

action. Visual contrast from activities may be high. Changes in the landscape may dominate

views, even from a distance. When the difference between the VRI acreage and proposed

management class acreage is greater than 76 percent, impacts would be considered major.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 521

Because the scenic values in the Monument are not considered a Monument object, qualitative

terms used for assessing impacts to visual resources form other resource activities are the same

for the Monument as for areas outside the Monument.

4.9.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.9.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

Allocating VRM classes establishes standards for managing the effects of surface disturbing

activities on the visual resource. Comparing the management classes allocated by alternative to

the VRI shows the potential for management decisions to change the current conditions and,

hence, impact negatively or positively, the visual resource. As noted in ???, the inventory was

completed by Otak, Inc. in May 2010.

Generally, the objectives of VRM Class III and IV allow for constructed facilities to attract the

attention of an observer or even to dominate the landscape. Even in these VRM classes, project

designs should be developed to try and mimic the line, color, form, and texture of the landscape as

much as practical to minimize visual contrast. It is possible that visual character could degrade

over time in these classes, although it is expected that no impact would exceed moderate.

Table 4.5, “VRM Classes by Alternative” (p. 521) shows the acreages of the four VRM classes

in each alternative, with Alternative A representing the current situation. Managing lands for a

lower class than its inventoried value could lead to the visual degradation of those lands. In this

Decision Area, visual impacts could stem from valid and existing rights and activities associated

with mining activities, land use authorization, and recreation facilities. Impacts are indicated by

comparing the proposed management classes with the inventory classes.

Table 4.5. VRM Classes by Alternative

VRM Classes Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Lower Sonoran (Acres)

VRM I 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800 91,800

VRM II 116,300 64,900 387,800 622,400 71,900

VRM III 279,600 551,900 385,600 192,000 548,400

VRM IV 442,500 221,600 65,000 24,000 218,100

Total 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200 930,200

SDNM (Acres)

VRM I 158,700 158,700 158,700 457,900 158,700

VRM II 91,600 219,000 267,300 28,500 246,500

VRM III 116,400 108,700 60,400 0 81,200

VRM IV 119,700 300 300 0 300

Total 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400 486,400

Lower Sonoran and SDNM (combined Acres)

Total 1,416,600 1,416,600 1,416,600 1,416,600 1,416,600

From Wildland Fire Management on Visual Resources

In general, the Sonoran Desert is not fire adapted; therefore, the strategy for wildland fire in

both Decision Areas is full suppression. Fires occur at a low frequency in both Decision Areas.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
522 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

However, when fires do occur, they are fueled by abundant annual grass and are usually fast

burning but relatively low intensity. Most fire suppression activities use engines on flat terrain

and hand lines on steeper slopes. Use of heavy equipment is uncommon in most of the Planning

Area and usually occurs near the Gila River, where heavy riparian fuels require it for successful

suppression actions. The fast running nature of wildfires usually means that burning out from

existing fuel breaks (such as existing roads or wide sandy washes) is the most successful

suppression technique. Fire suppression techniques have the potential to impact visual resources

if fire lines are placed directly up slopes where they are visible for long distances. This action

may be necessary occasionally, but post-fire rehabilitation of fire lines will be used to minimize

the visual impact. Since suppression techniques rarely require surface manipulation, and they

are rehabilitated after the fire is over where they do, impacts from wildland fire management

are expected to be minor.

4.9.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

Utilities, communication facilities, and energy facilities, as well as ancillary facilities and

structures for all of the above, could impact visual and scenic resources by necessitating

construction and vegetation clearing. Overhead utilities, high-voltage electricity transmission

lines, wind generation facilities, and cellular phone towers can be visible from long distances,

while facilities such as solar energy, which are typically closer to the ground, may more directly

affect middle-distance viewing. Adhering to VRM class objectives will assure that lands and

realty-related developments are designed to blend into the line, form, color, and texture of

landscapes as much as possible. Allocations for lands actions, such as communication sites and

utility corridors, recognize the inherent design constraints of lands related structures. In those

areas, VRM class objectives will allow for development needs while requiring or encouraging

designs that minimize visual contrast. By requiring LUAs to conform to assigned VRM classes,

most developments are expected to have minor to moderate affects on the visual resource.

Land tenure adjustments such as acquisitions or disposals can affect scenic quality or viewer

sensitivity. Acquisitions can help protect visual and scenic values by bringing scenic areas into

BLM management and protecting or restoring their visual and scenic values. Some disposals

could affect visual resources by eliminating the BLM’s management control over the parcels,

resulting in potential development or loss of the natural landscape. Some disposals are to

communities for recreational facilities, including parks. These disposals may have little effect

on VRM objectives and may even improve or protect the visual character of those parcels by

applying more intensive management of recreational users. Most parcels for disposal in the Lower

Sonoran are isolated parcels surrounded by developed lands. In these cases, disposal is likely

to diminish these parcels’ visual and scenic values while increasing their value as recreational

open space. Although changes to their baseline visual condition may be major, most change is

expected to be consistent with the local setting.

From Livestock Grazing on Visual Resources

Areas of livestock concentration where vegetation is removed and soil compaction has occurred

would continue to create a contrast with the landscape and potentially reduce scenic quality.

Livestock management would require installation of range developments such as fences,

windmills, wells, earthen dams, corrals, access roads, and stock tanks that could contrast with the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 523

natural setting. However, because these facilities tend to be localized and difficult to see from a

long distance away, impacts to the visual landscape are expected to be minor.

From Minerals Management on Visual Resources

Mining and mineral extraction could represent a major impact to visual resources by presenting

high visual contrast to the surrounding landscapes. Depending on the location and nature of

mining facilities and activities, they could be visible from a number of sensitive viewpoints

and from long distances. Locatable mining operations in VRM Class I and II would develop

mitigation measures to limit, to the extent feasible, the impacts on scenic quality. Reclamation

could recover much of the visual character of an area, but change could still be minor to moderate

for many years after mining has ceased. Since locatable and leasable mining allow more discretion

by the agency, mining operations would have to conform to VRM Class I and II objectives where

they would be allocated, thereby reducing impacts to the visual resource to minor.

Within VRM Class III areas, which allow for moderate changes that may attract attention, impacts

from mining on visual and scenic quality could be fewer, as these areas tend to correspond with

lower elevations and are not as visible from long distances. VRM Class IV allows significant

changes to the visual resources, so activities in these areas would most likely degrade the visual

and scenic quality from the current situation. Nonetheless, changes are anticipated to be no

more than moderate.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Impacts of recreation are often visible only in the foreground, but they also may be seen in the

middle and background on landscapes such as mountains that are visible from long distances.

In addition, uses that disturb a larger area, such as a motorized vehicle route as compared to a

hiking trail, are more likely to be visible at the middle and longer distances. Recreation uses that

would increase OHV travel and vehicle-based camping or other activities that would change the

natural character of the landscape, could impact scenic and visual resources by creating contrasts

to the color, form, texture, and line elements of scenic views. Improperly or carelessly sited or

designed trailhead facilities such as restrooms, fences, information kiosks, and ramadas, as well as

potential long-term visitor areas and extended stay or short-term camping areas, can affect scenic

quality. Although recreational activities are temporary in nature, the impacts of these activities

can be long-lasting and could have moderate to major impacts to the scenic quality of an area,

particularly if they involve uses such as recreational target shooting, paintball and unauthorized

cross country OHV travel.

Target shooting activities, allowed outside of developed areas, often leave behind targets, shells,

and trash. They also have the potential to cause vegetation and surface impacts. Paintball

activities often leave long-lasting paint spatters on vegetation and rocks that can be visible in the

foreground and middle distances.

Through the active management of recreation uses, the allocation of SRMAs could provide for

long-term protection of these areas from surface-disturbing activities that could limit loss of

scenic and visual quality. The remaining areas, allocated as ERMAs, would be managed to meet

custodial standards and would not provide structured recreational opportunities except where

needed to attain custodial activity-based outcomes, address visitor health and safety or user

conflicts, or resolve conflicts with other resources. Most of these public lands would be managed

for recreational uses with few restrictions and minimal management oversight. In these cases,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
524 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

changes in visual landscapes would be addressed through monitoring, restoration, and application

of adaptive management.

It is recognized that the experience of recreational users on public lands is frequently dependent

on the visual character of the areas being used. Most public land recreationists are seeking a

recreation experience in a natural appearing landscape. To this end, facilities intended to support

recreation management are designed to repeat the color, form, line and texture of the landscape

as much as possible. Therefore, the effects of well managed, properly placed and designed

recreational facilities are expected to be minor.

From Transportation Management on Visual Resources

The existing transportation network evolved primarily from routes leading to sites of authorized

activities such as grazing management facilities or mine exploration and development, or from

the proliferation of unauthorized recreational routes over time. In either case, the route designs

that best fit with the natural landscape was usually not considered. In all alternatives except the

No Action Alternative, the majority of the OHV allocations are in the limited to designated

routes category. Areas closed to motorized access are generally designated wilderness areas,

but Alternative D also includes allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Route evaluation and designation considers conflicts to resources in the network design and is

structured to minimize those impacts, including to visual resources. It is anticipated that, although

the acreages of areas allocated as “closed” and “limited to designated routes” change very little

by alternative, the actual number of miles of route eventually designated would vary. Table 4.6,

“Lower Sonoran Travel Management RFD Scenarios” (p. 524) shows an approximation of

route miles determined to represent an RFD scenarios for travel management if a particular

alternative is chosen.

Table 4.6. Lower Sonoran Travel Management RFD Scenarios

Estimated Lower Sonoran Routes Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Roads Total 1,688 1,688 1,687 1,687 1,687

Roads Open 1,670 1,241 1,141 799 1,134

Roads Seasonally Closed 0 180 132 40 141

Roads Admin Only 0 8 22 63 12

Roads Closed 15 213 334 777 339

Trails Open to Vehicles 0 43 46 2 41

Trails Open to Nonmotorized Use 2 2 12 7 22

New 0 49 25 0 34

Generally, any attempt to manage a transportation network will improve its impact on the visual

resource by considering the visual characteristics of line, form, color and texture in route design.

Reducing the number of miles in the route network will also reduce its visual intrusiveness if

the routes chosen for closure are selected because of their visual characteristics and if they are

carefully reclaimed. Impacts would range from negligible to minor.

4.9.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

In the SDNM, all alternatives have allocated VRM classes with the intent to minimize visual

change. Few lands actions are anticipated aside from energy related LUAs and highway

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 525

expansions along I-8 and highway 238. Effects to the visual landscape are expected to be

negligible to minor throughout the Monument, although the changes resulting from major LUAs

in the two corridors mentioned above could have the potential for moderate impacts. However,

since the visual landscape is not a Monument object, this change is not expected to result in

more than minor effects to Monument objects. In the SDNM, no parcels would be identified for

disposal under any of the alternatives, so no impacts from disposal are expected.

From Livestock Grazing on Visual Resources

In the SDNM, grazing south of I-8 would be terminated once current permits expire, thereby

reducing impacts from grazing on visual resources in that area. Over time, many existing range

management facilities will be removed, allowing recovery of natural appearing landscapes.

Alternatives with continued grazing north of I-8 will have similar impacts to those described for

grazing outside the Monument. Impacts from livestock grazing are expected to be minor.

From Minerals Management on Visual Resources

The entire SDNM will be closed to mining and mineral extraction except for valid existing rights,

and no impacts from mining and mineral extraction are expected.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

On the SDNM, all alternatives have allocated VRM classes with the intent to minimize visual

change. Different alternatives explore varying degrees of developed recreation facilities and

experiences. However, since recreation is not a Monument object, all activities are constrained by

the requirement to protect designated Monument objects. For this reason, recreation facilities

within the Monument are anticipated to be small in size and unobtrusive in visual design and

to have minor effects to the visual landscape.

From Transportation Management on Visual Resources

In the SDNM, management of travel and transportation may have the greatest impact to visual

resources of all management activities on the Monument. Table 4.7, “SDNM Designated Route

Mileage” (p. 525) shows the changes in route mileage by alternative within the Monument. The

open road that shows in each alternative is the maintained road through Vekol Valley. As this are

provides the major access points to the southern part of the Monument, it is expected to remain

open. The continued existence of routes in this area is expected to have a negligible impact to

the visual resource. Primitive roads are distributed throughout the Monument and are primarily

located in the lower terrain. This position on the landscape reduces their visibility and limits their

contrast with the surrounding landscape. Any reduction in road mileage will improve the visual

landscape; however, it is anticipated that the change will be minor in most cases.

Table 4.7. SDNM Designated Route Mileage

SDNM Route Designations

Alternative A

(Miles)*

Alternative B

(Miles)

Alternative C

(Miles)

Alternative D

(Miles)

Alternative E

(Miles)

Roads

Roads Open 17.7 24.2 24.2 24.2 24.2

Roads Administrative Use

Only

0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Roads Closed 0 0 0 0 0

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
526 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Roads New 0 8 0 0 4.2

Roads Total 17.7 32.6

Primitive Roads

Primitive Roads Open 550.2** 494.4 358.1 200.0 331

Primitive Roads Admin 0 0 17.1 36.8 4.3

Primitive Roads Limited to

50”

0 3.9 0 0 0

Primitive Roads Open to

Nonmotorized Use

0 2.1 7.2 11.0 8.3

Primitive Roads Seasonally

Closed

0 0 37.3 0 32.7

Primitive Roads Closed 0 69.5 150.2 322.2 193.6

Primitive Roads Total 576.8 569.9

Trails

Trails Nonmotorized,

non-mechanized only

37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0

Trails Total . 37.0 37.0 37.0 37.0

*No transportation network would be designated under Alternative A. Therefore, other than total miles in the

inventory, zeros are entered for all designated route types.

**The primitive roads reported as open in Alternative A show the entire inventory of available primitive roads

since the current designation is limited to existing roads, trails, and washes.

4.9.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.9.3.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

Proposals for development of renewable energy facilities have primarily been in lower elevation

areas with low slope and allocations in VRM Class III or IV, with approximately 53 percent and

58 percent of the acres respectively. In these areas, the technology proposed and its location may

result in minor to moderate effects.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Recreation management would continue to be generally unmanaged, except in a few small

SRMAs. Impacts described above from unmanaged and improper uses would continue to occur

and expand. It is expected that impacts to visual resources could occur from unauthorized casual

uses that are not subject to conformance with VRM standards. Such impacts are expected to be

minor but may rise to the level of moderate.

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Travel management would continue to be primarily “Limited to Existing Roads and Trails.” The

historic result of that management has been a proliferation of routes, leading to degradation

of the visual resource. As in recreation, these impacts would come from sources not subject

to authorization or analysis for conformance with VRM standards, which could lead to minor

to moderate impacts.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 527

Alternative A would pose a moderate level of impact to visual resources within the Lower

Sonoran. The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the

Lower Sonoran under Alternative A are presented in Table 4.8, “Comparison Between VRM and

VRI under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran” (p. 527).

Table 4.8. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran

Alternative A % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 99.7% 0.3%

Class II 33.1% 20.0% 66.7%

Class III 36.7% 10.1% 53.2%

Class IV 58.4% 41.6% -

In Alternative A, 99.7 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I

with only 0.3 percent managed at a lower level. This would likely have a negligible impact on

Class I inventoried lands.

Approximately 33.1 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, while

20.0 percent would be managed at a higher level and 66.7 percent would be managed at a lower

level. While some Class II Inventoried lands would be managed at a higher level, which could

presumably improve the visual character of these lands, the bulk would be managed at a lower

level, thereby having moderate negative impacts on Class II landscapes.

Approximately 36.7 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, while

10.1 percent would be managed at a higher level and 53.2 percent would be managed at a lower

level. Despite some Class III lands being managed at a higher level, the bulk would be managed

at the same or lower level, thus having moderate negative impacts to visual Class III landscapes.

Approximately 58.4 percent of lands inventoried as Class IV would be managed as Class IV, 41.6

percent would be managed at a higher level, and 0.0 percent would be managed at a lower level,

having no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes.

4.9.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

This alternative would have the greatest potential effect on visual resources. Past experience has

shown that a lack of management of OHV use along with a limited to existing roads, trails and

washes allocation has lead to resource damage, necessitating a closure for resource restoration.

This use has had minor to moderate effects on the visual resource due to proliferation of

routes and use off-road that removes vegetation and disturbs soils, leading to erosion damage.

Continuing this management scheme could expand the size and magnitude of the damaged area,

leading to moderate or major effects.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

Alternative A VRM poses the greatest potential impact to visual resources within the SDNM.

Overall impacts are moderate.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
528 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the SDNM

under Alternative A are presented in Table 4.9, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI under

Alternative A in the SDNM” (p. 528).

Table 4.9. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative A in the SDNM

Alternative A % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 99.3% 0.7%

Class II 43.8% 0.2% 56.0%

Class III 23.6% 13.2% 63.2%

Class IV 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

In the SDNM, 99.3 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I, with only

0.7 percent managed at a lower level. This would have a negligible impact on Class I inventoried

lands. Approximately 43.8 percent of public lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as

Class II. Approximately 0.2 percent would be managed at a higher level, and 56 percent would be

managed at a lower level. This would have moderate negative impacts on Class II landscapes.

Approximately 23.6 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 13.2

percent at a higher level, and 63.2 percent would be managed at a lower level, having moderate

impacts to visual Class III landscapes.

All of lands inventoried at Class IV would be managed as Class IV, having no impacts on Class

IV landscapes.

4.9.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.9.4.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

In Alternative B, VRM classes generally shift from classes IV and II into Class III. For areas

formerly Class IV, this will result in greater constraints to development, which should result in

designs better blended into the landscape. This could result in moderate levels of visual change to

the landscape. In areas that shift from Class II to III, there is the potential for moderate levels

of visual change to the landscape.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Recreation management would become more developed, and this alternative would include

the most areas of developed and intensively managed recreation. While the opportunity for

degrading visual resource could exist in areas of greater recreation development, conformance

with allocated VRM classes would manage the visual impacts in a manner consistent with the

RMP land management decisions. Overall impacts would be moderate.

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Travel networks are expected to be reduced slightly from the current inventory. The reduction in

roads would result in a minor improvement to the visual resource. Some areas of more intensive

recreation development may see route mileage stay the same or increase. However, current routes

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 529

that create high visual contrast, such as hill climbs, could be reclaimed and rerouted to reduce

visual impairment of the area. A well managed route network would generally result in improved

visual character, and impacts of travel management are expected to be minor.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the Lower

Sonoran under Alternative B are presented in Table 4.10, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI

under Alternative B in the Lower Sonoran” (p. 529).

Table 4.10. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative B in the Lower Sonoran

Alternative B % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 99.3% 0.0% 0.7%

Class II 15.2% 0.0% 84.8%

Class III 22.1% 78.0% 22.1%

Class IV 35.2% 64.8% 0.0%

In Alternative B, 99.3 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I with

only 0.7 percent managed at a lower level. This would have a negligible impact on Class I

inventoried lands, similar to Alternative A.

Approximately 15.2 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II. No

lands would be managed at a higher level, and 84.8 percent would be managed at a lower level.

Negative impacts to Class II visual resources would be similar to but more intense than under

Alternative A. Approximately 22.1 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as

Class III, 78 percent would be managed at a higher level, and 22.1 percent would be managed

at a lower level. While many of the Class III lands would be managed at higher levels, thereby

having potential for maintenance or improvement of the class, there is potential for a minor

negative impact due to some lands being managed at lower levels. Impacts on Class II landscapes

would be less severe than under Alternative A.

Approximately 35.2 percent of lands inventoried as Class IV would be managed as Class IV, 64.8

percent would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower level.

This management prescription should have no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes, similar to

Alternative A.

4.9.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

The route network, which would be designated in Alternative B, would reduce visual impacts in

many areas, especially improving the visual character in the core of the Monument in the vicinity

of Butterfield Pass and Gap Well. Impacts would range from negligible to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the SDNM

under Alternative B are presented in Table 4.11, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI under

Alternative B in the SDNM” (p. 530).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
530 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 4.11. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative B in the SDNM

Alternative B % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 100.0% 0.0% 0.%

Class II 82.0% 0% 18.0%

Class III 47.4% 52.6% 0%

Class IV 0% 100.0% 0.0%-

In Alternative B, 100 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I. This

would have little or no negative impact on Class I inventoried lands. Impacts on Class I lands

managed in Alternative B would be similar to those in Alternative A.

Approximately 82 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, no lands

would be managed at a higher level, and 18 percent would be managed at a lower level. This

would have minor impacts on Class II landscapes, which poses considerably less impacts on Class

II landscapes when compared to Alternative A.

Approximately 47.4 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 52.6

percent would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower level.

This management prescription could have beneficial impacts on Class III landscapes and little to

no negative impacts.

None of the lands inventoried at Class IV would be managed as Class IV. Instead, they would

be managed at a higher class, having no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes and some

positive impacts. Impacts would be more beneficial than those described under Alternative

A for Class IV landscapes.

4.9.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.9.5.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

In Alternative C, VRM classes generally shift more to Class II. This will result in greater

constraints to development than Alternative B, projects designs that blend into the landscape

better, and some developments being denied. Better designs and fewer developments will reduce

the contrast in line, color, form, and texture that create visual degradation to the landscape. Visual

impacts due to development in this alternative would be minor.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Recreation management would be less developed than in Alternative B but more developed

then Alternative A. Several areas would include developed and intensively managed recreation.

While the opportunity for degrading visual resource could exist in areas of greater recreation

development, conformance with allocated VRM classes would manage the visual impacts in a

manner consistent with the RMP land management decisions. Impacts would be negligible to

moderate.

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 531

Travel networks are expected to be reduced further from the current inventory. Otherwise,

impacts to visual resources may see a slightly reduced likelihood of visual degradation from

recreational development, but impacts are still expected to be minor.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the Lower

Sonoran under Alternative C are presented in Table 4.12, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI

under Alternative C in the Lower Sonoran” (p. 531).

Table 4.12. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative C in the Lower Sonoran

Alternative C % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 98.3% 0.0% 1.8%

Class II 59.8% 0.0% 40.2%

Class III 50.3% 44.9% 4.8%

Class IV 10.3% 89.7% 0.0%

In Alternative C, 98.3 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I,

with only 1.8 percent managed at a lower level. This would have a negligible impact on Class I

inventoried lands, similar to Alternative A.

Approximately 59.8 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, no

lands would be managed at a higher level, and 40.2 percent would be managed at a lower level.

Compared to Alternative A, more lands would be managed under Alternative C at the same level

and less land would be managed at both higher and lower levels. Overall negative impacts to

Class II inventoried landscapes would be moderate.

Approximately 50.3 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 44.9

percent at a higher level, and 4.8 percent would be managed at a lower level, having negligible

impacts to visual Class III landscapes. Alternative C would have fewer negative impacts on Class

III landscapes than Alternative A.

Approximately 10.4 percent of lands inventoried as Class IV would be managed as Class IV, 89.7

percent would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower level,

having no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes. This would also have beneficial effects to

visual Class IV landscapes. Impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

4.9.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Further reduction in routes would further improve visual resources by reducing visible surface

disturbance, especially in the core of the Monument near Gap Well and Butterfield Pass. Effects

would be minor.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the SDNM

under Alternative C are presented in Table 4.13, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI under

Alternative C in the SDNM” (p. 532).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
532 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 4.13. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative C in the SDNM

Alternative C % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Class II 93.9% 0.0% 6.1%

Class III 29.2% 70.8% 0.0%

Class IV 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Under Alternative C, Class I management would be the same as Alternative B, also having

little or no impact on Class I inventoried lands.

Approximately 93.9 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, no

lands would be managed at a higher level, and 6.1 percent would be managed at a lower level.

This would have negligible impacts on Class II landscapes. Alternative C would have fewer

impacts on Class II landscapes than Alternative A.

Approximately 29.2 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III; 70.8

percent would be managed at a higher level and no land would be managed at a lower level.

This would have little to no negative impact to visual Class III landscapes. Impacts would be

considerably less than Alternative A in Class III landscapes.

Management actions and impacts on landscapes inventoried as Class IV would be the same as

described in Alternative B.

4.9.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.9.6.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

In Alternative D, VRM classes largely shift to Class II. This will result in the greatest constraints

to development of any alternative, which would result in greater number of projects rejected

and designs that blend into the landscape better. Thoughtful development planning processes

that consider and integrate the VRM class objectives into project design criteria will reduce the

contrast in line, color, form, and texture with respect to the natural landscape setting. Impacts

would range from negligible to minor.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Alternative D has the least developed recreation management with the smallest areas of

development. A couple areas would still include developed and intensively managed recreation,

but most of the Decision Area would be managed for more primitive recreational experiences

geared towards resolving conflicts. While visual resource may degrade in areas of greater

recreation development or where development is required to resolve resource or user conflicts,

conformance with allocated classes would manage visual impacts caused by surface disturbance

consistent with the RMP land management decisions. Impacts would range from negligible

to minor.

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 533

Alternative D has the smallest motorized travel network. Impacts to visual resources may see a

slightly reduced likelihood of visual degradation from recreational development and may see a

slight degradation due to the higher likelihood of unmanaged users creating visible unauthorized

routes. But overall, impacts are expected to be minor and in conformance to the VRM class

objectives.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the Lower

Sonoran under Alternative D are presented in Table 4.14, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI

under Alternative D in the Lower Sonoran” (p. 533).

Table 4.14. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative D in the Lower Sonoran

Alternative D % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 98.0% 0.0% 2.0%

Class II 87.7% 0.0% 12.4%

Class III 18.3% 79.9% 1.8%

Class IV 4.7% 95.3% 0.0%

In Alternative D, 98.0 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I,

with only 2 percent managed at a lower level. This would have a negligible impact on Class I

inventoried lands, similar to Alternative A.

Approximately 87.7 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, no

lands would be managed at a higher level, and 12.4 percent would be managed at a lower level.

This would have minor impacts on Class II landscapes, much less of an impact than Alternatives

A, B, or C. Approximately 18.3 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as

Class III, 79.9 percent at a higher level, and 1.8 percent would be managed at a lower level. This

would have negligible negative impacts to visual Class III landscapes, and is likely to have

beneficial impacts.

Approximately 4.7 percent of lands inventoried as Class IV would be managed as Class IV, 95.3

percent would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower level,

having no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes. This would also have beneficial effects to

visual Class IV landscapes.

Impacts would be considerably less than Alternative A in Class III landscapes.

4.9.7. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Transportation and Access Management on Visual Resources

This alternative would reduce motorized routes the most, which would have the greatest potential

to improve the visual landscape. The largest improvement would be in the core area in the vicinity

of Gap Well and Butterfield Pass. Impacts would range from negligible to minor.

From Visual Resources Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Sonoran Desert National Monument
534 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the SDNM

under Alternative D are presented inTable 4.15, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI under

Alternative D in the SDNM” (p. 534).

Table 4.15. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative D in the SDNM

Alternative D

% Inventoried Lands Managed

at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Class II 1.5% 98.5% 0.0%

Class III 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

Class IV 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

In Alternative D, Class I management would be the same as Alternatives C and B. This would

have little or no impact on Class I inventoried lands.

Approximately 1.5 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, 98.5

percent of lands would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower

level. This would have mostly beneficial effects on Class II landscapes. Alternative D would

have fewer impacts on Class II landscapes than Alternative A.

None of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 100 percent would be

managed at a higher level, and none would be managed at a lower level. This would also have

beneficial effects to visual Class III landscapes. Impacts would be considerably less than

Alternative A in Class III landscapes.

Impacts on Class IV would be the same as described in Alternative B and C.

4.9.8. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.9.8.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Visual Resources

Impacts of Alternative E are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative C for

the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Visual Resources

Impacts of Alternative E are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative C for

the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Impacts of Alternative E are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative C for

the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 535

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the Lower

Sonoran under Alternative E are presented in Table 4.16, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI

under Alternative E in the Lower Sonoran” (p. 535).

Table 4.16. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative E in the Lower Sonoran

Alternative E % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 99.2% 0.0% 0.8%

Class II 17.2% 0.0% 82.7%

Class III 73.3% 4.6% 22.1%

Class IV 33.0% 67.0% 0.0%

In Alternative E, 99.2 percent of lands inventoried as Class I would be managed as Class I,

with only 0.8 percent managed at a lower level. This would have a negligible impact on Class I

inventoried lands and would be similar to all other alternatives.

Approximately 17.2 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II, no

lands would be managed at a higher level, and 82.7 percent would be managed at a lower level.

This would have major impacts on Class II landscapes. This would have more negative impacts

on Class II landscapes than Alternative A.

Approximately 73.3 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 4.6

percent at a higher level, and 22.1 percent would be managed at a lower level. This would have

minor impacts to visual Class III landscapes, less than Alternative A.

Approximately 33 percent of lands inventoried as Class IV would be managed as Class IV, 67

percent would be managed at a higher level, and 0.0 percent would be managed at a lower level,

having no negative impacts on Class IV landscapes. This would also have beneficial effects on

visual Class IV landscapes though less than Alternatives C and D. Impacts would be similar to

Alternative A and B.

4.9.8.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Travel Management on Visual Resources

Impacts of Alternative E are expected to be similar to those described for Alternative C for

the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on Visual Resources

The comparison of the VRI and the current management prescriptions for VRM in the SDNM

under Alternative E are presented in Table 4.17, “Comparison Between VRM and VRI under

Alternative E in the SDNM” (p. 535).

Table 4.17. Comparison Between VRM and VRI under Alternative E in the SDNM

Alternative E % Inventoried Lands

Managed at Same Level % Managed at Higher Level % Managed at Lower Level

Class I 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Class II 88.5% 0.0% 11.5%

Class III 36.0% 64.0% 0.0%

Class IV 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
536 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In Alternative E, Class I management would be the same as Alternatives C, B and D. This would

have little or no impact on Class I inventoried lands.

Approximately 88.5 percent of lands inventoried as Class II would be managed as Class II,

none of the lands would be managed at a higher level, and 11.5 percent of the lands would be

managed at a lower level. This would have minor impacts on Class II landscapes. Alternative

E would have fewer impacts on Class II landscapes than Alternative A and B, though more

impacts than C and D.

Approximately 36 percent of lands inventoried at Class III would be managed as Class III, 64

percent would be managed at a higher level, and no lands would be managed at a lower level. This

would also have beneficial effects on visual Class III landscapes though less than Alternatives C

and D. Impacts would be considerably less than Alternative A in Class III landscapes.

Impacts on Class IV would be the same as described in Alternative B, C and D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 537

4.10. IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES

The primary water resource characteristics that could be impacted by the alternatives are

water flow in ephemeral channels (timing and quantity), surface and ground water quality, and

ground water recharge. Sedimentation, nutrients in the form of fertilizer in irrigation return

flows, temperature, flow alternation, and bacteria are the most common stream impairments in

the Planning Area. However, the only impaired water bodies with hydrologic connections to

drainages in the Decision Areas are those in the Gila River between its confluence with Salt

River and Painted Rock Reservoir. The fragmented pattern of land ownership in the Planning

Area makes linkage of existing impairments to specific sources or activities occurring on

BLM-managed public lands difficult. Management actions that result in surface disturbance;

mining; energy development; recreation, and the application of herbicides and pesticides near

water bodies all have potential to affect water quality and quantity, including storm water runoff.

4.10.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.10.1.1. Indicators

The following indicators were used to comparatively assess impacts on water resources:

● Acres of surface disturbance

● Number of road stream crossings

● Miles of roads within close proximity (200 feet) to streams

● Miles of roads within stream channels

4.10.1.2. Assumptions

Assumptions used to assess the impacts of the alternatives on water resources include:

● Substantial surface disturbance to soil, including exposure of bare ground, loss of vegetative

cover, or rutting on unsurfaced roads could increase water runoff and downstream sediment

loads; thereby degrading water quality, altering channel structure, and affecting overall

watershed health. Water resource impacts other than ground water impacts are closely

associated with soils impacts.

● Special management designations, such as ACECs or SRMAs, that restrict use for the

protection of one or more resources (and management actions for resource protection are

properly implemented) have positive impacts on water resources. The positive impacts

exceed any negative impacts that could accrue due to increased visitation caused by the

designation itself.

● When a proposed management action requires monitoring and enforcement of use restrictions

to be effective, such as routes designated as closed for travel management, resources will be

available to assure that the necessary monitoring and enforcement occurs.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Water Resources
538 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Groundwater resources would be managed to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to

be a good neighbor to adjoining well owners. All development would require a demonstrated

need and would not conflict with other resource management goals.

4.10.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Water Resources

No impacts on water resources are anticipated for management actions relating to:

● Cave Resources

● Cultural and Heritage Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

● Visual Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

● Wilderness Characteristics

4.10.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

Impacts are described using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate.

When impacts are positive, it is so stated. The intensities of impacts are also described, where

possible, using the following intensities:

Negligible: The amount of surface disturbance, number of stream crossings, miles of travel routes

near and in channels resulting in changes to drainage patterns, storm water runoff volumes, or

sediment delivery to channels would be very small. Changes in area of bare soil and removal of

vegetative ground cover are below the level of detection.

Minor: The amount of surface disturbance, number of stream crossings, miles of travel routes

in or near drainages, changes in volume of traffic in the Decision Areas, or changes in other

indicators resulting in changes to drainage patterns, storm water runoff volumes, or sediment

delivery to channels would be small, as would the area affected. If mitigation were needed to

offset adverse effects, it would be relatively simple to implement and would likely be successful.

Moderate: The amount of surface disturbance, number of stream crossings, miles of travel

routes in or near drainages, changes in volume of traffic in the Decision Areas, or changes

in other indicators resulting in changes to drainage patterns, storm water runoff volumes, or

sediment delivery to channels would be readily apparent and would occur over a relatively wide

area. Mitigating measures probably would be necessary to offset adverse effects and would

likely be successful.

Major: The amount of surface disturbance, number of stream crossings, miles of travel routes

in or near drainages, changes in volume of traffic in the Decision Areas, or changes in other

indicators resulting in changes to drainage patterns, storm water runoff volumes, or sediment

delivery to channels would be readily apparent and long-term and would substantially change the

indicators over a large area. Extensive mitigation measures to offset adverse effects would be

needed, and their success could not be guaranteed.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 539

4.10.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

No unique impacts on water resources that are common to all alternatives exist.

4.10.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.10.3.1. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Creation of PM10 due to travel on un-surfaced roads or construction activities in the Decision Area

is often mitigated with dust suppressants. Occasionally chemical palliatives such as magnesium

chloride are used. If chemical dust palliatives are used anywhere in the Decision Area there is

a moderate probability that a portion of those chemicals will be washed into drainages during

periods of storm water runoff and eventually reach the Gila River. Due to the limited use of these

chemicals (water is much more commonly used), infrequent flood events, and dilution factors,

this impact is minor to negligible.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

Ten corridors for major linear LUAs would be designated under Alternative A through the

Lower Sonoran. The designation of these corridors would lead to some localized impacts to

water resources where surface disturbing activities occur during construction or maintenance.

Containing these uses in the corridors would limit their areal extent and represent a minor impact

if corridors are re-vegetated to reduce bare soil, which in turn would reduce runoff, erosion, and

sedimentation.

LUAs for utility-scale renewable energy development also will have measurable, widespread

effects on water resources. Blading of large acreages for solar energy facilities , estimated at

greater than 150,000 acres over the life of the plan, is likely to disrupt drainage patterns, and cause

surface disturbance and soil compaction, resulting in increased erosion, runoff and sedimentation

over a large enough area to be a moderate impact. Use of large quantities of ground water, may be

needed for renewable energy production and may have additional impacts on drainage patterns

by causing subsidence in localized areas. Ground water pumping would likely lower water

table elevations and potentially impact neighboring wells. Pumping impacts could be mitigated

in future solar developments by use of dry cooling of the steam turbine system, or by using

systems with entirely different means of generating electricity. Assuming that the solar energy

development proposals that will be built under this plan are mostly the solar energy concentration

facilities, the overall impact of LUAs for this use would be moderate.

Land disposal actions on up to 18,900 acres in the Lower Sonoran could potentially affect water

resources, particularly if the proposed future land use involved surface disturbance or removal of

vegetation, such as for housing development or solar energy facilities. Water resources could also

be affected if development on these parcels increases ground water pumping that could potentially

lower water table elevations. New surface water developments on these lands would require

water rights and new ground water developments that pump more than 35 gallons per minute

within Active Management Areas would require approval from the Arizona Department of Water

Resources (ADWR). 8,000 acres of the 18,900 acres available for disposal would be available for

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
540 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

exchange, which would only occur under Alternative A. Impacts to water resources due to the

disposal of these lands are likely to occur on most of the acres involved. Although land disposal

itself has a negligible impact on water resources, the maximum potential impact from future

development could be minor in terms of surface disturbance due to the small number of acres

affected but potentially moderate in terms of groundwater impacts if developments such as solar

energy facilities are constructed. Potential impacts should be assessed on a proposal specific basis.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Grazing would continue under the current management system, which would allow surface

disturbing activities associated with livestock operations to continue and potentially impact

runoff and sedimentation. Disturbance to sensitive surface covers such as desert pavement

and cryptobiotic crusts would expose fine-grained sediments to erosion. Increased erosion of

fine-grained sediments would increase their transport and delivery to ephemeral washes and,

ultimately, the intermittent and perennial reaches of the Gila River. Limited area of these sensitive

surfaces and stocking rates low enough to allow progress toward the desired plant community

should keep disturbances small and site specific. Areas of greatest surface disturbance would

be concentrated around watering sources and gathering areas. The small numbers of these sites

would limit these effects. The impact would, therefore, be classified as minor.

In years when there is substantial recruitment of ephemeral spring forage species, ephemeral

grazing is permitted. The surface disturbance around watering sources and gathering areas would

increase during years when ephemeral grazing is authorized. The disturbance could cause

compaction of soils resulting in moderate localized increases runoff, erosion and delivery of

sediments to ephemeral stream channels. Increased stocking rates during periods of ephemeral

use, and the widespread occurrence of ephemeral vegetation when ephemeral use is permitted

increases the risk of erosion of fine sediments beneath sensitive soil covers to moderate for

the periods of increased use.

Livestock trailing and disturbance (compaction and vegetation removal) around watering sources

would be greatest in this alternative, though impacts would be minor due to the small number

of sites affected.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

In the Lower Sonoran, mineral development would be allowed to continue on all lands not

currently withdrawn. Impacts of mineral development on water resources depend on the type

of mineral development. Locatable mineral develop could result in a variety of water resource

impacts ranging from disruption of natural drainage conditions due to development of pits, waste

rock areas, leach pads, roads, etc; to substantial ground water impacts from pumping needed

to support mining operations. Water quality impacts could also occur from chemical spills or

erosion of waste or tailings piles making fine sediment and chemical waste product available for

entrainment and transportation to major water courses. Impacts would need to be assessed on

a site specific basis. Development of saleable minerals could also have a variety of impacts on

water resources depending on location and scale of development. Sand and gravel operations in

ephemeral wash bottoms could impact channel conditions by lowering channel bed elevations

(potentially triggering head cutting) or disturbing channel banks. Each proposal would require

site specific assessment. Impacts would range from negligible to moderate.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 541

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Water Resources

Maintenance and redevelopment of existing wildlife waters and development of new wildlife

waters and livestock waters would continue under Alternative A. The slight increase in soil

compaction and surface disturbance from increased wildlife activity around existing wildlife

water developments would result in negligible increases in runoff and sedimentation due to the

limited number and of these sites. These impacts would be small compared to the increased

runoff and erosion that occurs from soil compaction and vegetation removal that occurs around

livestock waters, which are minor themselves due to their limited spatial extent. The additional

water resource impacts of wildlife sharing livestock water would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

Under Alternative A, recreation uses would continue to be distributed throughout the Decision

Area. Active management of recreation would occur in four SRMAs covering 379,400 acres in

the Lower Sonoran. The remaining 893,300 acres would be allocated as an ERMA. Impacts to

water resources would increase from the damage to soil resources that are expected to increase

as recreation use increases throughout the Decision Areas in both s and ERMAs. However, the

concentrated activity in the SRMAs increases the probability of water resources impacts due to

erosion from increased storm water runoff that originates from impervious or compacted surfaces

of parking areas, structures and trails. These impacts are limited in extent and minor. Mitigation

and maintenance is planned for facilities and near historic sites. In the dispersed recreation

occurring in the ERMAs, disturbed sites may be more numerous, but impacts to many of the

individual disturbed sites will be minor. Dispersed recreation that occurs in the ERMAs and in

undeveloped portions of the SRMAs is likely to result in increased water resource impacts due to

use of previously unaffected areas for camping, hiking, mountain biking, and equestrian activities.

Most of the affected areas will be used for short periods, and will be relatively small. Campers are

encouraged to use existing sites. The impacts are expected to be minor.

Only one established campground and two additional unimproved areas that are currently used for

camping exist in the Decision Areas. Alternative A includes the possibility of establishing an

LTVA. If any LTVAs are created in Ajo or elsewhere, they would be in existing short-term use

campgrounds, which would limit the impact on water resources to the approximate area of the

campground. The risk of increased storm water runoff and sedimentation exists from increased

compaction, rutting, and bare ground that exists in the designated camping areas. Increasing the

stay limit to establish an LTVA could increase impacts if the area of the campground was also

increased. Most impacts have already occurred, so designating an existing camping area as

an LTVA would be a minor impact.

Parking and camping are permitted along existing roads for a distance of 100 feet from the

road center line. This provision invites substantial expansion of the road surface impacts which

increase the probability of erosion on and near the road, which often leads to further expansion of

the affected area as vehicle operators drive around damaged road surfaces. These impacts result

in increased runoff and delivery of sediments to ephemeral stream channels and, ultimately, the

perennial and intermittent reaches of the Gila River. There is no data available on the current

extent of this type of damage, or of the number of turnouts that have developed in the 100 foot

zone on each side of the designated routes. The impacts are classified as minor, since they are

individually small areas, and not numerous. However, there is a high probability that increased

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
542 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

activity will occur leading to an increased area of disturbance along the 950 miles of road in

the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC is the only ACEC in Alternative A. An existing management

decision closes the existing roads to all recreational use, which will greatly reduce the risk of

unauthorized travel, widening of existing roads, and most other additional surface disturbance.

On balance this designation will have minor positive water resource impacts.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

A decision to maintain the current allocations for OHV Area designations would have the effect

of continuing to allow all inventoried routes to be used which could lead to a net increase over

time of routes due to vagueness of existing routes, especially in xeroriparian or riparian corridors

where brush and water flow may obscure routes year to year. No Open OHV areas are allocated

currently, therefore there would be no effect from this allocation. OHV Closed allocations of

110,700 acres including Coffeepot ACEC would have a negligible effect on water resources since

these areas have been closed for at least 10 years and resource conditions are stabilizing.

In addition to the impacts of travel routes within stream channels, travel routes that are located

within close proximity to stream channels are a source of hydrologic connectivity between roads

and channels. Hydrologic connectivity occurs where there is a continuous flow path from roads

to streams. Examples include ditches that convey road derived or intercepted runoff to stream

channels, cross drain features such as water bars or dips, that discharge sufficient water to create a

gully, sediment plume, or both that extends to a stream channel, and fill slopes that encroach on

stream channels. Routes that are hydrologically connected to the washes in the Decision Area

increase the likelihood of introducing road derived sediments and contaminants to the channels.

Under the existing conditions there are approximately 2,649 miles of roads within 200 feet of

stream channels. The existing travel management system has an overall minor impact.

Motor vehicle use is currently limited to existing or designated routes with less than 3 percent of

the Decision Area limited to designated routes, and most of the closed routes in the wilderness

areas. Alternative A decisions on motorized vehicle use would generally leave the current OHV

class designations and route system in place (see Map 2-15a). Under Alternative A, 15 miles

of routes out of 1670 would be closed in the Lower Sonoran. Roads concentrate and channel

storm water runoff and, unless properly drained and maintained, contribute a high proportion

of sediment eventually reaching perennial streams. The density of roads excluding the largely

roadless wilderness areas is 1.57 miles per section. That is a moderately low density by most

standards, although it is enough to be a source of sediment. Overall, roads cause a moderate level

of damage to water quality, and can elevate the impacts of high flows. The positive impact of 15

miles of road closures would be negligible.

Public travel in wash bottoms and dry streambeds that are part of the existing route system would

continue. Use of these sites disturbs the bed and banks of these channels, damages, xeroriparian

vegetation, and leads to greater sedimentation during storm water runoff. Wash bottoms are a

major source of ground water recharge in the Decision Areas. Use of wash bottoms as travel

routes exposes surface and ground water to the risk of contamination from spills and leaks of the

fuels and oils used by Off Highway Vehicles. Use of wash bottoms as designated travel routes

is likely to increase use of unauthorized routes as vehicle operators exit or reenter drainages.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 543

However, streambeds in the Decision Area are usually sand, and the affected areas are locally

small, resulting in a minor impact on wash bottoms overall. There are enough intersections

between roads and drainages to cause a moderate impact locally where the intersections occur,

including moderate impact on stream banks, which can cause accelerated erosion or even become

damaging head cuts.

From Vegetation Resources on Water Resources

Decisions intended to protect special status species, particularly those that avoid surface

disturbance or maintain vegetative cover, would also provide protection for water resources.

Continued wood harvesting would reduce vegetation cover and increase bare ground resulting in

increased runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Such impacts, however, would mainly be limited to

the Ajo Block, where the majority of wood harvesting has been occurring. Impacts would be

minor, since they would be site specific in a limited area, and would not require mitigation, unless

vehicle traffic created ruts or disturbances on sensitive soils.

4.10.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts on water quality from air quality management are essentially the same as those in the

Lower Sonoran Decision, although the probability of use of chemical palliatives in the SDNM

may be lower. Construction projects and organized recreational vehicle activities, where chemical

palliatives are more often used, are less likely to occur in the Monument.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

Three corridors for major linear LUAs would be designated under Alternative A in the SDNM. The

designation of these corridors would lead to some localized, moderate impacts to water resources

where surface disturbing activities occur during construction or maintenance. Containing these

uses in the corridors would maintain a moderate level of impacts. Other land uses authorized by

LUAs, that cause surface disturbance, would have similar localized impacts on water resources

due to increased runoff from soil compaction, and increased sedimentation from accelerated

erosion. Mitigation to re-vegetate, close and restore temporary roads and other construction

disturbances and to maintain natural drainage pathways would reduce impacts over time.

Alternative A does not provide for utility-scale renewable energy development in the SDNM,

However, some indirect effects to water resources on the SDNM could occur in the southeast

section of the SDNM (southern Vekol Valley) from developments that increase storm water

runoff and caused increased flow, erosion and sedimentation in drainages in the SDNM. These

impacts would be minor and limited in extent.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Under Alternative A grazing will be discontinued south of I-8, since those permits have expired

and the Monument Proclamation directs that they will not be renewed. Minor long term benefits

to water resources would be expected from increases in vegetative ground cover and vegetative

litter and perhaps small decreases in compaction that would be expected to increase water holding

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
544 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

capacity, and infiltration and reduce runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. The closures will have

their greatest benefits in the Vekol Valley area where vulnerable soils are prevalent.

North of I-8, grazing would continue at current preference levels. A grazing compatibility

analysis has shown negligible impacts from grazing in those SDNM allotments when compared

with the same ecological sites on land formerly in the BMG military range, where no grazing

has occurred in over 50 years. Therefore, grazing impacts are expected to be minor, and similar

to those analyzed for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area. Minor negative impacts are due to

effects of grazing where soils are most sensitive to erosion, those with cryptogamic crusts, desert

pavement, or around stock watering sites.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

The SDNM would remain closed to all forms of mineral entry. Any potential impacts from

mining or mineral claims would occur only on existing valid rights and no rights exist with the

potential to have any impact on water resources. Impacts from mining in the Monument are

negligible. Restoration activities could reduce impacts of past mining (sedimentation, heavy

metal occurrence) over time.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

Alternative A has an SRMA that is intended to cover the portion of the Gila Trails SRMA that

occurred within the SDNM. It has 143,900 acres which includes the Gila Trail, the Butterfield

Stage Route, the Anza Trail and other historical points. Impacts to water resources would increase

as additional miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails are constructed that expose disturbed

soils to erosion, and from surface disturbance that results from increased visitation of the area.

However, management actions are planned that would protect resources values and limit OHV

use to designated routes. The sum of these offsetting actions is likely to be a minor negative

impact. The remaining 342,500 acres of the SDNM would experience minor impacts similar to

those described above for the Lower Sonoran Decision Area.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Alternative A does not include decisions that specifically address management of water

withdrawals. Management of water under Alternative A would limit groundwater development

within the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC and other sensitive areas. Those limits would be a

positive impact on water availability in the Vekol Valley ACEC, but otherwise impacts would

not occur. The likelihood of development of groundwater resources beneath the SDNM is low.

Should development occur, the disturbance associated with the infrastructure necessary to

develop ground water resources (roads, pipelines, power) would cause minor increases in runoff,

erosion, and sedimentation to local washes. Groundwater development could also lower water

table elevations in any nearby adjoining wells.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

A decision to maintain the allocation of 161,200 acres as Closed OHV areas would have the

minor effect of allowing xeroriparian areas to continue stabilization. Continuing the allocation

of 247,200 acres as Limited to Existing Roads and Trails would have a minor effect on water

resources since no riparian resources occur inside SDNM and 65 miles of the estimated 971 miles

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 545

of xeroriparian washes are used as vehicles routes. The assessment of minor impact is due to the

lack of riparian and relatively sparse occurance of xeroriparian areas near heavily used areas such

as Gap Well and Vekol Valley Road.

Under Alternative A, 6.6 miles out of 632 miles of routes would be closed in SDNM. Public travel

in wash bottoms and dry streambeds that are part of the existing route system would continue,

potentially damaging xeroriparian vegetation, destabilizing channel banks, and introducing

contaminants from spills and leaks of fuels and oils into the ground water system. This would

lead to a minor level of impact to water resources, including an increase in sedimentation in

drainages during periodic storm water runoff events.

Restricting travel to existing routes will limit the impacts to generally minor levels over the

entire Decision Area.

Closing 6.6 miles of routes represents approximately one percent of the routes in the SDNM.

Recovery of watershed conditions (reduced compaction, increased ground cover) over time on

these routes would have a minor beneficial impact on water resources due to reduced runoff,

erosion, and sedimentation in local washes.

4.10.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.10.4.1. Lower Sonoran

Alternative B generally allows and facilitates increased public access to and use of the Decision

Area, which would allow a greater number of surface-disturbing activities. As a result, Alternative

B would generally increase the potential for water resource impacts compared to Alternative

A. Although mitigation will be planned when there is an acceptable probability of success,

residual impacts, as measured by the water resource indicators, are likely to persist from grazing,

recreation, travel, lands and realty, and mineral management.

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative B would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

The number of multiuse corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative A. As in

Alternative A, the impacts would be minor, assuming BMPs for mitigating corridor impacts are

implemented. Other authorized land uses, including utility-scale renewable energy development,

would have the same moderate impact to water resources as described under Alternative A.

Approximately 50,300 acres are available for disposal under Alternative B. If disposal of all

available land occurred, the impact could be nearly twice the impact described under Alternative

A, although the total potential impact would remain moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
546 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative B, impacts from grazing would be slightly less than Alternative A. Perennial

and perennial-ephemeral allotments would receive a reduction in authorized grazing preference

to account for the effects of continued ephemeral grazing. Reduced grazing preference would

result in a minor decrease in the impacts of grazing on water resources from those experienced

under existing conditions. All land health assessment data demonstrates little or no difference

in progress toward meeting land health standards between areas with and without ephemeral

grazing, assuming the special rule for ephemeral grazing is followed. Impacts would be minor.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Water Resources

Alternative B would develop a limited number of new wildlife waters in the Lower Sonoran. The

number is not specified, but it is not likely to exceed the number (eleven) planned for Alternative

A. Therefore, the impacts would be negligible compared to Alternative A. Where ground water

is developed to provide wildlife waters, there may be a negligible drawdown of groundwater

elevations. Surface water developments would impound a small volume of storm water runoff.

Water rights would be necessary for any new surface water impoundments. Impacts on surface

water resources would be negligible. Existing roads required to provide access to these water

sources would be used when possible. Any new roads required would cause small increases in

runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. They would be closed to public use and their overall impact

on water resources would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

Recreation allocations in the Lower Sonoran would include 8 SRMAs. The effects of SRMAs on

water resources are dependent on the proposed recreation uses and are described in Alternative

A. The extent of impacts from SRMAs is increased in Alternative B, due to the additional

management areas. Motorized travel within dry washes can destabilize banks, particularly where

vehicles enter and exit the washes, damage xeroriparian vegetation, and introduce potential

contaminants into surface and groundwater systems. Disturbing sensitive soils such as desert

pavements and cryptogamic crusts may result in increased erosion due to exposure of bare soil.

Management decisions intended to control motorized vehicle use, manage vehicle-based camping

and recreational target shooting, and other intensive recreation uses, would help to mitigate

impacts to water resources. Three of the SRMAs; Buckeye Hills East Trails, Painted Rocks

Trails, and Ajo Trails, emphasize motorized recreation, which increases the likelihood of water

resources impacts due to surface disturbance and damage to soils.

Areas with nonmotorized uses, including Cuerda de Lena, Sentinel Plains, San Tan, and Gila

Bend Mountains are unlikely to impact water resources. The remaining four SRMAs, which

would be managed for a balance of motorized and nonmotorized uses, would likely have minor

effects on water resources from disturbance of sensitive soil covers that expose soils to erosion,

from disturbances to the bed and banks of desert washes, and from disturbance to the natural

drainage patterns on motorized routes.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 547

Based on the provisions for visitor education and control, plans for mitigation in anticipated

areas of higher use, and the limited spatial extent of expected impacts, the overall impact of the

additional SRMAs in Alternative B will be minor.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Under Alternative B, designation of the Coffeepot ACEC in the Lower Sonoran would be

retained. Therefore, the impacts would be the same as those in Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate OHV Closed Area designations on all designated wilderness areas,

101,800acres, would have a minor effect on water resources since those areas are currently

closed. Maintaining the closures would have the effect of allowing all previously disturbed areas

to continue their natural restoration thus allowing infiltration rates increase. A decision to allocate

40 acres as an Open travel area would have the effect locally, of increasing disturbance on the

wash bank within this area. While the area can be suitably mitigated by restoration, impacts will

be moderate to major locally, but minor regionally. It is possible that the motocross type of use

expected to occur within this 40acres would be attracted to ths area. This could reduce use along

washes in other areas, having a minor to moderate effect in other areas by stabilizing previously

impacted areas elsewhere. Allocating the balance of acreage, 828,360acres, to Limited to

Designated Routes would have the effect of limiting travel in xeroriparian and riparian corridors

to only those routes analyzed and designated for travel and allowing for vegetation recovery and

stabilization of water channels. Compared to Alt A, water resources would be expected to be

less impacted due to the decision to have designated routes.

The miles of routes open to various categories of travel decline from Alternative A through D.

Nearly all existing miles of roads are open in Alternative A (1,670 of the 1,688 miles in the Lower

Sonoran). Only 1,241 miles are open in Alternative B, 1,141 miles in Alternative C, and 799

miles in Alternative D. Impacts will decline in each alternative as miles of open routes decline.

Alternative B has 198 more miles of closed routes and 180 more miles of seasonally closed roads

than Alternative A. Many miles of those closures are to protect wildlife habitat management areas

in the Gila Bend Mountains and in the Ajo area. These closures will reduce the impacts on water

resources. Reductions in rutting, surface and vegetation disturbance and water erosion will occur

wherever routes are closed. In those specific areas where the road closures are concentrated, the

impact on water resources will decline from moderate to minor. However, even with the 12

percent reduction in road miles in Alternative B, the overall impact of travel on water resources in

the Lower Sonoran will remain minor. Alternative B includes plans for only 5 acres with new

roads, which will be a negligible impact. Designation of routes in most areas should decrease

OHV impacts over time by decreasing uncontrolled road proliferation, assuming resources are

available for enforcement of designations.

Indicators of water resources impacts decrease in Alternative B from those in Alternative A. Total

miles of washes in the Lower Sonoran is 1,659 miles. The number of existing road miles within

these washes is 182 miles, indicating that about 11 percent of the washes are occupied by roads.

The numbers of miles of roads in washes decreases from 182 miles in Alternative A to 126

miles of open and seasonally closed roads in Alternative B, a 31 percent decrease. The number

of wash crossings by open roads (which provides one indication of direct impacts of roads on

washes, as well as an estimate of access points for vehicles to enter washes) decreases from 1038

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
548 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

in Alternative A to 915 in Alternative B, a 12 percent decrease. The number of miles of roads

within a 200 foot buffer distance of ephemeral washes (an indication of hydrologic connectivity)

decreases from 309 miles in Alternative A to 249 miles in Alternative B, a 19 percent decrease.

The overall effect is a minor decrease in impacts from Alternative A to Alternative B and an

overall minor impact of these alternatives on water resources due to the distance from intermittent

or perennial water sources.

From Vegetation Resources on Water Resources

Alternative B would provide measures to actively manage the restoration and reclamation of

disturbed areas and control invasive species. Control of invasive plant species may increase

potential for erosion and increased turbidity in water courses during storms in the short term but

would effectively increase vegetation and stabilize soils in the long term. Impacts from wood

harvesting would be the same as under Alternative A. Other impacts compared to Alternative A

would positive with small increased emphasis on native plant reestablishment, specific protection

for priority species, and additional limits on collection of native plant material, including dead

and down material. These practices will maintain the small amount of litter available as cover,

reducing runoff and sedimentation of stream channels.

4.10.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative B would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

In the SDNM, the multiuse utility corridors would remain the same as Alternative A and the

impacts would be the same.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the area south of I-8. Impacts

for the area north of I-8 would be similar to Alternative A except for the reduced number of

authorized perennial AUMs. Adverse impacts to watershed conditions would be less than

Alternative A due to the reduced consumption of vegetation which would provide for greater

vegetative ground cover. Net effect would be a negligible reduction in adverse effects from

Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

Impacts from mineral development would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

Compared to Alternative A, which only has 143,900 acres in an SRMA and no distinction among

categories of use, management of SDNM recreation under Alternative B would be more active.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 549

Under B recreation would probably increase, but most of the Monument would be managed for

undeveloped, back country recreation. Therefore, the impacts on water would be similar to

Alternative A and minor. In the SDNM, one SRMA equal to the acreage of the Monument

would be allocated.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Under Alternative B, designation of the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in the SDNM would be

removed and vehicle use would be allowed on routes in these areas, which would increase the

potential for impacts to water resources in this portion of the SDNM as compared to Alternative

A. The overall impacts from special designations in the SDNM in Alternative B would be minor.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decision to allocate OHV areas of Closed and Limited to Designated Routes in Alt B would have

a minor effect on water resources because all routes would be designated for vehicular travel, thus

minimizing the effects of cross-country use, especially in xeroriparian washes. Compared to Alt

A, Limited to Designated Route allocation would better protect water quality on all routes since

the designated route system would be managed to include adding proper drainage, route signage

and public maps to guide the public. Some routes would be designated in the Vekol Valley

Grasslands area which has the OHV area designation of Limited to Designated Routes in this

alternative, providing a minimal route network. Water quality would be minorly affected in this

area due to mitigation by creation of earthen water control structures on open routes. All of these

actions would combine to protect water resources and the functioning ecosystem.

All existing travel routes in the SDNM would be designated open, limited, or closed in Alternative

B (and all other action alternatives). About 69 miles would be closed, which is comparable to

the miles of closures in Alternative A (65 miles closed). The differences in impacts due to total

route length and road density between the two alternatives would be negligible. The reduced

impacts of motorized travel due to wilderness area restrictions would also be the same. The

wilderness area size (157,700 acres) and management would be identical in Alternatives A and

B. Closing 69 miles of routes represents approximately ten percent of the routes in the SDNM.

Recovery of watershed conditions (reduced compaction, increased ground cover) over time on

these routes would have a minor beneficial impact on water resources due to reduced runoff,

erosion, and sedimentation in local washes.

All existing travel routes in the SDNM would be designated open, limited, or closed in Alternative

B (and all other action alternatives). About 72 miles would be closed, which is about 65 more

miles of closures than in Alternative A (6.6 miles closed). This would be a negligible change

from existing conditions in Alternative A. Approximately 157,700 acres of the SDNM are in

wilderness areas in both Alternatives A and B. Some routes would have increases in maintenance

levels, but overall impacts on soils from travel in Alternative A and B would be similar.

In terms of the water resources indicators there are approximately 354 miles of ephemeral washes

within the SDNM. There are currently 63 miles of open roads within these washes, indicating

that about 5 percent of the washes are used as motorized travel routes. Under Alternative B, 34

miles of roads would occupy wash bottoms, a 27 percent decrease in mileage. There are 328 wash

crossings by roads under Alternative A and a similar number of crossings under Alternative B.

The number of miles of roads in close proximity to washes (hydraulically connected) changes

from 114 miles in Alternative A to 106 miles in Alternative B, a 7 percent decrease. The net

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
550 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

effect is a negligible decrease in impacts to water resources between Alternatives A and B and an

overall minor effect of this alternative on water resources due to the distance from intermittent

or perennial water bodies.

4.10.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.10.5.1. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative B would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

In the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C, the multiuse corridors would be the same as those

described in Alternative A. As in Alternative A, the impacts would be minor, assuming BMPs for

mitigating corridor impacts are implemented.

The number acres of excluded from utility-scale renewable energy development is greater

in Alternative C than in Alternatives A or B. The reduced acreage available for utility-scale

renewable energy development would reduce the potential for surface disturbance that would

increase storm water runoff and sedimentation and reduce the potential for withdrawal of

groundwater that could lower water table elevations. Impacts on water can be moderate to high,

locally, for a large solar installation, particularly if it is using a wet cooling system that requires

thousands of acre-feet of groundwater. However, other potential impacts on water resources, such

as disruption of the natural drainage system of the area, can be mitigated. Overall, the impacts of

utility-scale renewable energy development would be moderate.

Approximately 36,300 acres are available for disposal under Alternative C. If disposal of all

available land occurred, the impact could be greater than the impact described under Alternative

A, although the total impact would probably remain moderate. Although land disposal itself has a

negligible impact on water resources, the maximum potential impact from future development

could be minor in terms of surface disturbance due to the small number of acres affected but

potentially moderate in terms of groundwater impacts if developments such as solar energy

facilities are constructed. Potential impacts would be assessed on a proposal specific basis.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Impacts on water resources from Alternative C grazing proposals would be less than Alternative

A, but greater than Alternative B. Perennial AUMs in Alternative A and C are the same, but

ephemeral grazing allowed in Alternative A would not occur in C. The reduced perennial grazing

in Alternative B would result in lower level of impact compared to C, even in years when

ephemeral grazing was allowed in B due to the limited duration of ephemeral spring grazing. The

additional impacts in Alternative C would be largely the result of the higher perennial stocking

rate causing concentration of use near water and gathering areas. The risk of increased runoff and

sedimentation from surface disturbance and possibly compaction would be increased, although

overall impacts would remain minor. Higher intensity of ephemeral grazing in Alternative B, and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 551

still higher intensity in Alternative A, when combined with a larger perennial herd, would reduce

the positive impacts on water storage and infiltration of more organic matter and residual litter

associated with the lower use of ephemeral forage in Alternative C.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

Potential impacts from mineral development would be slightly less than described under

Alternative A, due to mineral withdrawals proposed in some RMZs (Painted Rock RMZ,

Gunsight Wash Campground). Also, mineral materials disposals would be prohibited in areas

that contain cactus ferruginous pygmy owl habitat, eliminating potential impacts in these areas.

These differences would have a negligible effect on the overall potential impact of mineral

development on water resources. Impacts could potentially be major but would require site

specific assessments of mineral development proposals. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to moderate.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Water Resources

Four areas encompassing 425,900 acres would be designated as wildlife habitat areas (WHAs)

under Alternative C. Management activities that limit the size of surface disturbing activities,

and place seasonal limitations on motorized uses in certain washes, and prohibit mineral material

disposals in certain washes would result in reduced water resources impacts from this alternative

compared to Alternatives A and B (which would not designate any wildlife habitat areas).

Designating Category I desert tortoise Habitat as an avoidance area for all surface disturbing

activities would also reduce impacts to water resources from those in Alternatives A and B.

Limiting the size of surface disturbing activities in wildlife management corridors would also

reduce water resource impacts.

Unlike Alternatives A and B, which allow for new wildlife water developments, wildlife

water development under Alternative C would be limited to maintaining and redeveloping

currently existing waters. This limitation would prevent surface-disturbances associated with

the construction of new wildlife waters, but could result in localized impacts to soil and water

resources due to maintaining and redeveloping existing waters. Overall impacts would be

negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

Five SRMAs would be allocated in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C. Total acres designated

would be about 139,500 less than Alternative B. Managing recreation use areas for a balance

between motorized and nonmotorized uses would decrease the likelihood of increasing runoff,

and sedimentation by trampling, rutting, and erosion. Alternative C, would have SRMAs with

a larger proportion of acres in the back country RMZ (423,100 acres) compared to community

interface (19,900 acres) and front country (186,300 acres). Compared to Alternative B, this is an

increase of 75,900 acres in back country, which focus on providing for nonmotorized, dispersed

activities. Reduced motorized travel within dry washes and on sensitive soils would decrease the

likelihood of altering surface flow, exacerbating bank erosion, damaging xeroriparian vegetation,

increasing sedimentation, and introducing potential contaminants into ground water compared

to Alternatives A and B. Proposed management actions in the Gila Bend Mountains RMZ to

restore natural conditions of disturbed areas greater than 2 acres will reduce the impacts on water

resources in these areas by increasing cover and reducing the risk of accelerated erosion from

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
552 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

roads and campgrounds. The overall impact of Alternative C recreation management in the will be

minor, assuming planned road and campground maintenance actions are effectively implemented.

As under Alternative B, potential development of water resources for recreation purposes would

have negligible impact on surface and ground water resources.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Under Alternative C, designation of the Coffeepot ACEC in the Lower Sonoran would be

expanded to the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC covering 63,300 acres. Management decisions to

avoid all surface disturbing activities including utility-scale renewable energy development, to

prohibit routes within washes, and to close washes with suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl

habitat to mineral material sales would have positive impacts on watershed conditions. Compared

to Alternative A, the positive impacts on water from Alternative C would be greater due to the

increase in the area managed with ACEC protection by a factor of four. Impacts would be minor.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

A decision to allocate OHV areas similar to Alt B with the omission of the 40 acres Open area

would have the same effects with exception of the effects from the open area. The 40 acres would

have designated routes, which would have a minor effect on water resources by having a limited

number of wash bank disturbances. Comparative to Alt A, the decisions to allocate most areas to

Limited to Designated Routes would have the same effect as Alt B, impacting xeroriparian and

riparian areas minorly through less use of washes as travel routes.

Alternative C would include a framework for vehicle and travel management that should, over

time, decrease the affects of vehicle use on water resources compared to Alternative A.

Alternative C has 319 more miles of closed routes and 132 more miles of seasonally closed roads

and roads closed to public use than Alternative A. Many miles of those closures are to enhance

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics and to protect wildlife habitat management

areas in the Gila Bend Mountains and in the Ajo area. Other closures are in designated wilderness

areas and in the area around the Painted Rocks Campground. These closures will reduce the

impacts on soils, particularly on the sensitive areas of desert pavement and cryptobiotic crust

that are common in undisturbed areas of the Ajo Block. Reduced soil impacts would result in

reduced water resource impacts, particularly runoff and sedimentation. Reductions in rutting,

surface and vegetation disturbance and water erosion will occur wherever routes are closed.

In specific areas of concentrated road closures, impacts on water resources will decline from

moderate to minor. However, even with the 18 percent reduction in road miles in Alternative

C compared to Alternative A, the overall impact of travel on water resource conditions in the

Lower Sonoran will remain minor. The probability that storm water runoff will be concentrated

on un-surfaced roads, resulting in erosion on and off the road and sediment delivery to stream

channels remains relatively high.

Alternative C includes plans for 25 miles of new roads, which will have a negligible impact.

In terms of water resources indicators the total miles of roads within washes decreases to 89

miles, a 40 percent decrease from Alternative A and a 13 percent decrease from Alternative

B. The number of wash crossings decreases to 820, a 21 percent decrease from Alternative

A and a 10 percent decrease from Alternative B. The number of miles of roads within close

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 553

proximity to streams decreases to 218 miles, a 29 percent decrease from Alternative A and a 13

percent decrease from Alternative B. The net effect is a minor reduction in impacts from both

Alternatives A and B and a continued minor impact on water resources overall due to the distance

from intermittent or perennial water sources.

From Vegetation Resources on Water Resources

Objectives, management actions, and impact under Alternative C would be the same as

Alternative B.

4.10.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative C would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

In the SDNM, two multiuse utility corridors would be designated under Alternative C. The

watershed disturbance associated with constructing underground utility corridors is greater than

that associated with above ground utility corridors due to potential for disrupting natural drainage

patterns and increased soil disturbance, which would increase erosion and sedimentation. The

smaller number of utility corridors reduces the total area of disturbance. The net effect would be a

negligible decrease in adverse watershed impacts from Alternative C as compared to Alternatives

A or C. Prohibitions on new communication sites within the SDNM would limit the potential

for construction of these sites to adversely affect watershed conditions. Impacts could range

from negligible to moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the area south of I-8. Impacts

for the area north of I-8 would be similar to Alternative A, except that ephemeral grazing allowed

in Alternative A would not occur in C. Eliminating grazing of ephemeral forage species would

permit litter from these species to accumulate at greater rates than alternatives that permit

ephemeral grazing. Increased vegetative litter would provide for greater ground cover for erosion

protection and greater water holding capacity: however, it could lead to increased fuel loads, and

the associated increased risk of wildfire. The net effect would be a negligible beneficial impact on

runoff, erosion, and sedimentation from this alternative as compared with Alternative A. Adverse

impacts on water resources from Alternative C would be negligibly greater than Alternative B due

to the greater volume of perennial forage grazed in Alternative C.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

In SDNM, impacts from mining would be the same as for Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
554 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The entire SDNM is an SRMA consisting of the Desert back country RMZ and the Anza and

Lower Gila Historic Trails RMZ. Although the Anza Trail is likely to attract increased visitation,

two-thirds of that RMZ and nearly 90 percent of the Desert back country RMZ will be managed

for undeveloped recreation activity. The undeveloped recreation includes four-wheel drive

touring, which would have characteristic impacts on water resources. Overall, the impacts of

Monument recreation are expected to be minor.

Groups will be limited in size and competitive motor sports will not be allowed. These

management actions will reduce damage to the unsurfaced road prism, and reduce the risk of

impacts from storm water runoff and erosion from the roads on nearby washes. These positive

impacts will offset the minor impacts that could be caused by increased recreational activity.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

No special designations are planned for the SDNM under Alternative C. The impact of the

removal of Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC designation would be the same as the impact of the

same action in Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate OHV areas the same acreages as Alt B, would have the same effects as Alt

B. There would likely be less impact to sedimentation of water resources as a result of fewer

open routes, however, additional engineering, possibly including the use of dust suppressants to

minimize effects to air quality and visual resources and accommodate higher use on fewer routes

could offset these impact improvements. For this reason, impacts are still assessed at minor.

In terms of the water resources indicators, the number of miles of roads within washes decreases

to 30 miles under Alternative C. This decrease represents a 33 percent decrease from Alternative

A and a 24 percent decrease from Alternative B. The number of wash crossings would decrease to

285, a 13 percent decrease from both Alternatives A and B. The number of miles of roads within

close proximity to streams decreases to 90 miles, a 21 percent decrease from Alternative A

and a 15 percent decrease from Alternative B. These impacts represent a minor decrease from

Alternatives A and B and an overall minor impact on water resources due to the widespread

nature of the impact.

Approximately 175 miles of roads would be closed in the Monument under this alternative. This

represents about 28 percent of the roads in the Monument. Recovery of watershed conditions over

time on these routes would have a minor beneficial impact on water resources due to reduced

runoff, erosion, and sedimentation in local washes.

4.10.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.10.6.1. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative D would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 555

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

The number of multiuse corridors would be reduced from ten in Alterative A to seven in

Alternative D. The impacts would be minor, assuming BMPs for mitigating corridor impacts are

implemented. Development of utility-scale renewable energy would be prohibited on 788,600

acres of excluded and high sensitivity areas in this alternative, more than any other alternative.

Potential surface disturbance from utility-scale renewable energy development and potential

ground water impacts would be less than other alternatives.

Approximately 26,200 acres are available for disposal under Alternative D. If disposal of all

available land occurred, the impact could be similar to that described under Alternative A.

Although land disposal itself has a negligible impact on water resources, the maximum potential

impact from future development could be minor in terms of surface disturbance due to the

small number of acres affected but potentially moderate in terms of groundwater impacts if

developments such as solar energy facilities are constructed. Potential impacts would be assessed

on a proposal specific basis.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Under Alternative D, all public lands within the Lower Sonoran would be closed to grazing,

therefore impacts would be negligible. Eliminating grazing would reduce impacts to water

resources by reducing surface disturbance and allowing ground cover to improve through

increased canopy cover of perennial vegetation and by allowing litter from both perennial and

ephemeral forage species to increase. Accumulation of litter would increase water holding

capacity and improve infiltration. Areas of compacted surfaces would break down over time due

to mechanical and biological activity, also providing for improved infiltration. The net effect

on water resources would be a minor beneficial effect and a minor improvement over impacts

from Alternatives A, B and C.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

More areas would be excluded from mineral development under this alternative than any of the

other alternatives. Excluding these areas would reduce the potential for minerals-related impacts

on water resources more than any other alternative. Overall, impacts would be negligible to

minor. Potential impacts from mineral development would depend on the development proposal

and would be assessed on a site specific basis.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Water Resources

Surface disturbing activities would be excluded from the Gila Bend Mountains Wildlife Habitat

Area, Pronghorn Antelope habitat, Category I, II, and III desert tortoise habitat, and wildlife

movement corridors. These exclusions would have a minor beneficial effect on water resources

by allowing for recovery of vegetative ground cover in previously disturbed areas and by

preventing future disturbance. This alternative is a minor improvement in water resource effects

over those in Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
556 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Recreation allocations in Alternative D would include establishing two SRMAs; the Buckeye

Hills and Lower Gila Historic Trails. The effects of SRMAs on water resources are dependent

on the proposed recreation uses and are described in Alternative A. Extent of the impacts from

SRMAs in Alternative D are reduced from those in Alternative A, due to fewer acres of SRMAs

and a different recreational opportunity emphasis. Recreational use in the Buckeye Hills SRMA

would emphasize nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the Buckeye Hills East RMZ and

dispersed recreational opportunities in the Buckeye Hills West RMZ. Reduced emphasis on

facility development and motorized recreation would result in reduced water resource impacts

from those in Alternatives A, B, C, and E.

Recreational use of the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA would emphasize a greater level of

development and more extensive motorized travel than the Buckeye Hills SRMA. Management

of this SRMA would be similar to management under the other alternatives and impacts would

be similar. Increased development of facilities at this site would result in negligible increases

in runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Management of other recreational activities in the Lower

Sonoran would be similar to other alternatives. Management decisions intended to control

motorized vehicle use, manage vehicle-based camping and recreational target shooting, and other

intensive recreation uses, would help to mitigate impacts to water resources. Impacts would be

negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

A total of 263,700 acres would be included in four areas designated as ACECs: Saddle Mountain,

Coffeepot-Batamote, Cuerda de Lena, and r Gila Terraces and Historic Trails . Management

decisions that limit motorized travel, surface disturbing activities, mineral development,

utility-scale renewable energy development, and developed recreation sites in some or all of these

areas will have positive impacts on watershed conditions.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate significantly more acres to the Closed OHV area designation would have the

effect of eliminating current and future impacts on xeroriparian and riparian areas within these

areas. Assuming areas and roads would be properly closed to achieve the potential, effects to

water resources would be moderate due to 267,600 more acres closed to motor vehicle use,

a primary cause of vegetation loss in washes. 40 acres would not be allocated to open use,

therefore the effects would be the same as state in Alt C where this area is allocated to Limited to

Designated Routes.

Alternative D has 777 miles of closed routes, 762 more miles of closed routes than Alternative

A and substantially more than any of the other action alternatives. 799 miles of routes would

remain open to motorized travel. Some routes would be seasonally closed and some would only

be open for administrative access. Many miles of those closures are to enhance lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics and protect wildlife habitat management. These closures will

reduce the impacts on water resources. Important reductions in rutting, surface and vegetation

disturbance and water erosion will occur wherever routes are closed. In those specific areas

where the road closures are concentrated, the impact on water resources will decline from

moderate to minor. Alternative D includes plans for only 1 mile of new roads, which will be a

negligible impact. Designation of routes in most areas should decrease OHV impacts over time

by decreasing uncontrolled road proliferation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 557

Motorized travel within dry washes can destabilize banks, particularly where vehicles enter and

exit the washes, damage xeroriparian vegetation, and introduce potential contaminants into the

channels of these washes which are important groundwater recharge areas. In terms of the water

resources indicators, the number of miles of roads within washes decreases to 17 miles under

Alternative D. This decrease represents a 91 percent decrease from Alternative A and an 84

percent decrease from Alternative C. The number of wash crossings decreases to 531, a 49 percent

decrease from both Alternatives A and a 35 percent decrease from Alternative C. The number of

miles of roads within close proximity to streams decreases to 96 miles, a 69 percent decrease from

Alternative A and a 55 percent decrease from Alternative C. These impacts represent a minor

decrease from Alternatives A and C and an overall minor impact on water resources due to the

reduction in the widespread nature of the impact

From Vegetation Resources on Water Resources

Vegetation treatments implemented to progress towards achievement of land health standards

would benefit watershed conditions by providing appropriate cover levels to protect soils from

water erosion and ensuring sufficient bank and floodplain vegetation is present along desert

washes (Xeroriparian community) to provide for hydrologic function of the sites. Excluding

surface disturbing activities within occupied acuna pineapple cactus habitat, and the habitat area

of any threatened or special status species, would have positive impacts on watershed conditions

in these areas. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

4.10.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative D would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

Multiuse utility corridors would not be permitted in the Monument under Alternative D and the

entire Monument would be designated as an LUA exclusion area. These decisions result in

reduced potential for adverse impacts to water resources under this alternative as compared to

other alternatives. Minor benefits to water resource conditions should accrue from potential for

reduced surface disturbance. Overall impacts would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Under Alternative D, all public lands within the SDNM would be closed to grazing. Eliminating

grazing would reduce impacts to water resources by reducing surface disturbance and allowing

ground cover to improve through increased canopy cover of perennial vegetation and by allowing

litter from both perennial and ephemeral forage species to increase. Accumulation of litter would

increase water holding capacity and improve infiltration. Areas of compacted surfaces would

break down over time due to mechanical and biological activity, also providing for improved

infiltration. The net effect on water resources would be a minor beneficial effect and a minor

improvement over impacts from Alternatives A, B and C. Overall impacts would be negligible.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
558 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

Impacts would be the same as Alternative A except in areas withdrawn from mineral development

and disposal due to wildlife considerations. Impacts in those areas would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

The entire Monument area would be designated as an SRMA with an emphasis on an undeveloped

back country experience and resource-dependent activities such as hunting, camping, hiking,

sightseeing, and four wheel drive touring. The designated motor vehicle system would consist

entirely of primitive roads. The reduced level of development emphasized with this alternative

would result in fewer water resource impacts than those associated with other alternatives. The

net effect would be a small reduction in the adverse effects of surface disturbing activities on

runoff, erosion and sedimentation. And a negligible benefit to water resources. Overall impacts

would be minor.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Under Alternative D, designation of the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC in the SDNM would be

removed and vehicle use would be allowed on routes in these areas, which would increase the

potential for impacts to water resources in this portion of the SDNM as compared to Alternative

A. The overall impacts from special designations in the SDNM in Alternative D would be minor.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate OHV areas with almost twice the acres of Closed designation, 310,700acres,

as compared to Alt B and C,would have a minor effect on water resources. This would be due

to the relative low route density of routes and widespread nature of the impacts. All other areas

would be Limited to Designated Routes, which would have the same effects to water resources as

described in Alts B and C where routes would be designated.

About 370 miles of motorized routes within the Monument would be closed under Alternative D.

This amount is substantially more than the miles of roads closed under the existing conditions

or any of the other action alternatives and represents closure of 59 percent of the routes within

the Monument. This would be major change from existing conditions in Alternative A and

a minor benefit to water resources.

In terms of the water resources indicators the number of miles of roads within washes decreases

to 1.4 miles under Alternative D. This decrease represents a 98 percent decrease from Alternative

A. The number of wash crossings decreases to 166, a 49 percent decrease from both Alternatives

A and B and a 42 percent decrease from Alternative C. The number of miles of roads within close

proximity to streams decreases to 31 miles, a 73 percent decrease from Alternative A and a

66 percent decrease from Alternative C. These impacts represent a moderate decrease from

Alternatives A and C and an overall minor impact on water resources, such as runoff, erosion and

sedimentation, due to the reduction in the widespread nature of the impacts.

Closure of 370 miles of currently open routes in this alternative represents more than 58 percent

of the road mileage within the Monument and reduces water resource impacts more than any of

the other alternatives.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 559

4.10.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.10.7.1. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative E would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

Impacts on water resources from land tenure changes could be somewhat greater than Alternative

A due to a larger number of acres available for disposal (36,800 acres versus 18,900 acres).

Impacts would depend on development occurring on the transferred lands but potential for surface

disturbance and water resource development would be greater. Lands available for disposal are

less than 3 percent of the Decision Area. Overall potential for water resource impacts would

be minor.

Impacts due to land use authorizations are essentially the same as Alternative C. LUA exclusion

areas are nearly the same in total acreage. Compared to Alternative A, the impacts are positive,

since surface disturbance associated with LUAs, would occur on about 137,300 fewer acres. The

use of existing utility corridors would remain essentially the same, resulting in similar impacts.

Impacts on surface acres from solar energy development is similar to those described in

Alternative C. Impacts are positive compared to Alternative A, since Alternative E would have

an additional 172,500 acres in areas of high sensitivity, reducing the probable future surface

disturbance and potential for ground water development under Alternative E.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Impacts from grazing on water resources within the Lower Sonoran would be essentially the

same as Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

The potential for impacts to water resources from mineral development under Alternative E

would be slightly less than under Alternatives A, B, and C due to closing the Saddle Mountain

ACEC and areas near petroglyphs in the Gila River Terraces and Southern Historic Trails ACEC

to mineral entry, Impacts would be greater than under Alternative D. Potential for impacts from

mineral development continues under this alternative but would need to be assessed on a site

specific basis. Overall impacts would be negligible to moderate.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Water Resources

Alternative E would allow for maintenance and redevelopment of existing wildlife waters and

development of new ones. It would also provide for removing wildlife waters. Impacts to water

resources would be similar to Alternatives A and B. Small amounts of storm water runoff

would be impounded and water rights would be necessary for new surface water developments.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
560 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Well permits would be required for ground water development. Net effect on water resources

would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

The impacts on water resources of recreation management under Alternative E would be similar

to the impacts analyzed under Alternative B although two SRMAs designated under Alternative B

would not be designated in Alternative E. This could provide a minor positive impact under E,

since less recreational activity would probably occur in the 48,100 acres in these SRMAs. One

of the SRMAs, the San Tan Mountains SRMA, is relatively close to an urban area and would

be likely to attract more use under Alternative B than E. The result for Alternative E would be

reduced surface disturbance and less damage to vegetation. This would limit the increase in bare

soil and water erosion. However, even as an ERMA, some use would occur, so the differences in

impacts would be negligible. Limiting the San Tan Mountains SRMA to nonmotorized use would

also minimize the differences between Alternatives B and E.

Some additional differences in management between Alternatives B and E also are proposed.

Alternative E camping stay lengths and infrastructure would be more limited, possibly resulting in

less soil compaction, vegetation and soil surface damage, and damage to banks and xeroriparian

vegetation in adjacent Gunsight Wash, resulting in less runoff, erosion and sedimentation into the

wash. This would be a negligible positive impact of Alternative E.

Differences in impacts from management under Alternatives B and E in the Buckeye Hills SRMA

would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Alternative E proposes 247,400 acres for ACEC designation. Areas and designations are similar

to Alternative D although limitations on disturbance in Alternative E are slightly less restrictive

than those in Alternative D. Alternative E would create minor positive impacts on water resources

due to limitations on surface disturbing activities and motorized travel. Net water resources

impacts would be less than those in Alternative A. Overall impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate OHV areas in this alternative would have effects most similar to Alternatives

B and C. A 40 acre Open area would be designated, having the same effects as Alt B. OHV

Closed areas would be 152,800 acres, having the same effects as Alternatives B and C, just on

more land. This additional land is mostly unroaded and functions well hydologically, however,

and the effects to water resources would be negligible as a result.

In terms of the water resources indicators the number of miles of roads within washes increases

from Alternative D to 111 miles under Alternative E. This change represents a 39 percent decrease

from Alternative A, greater than a fivefold increase from Alternative D, a small decrease from

Alternative B and an impact similar to Alternative C. The number of wash crossings increases

from Alternative D to 818 in Alternative E. This change represents a 21 percent decrease from

Alternative A, a 35 percent increase from Alternative D, and an impact similar to Alternative C.

The number of miles of roads within close proximity to streams increases from Alternative D to

222 miles in Alternative E. This change represents a 28 percent decrease from Alternative A,

more than double the road mileage from Alternative D and an impact similar to Alternative C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 561

These impacts represent a minor decrease from Alternatives A and an overall moderate impact on

water resources due to the widespread nature of the impacts.

From Vegetation Resources on Water Resources

Impacts would be similar to Alternatives B, C, and D.

4.10.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality Management on Water Resources

Impacts from air quality management under Alternative E would be the same as those under

Alternative A.

From Lands & Realty on Water Resources

Impacts on water resources from use authorizations under Alternative E would be less than

Alternative A because the SDNM would be a LUA exclusion area except in established corridors.

Impacts would be essentially the same as those described in Alternative C and would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Water Resources

Grazing impacts on water resources would be the same as Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Water Resources

Impacts from mineral development in the SDNM would be the same as under Alternative A,

except in areas withdrawn from mineral development and disposal due to wildlife considerations.

Impacts in those areas would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Water Resources

The entire SDMN will be managed as an SRMA under all action alternatives. Under Alternative

A only about 1⁄4 of the Monument would be an SRMA. Under Alternative E, most of the Decision

Area would be managed as back country, which means undeveloped recreational activity. Impacts

to water resources would be negligible, and similar to the other action alternatives. Impacts are

positive compared to Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Water Resources

Impacts from special designations and the removal of the Vekol Valley Grassland ACECin the

SDNM would be the same as the other action alternatives.

From Travel Management on Water Resources

Decisions to allocate OHV areas the same as Alt B would have similar effects as Alt B.

Differences to the magnitude of the impacts under this alternative would be comparative to the

number of wash crossings and miles of routes that would be designated for use. Effects would

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
562 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

be minor due to the low route density adding and addition of earthen drainage structures to help

reduce concentrated flow and sedimentation.

In terms of the water resources indicators the number of miles of roads within washes increases

from Alternative D to 16 miles under Alternative E. This change represents a 64 percent decrease

from Alternative A, greater than a six fold increase from Alternative D, a 53 percent decrease

from Alternative B and a 47 percent decrease from Alternative C. The number of wash crossings

increases from Alternative D to 251 in Alternative E. This change represents a 23 percent decrease

from both Alternatives A and B, a 34 percent increase from Alternative D, and a 12 percent

decrease from Alternative C. The number of miles of roads within close proximity to streams

increases from Alternative D to 78 miles in Alternative E. This change represents a 32 percent

decrease from Alternative A, more than double the road mileage from Alternative D and a 13

percent decrease from Alternative C. These impacts represent a minor decrease from Alternatives

A and an overall moderate impact on water resources due to the widespread nature of the impacts.

4.11. Impacts on Wild Horse & Burro Management

Currently, there are no herd management areas (HMAs) within the Planning Area. In 1971, the

BLM classified the Painted Rocks Area as a herd area (HA) where, before 1971, wild horses and

burros could have existed. The BLM currently manages this area with a “zero burro population.”

This decision to remove/relocate all of the existing burros to a “zero burro population” within this

HA was based on conflicts in the area with private landowners, agricultural interests, wildlife

such as bighorn sheep, and other resources, and a lack of water available to wild burros on public

lands. A “zero burro population” required the BLM to remove all the burros from this herd area.

Funding, however, was not provided and all of the burros have not yet been removed. Nuisance

burros have been removed on a case-by-case basis.

Due to the fact that the intent of the existing decisions and proposed alternative decision is to

remove all wild horse or burros from the Painted Rocks Herd Area, any impacts from other

program areas on these wild horses and burros would be negligible; therefore, impacts from

other resources will not be discussed in detail.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Wild Horse & Burro Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 563

4.12. IMPACTS ON WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

4.12.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Wilderness characteristics are influenced by a number of land and resource uses. Principally, they

are influenced by the following actions occurring on the landscape over the life of the plan.

● Proximity of motorized travel corridors,

● Volume and type of traffic on travel corridors,

● Quantity and type of recreational users,

● Number, magnitude and location of mining actions,

● Number, size and location of ROWs and other land use authorizations.

Noise and the evidence from motorized travel can degrade solitude, motorized intrusions

can cause surface disturbances that impact naturalness, and both types of impacts can reduce

opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation. Mining and LUAs sometimes result in

large-scale impacts with long-term surface disturbance or permanent installations. New roads and

transportation corridors can be proposed by communities and other land users. To a lesser extent,

range and wildlife management projects can affect areas with wilderness characteristics. These

impacts normally come from installation, maintenance, and use of range and wildlife catchments.

The analysis of potential impacts to wilderness characteristics considers wildlife habitat

boundaries, range and wildlife developments, wilderness characteristic boundaries, transportation

inventories and designations, ecological zones, vegetation types, and known historical and cultural

sites. In the absence of data, analyses were based on the knowledge base of local planners. In the

absence of quantifiable data, professional judgment was used. Impacts are sometimes described

using ranges of potential impacts or in qualitative terms, if appropriate.

Of the resource management elements to be addressed by the Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMP,

air resources, priority wildlife species and habitat, vegetation resources, cultural and heritage

resources, visual resources, minerals management, livestock grazing management, recreation

management, lands and realty management, travel management, and special designations would

impact wilderness characteristics the most directly. They are discussed below.

4.12.1.1. Indicators

Impacts on wilderness characteristics result from actions that maintain, enhance, or diminish the

amount, distribution, and quality of the wilderness resource indicators. Wilderness characteristic

indicators include the following:

● The extent, location, distribution, and quality of naturalness and natural conditions in the

landscape. Naturalness is affected by surface disturbing activities and associated human uses

and developments.

● Opportunities for the maintenance, enhancement, or diminishment of solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation. Opportunities for solitude are impacted by the sights and sounds

of, or evidence of, other human beings and human activities. Opportunities for primitive,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics
564 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

unconfined recreation are affected by the presence of motorized activities and the availability,

or non-availability, of landscapes conducive for such activities.

4.12.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of wilderness characteristics are

made:

● All guidelines for the maintenance of wilderness characteristics as identified in this document

would be followed to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel.

● Any new surface disturbing activities proposed would be subject to NEPA analysis. Proposed

activities that would not initially meet wilderness characteristic objectives for the area would

be mitigated to the extent needed to meet the objectives.

● Uses and activities occurring both inside and outside these lands could influence wilderness

characteristics, though such influences would generally be indirect.

● Impact analysis on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics described under

Alternative D are based on the assumption that all the lands contain wilderness characteristics,

including all lands included in the citizen’s proposal. It may not necessarily be the case, based

on BLM’s knowledge of the Planning Area, that the entire citizen’s proposal addressed in

Alternative D contains wilderness characteristics as defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness

Act. Attributes are defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act including the area’s size, its

apparent naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined

type of recreation.

4.12.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

There would be no impacts on wilderness characteristics from actions proposed under the

following programs:

● Cave Resources,

● Paleontological Resources,

● Water Resources,

● Wild Horse and Burro Management.

4.12.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

The following analysis also considers a management action’s potential to cause changes to a

landscape that could alter naturalness, and maintain, reduce or enhance opportunities for solitude

and opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation. The terms “localized,” “site-specific,”

and “landscape level” denote the extent to which impacts could occur. Site-specific impacts are

generally small and described geographically when possible. Landscape-level impacts generally

occur on a broad scale and affect large areas, such as the entire Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 565

4.12.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

Some management decisions for elements of lands and realty management, wildlife and habitat

resource management, minerals management, water resources, and wildland fire management are

common to all action alternatives.

4.12.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

No areas exhibiting wilderness characteristics have been identified for disposal under any of the

action alternatives. There are no impacts on wilderness characteristics.

Acquiring land or mineral estate could increase the potential for protecting naturalness,

opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation in those areas

exhibiting wilderness characteristics. In addition, acquiring land or mineral estate could provide

indirect protection of wilderness characteristics because naturalness, and opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation could be considered before land use authorizations

and permits were granted for access or mineral extraction.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Wilderness Characteristics

Hazardous materials and solid waste issues occur on occasion within the Decision Areas.

Containment and clean-up of these materials often involves the use of vehicles and equipment

in surface disturbing activities. Wilderness characteristics would be impacted by the sights

and sounds and associated damage of vehicle movements and removal of contaminated soils.

With appropriate restoration and mitigation, these impacts would typically be temporary, and

naturalness could be restored; however, some impacts could cause long-term degradation of

naturalness. Overall, these impacts would be considered negligible as hazardous materials and

solid waste issues are uncommon in these remote, roadless areas.

From Soil Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Maintaining and improving soil cover and productivity could promote, to a minor degree,

retention of naturalness by preventing erosion of soils. Naturalness would be retained to the

extent that native plant communities are protected from direct mortality or indirect harmed due to

invasive plants.

Management actions associated with fire, lands and realty, mineral development, wildlife projects,

recreation uses, OHV travel, and damage or removal of vegetation would have moderate impacts,

mainly through a failure to maintain plant communities or through degraded soil coverage and

productivity in the Decision Areas. These actions also would fail to promote the retention of

natural conditions due to increased erosion, loss of plant cover, a potential increase in invasive

species, or localized loss of plant and ecological community diversity.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wilderness Characteristics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
566 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Wilderness characteristics could potentially be diminished, degraded, or lost altogether due to

issues with fire and fuels management, but these impacts do not vary substantially by alternative.

Fires destroy vegetation, which impacts the naturalness of an area and may allow soil erosion to

damage or destroy areas. Fire suppression activities also impact wilderness characteristics such as

naturalness and solitude when heavy earth-moving equipment and vehicles are used to cut fire

lines. Fire-line scars can last for decades, even with reclamation. The use of fire retardants also

can stain rocks and soils for up to a decade. Additionally, fire suppression activities could result in

diminished naturalness and opportunities for solitude over the short term in localized areas.

Furthermore, burned landscapes denuded of vegetation are easily invaded by opportunistic,

non-native invasive plants and weeds like buffelgrass. This is a potentially severe and permanent

impact if Sonoran Desert fires convert fire-intolerant native desert habitats to non-native

fire-tolerant grasslands. In summary, all the actions described can degrade or diminish naturalness

over the long term and are considered major both in scope, scale and severity.

On the other hand, effective fire suppression can limit potential disturbances. Quick suppression

action by by ground and air-based fire fighting organizations can minimize or eliminate the

potential for adverse long-term effects of fire, including consequences on naturalness associated

with large-scale mechanized fire fighting and the severe long-term potential for non-native

ecosystem conversion. Overall, impacts would be negligible to major.

4.12.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Providing signs for visitor information, regulations, or interpretation could diminish naturalness

in localized areas. The provision of signs for visitor information, regulations, and interpretation

can reduce naturalness in localized areas by increasing the appearance of structures in localized

areas. However, it is likely that signs or facilities would be located near roads or access points,

where the magnitude of such intrusions would be negligible.

Allowing dispersed, nonmotorized camping throughout the Lower Sonoran and SDNM would

promote the retention of wilderness characteristics by providing opportunities for primitive,

unconfined recreation.

Dispersed recreational target shooting throughout Lower Sonoran could contribute to a loss or

impairment of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. Mostly these

impacts would accrue on the perimeter of wilderness characteristic areas along roads due to

profuse shooter refuse (e.g., spent shells, targets, trash), destroyed or damaged vegetation and

rock outcrops, and the unavoidable sound of gunfire. The sound of gunfire potentially impacts the

largest land area with effects on naturalness being highly localized. Sound effects vary greatly

based on distance and intensity and is influenced by the size and design of the firearm, terrain

features, and weather.

4.12.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 567

There are 8,300 acres of non-Federal mineral estate overlapping areas with wilderness

characteristics within the SDNM. Developing and mining these valid existing rights would entail

disturbing the land surface and building roads for access and extraction activities. Use of Federal

surface rights during development of state minerals would impact wilderness characteristics

through the long-term loss of naturalness, both on the parcel itself and on surrounding public

lands. The related sights and sounds of mining activity would degrade or eliminate opportunities

for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation on affected parcels. Mitigation strategies could

be identified through discussions with the State of Arizona. Impacts also could be mitigated

through Federal purchase of the State mineral estate. Consequently, impacts from potential

development of state mineral estate would be considered negligible to moderate over both the

short and long-term.

The likelihood of State minerals ownership being developed within the SDNM is considered

extremely low as no such applications have ever been presented. As a result, impacts from

potential development of State minerals would be unlikely and negligible over both the short and

long-term. Consequently, State mineral ownership in the SDNM will not be discussed further

in this analysis.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

The continued closure of grazing allotments south of I-8 would help maintain or enhance

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation over the long

term. Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Providing signs for visitor information, regulations, or interpretation could diminish naturalness in

localized areas. The provision of signs for visitor information, regulations, or interpretation could

reduce naturalness in localized areas by increasing the appearance of structures. However, it is

likely that signs or facilities would be located near roads or access points, where the magnitude of

such intrusions would be negligible.

Allowing dispersed; nonmotorized camping throughout the Lower Sonoran and SDNM would

promote wilderness characteristics by providing opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation.

4.12.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

No part of the Lower Sonoran or SDNM Decision Areas are allocated to lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative A; however, other decisions of this alternative

could impact the baseline conditions that support existing wilderness characteristics. Therefore,

analysis of these potential impacts is focused on the likelihood that management decisions

under Alternative A would affect these baseline conditions. Wilderness characteristics could

be maintained under Alternative A, but this outcome would be an incidental byproduct of

management actions implemented for other purposes.

Although some individual proposed decisions would act to maintain wilderness characteristics, the

overall effect of Alternative A would be minor to moderate reductions in the extent, distribution,

and quality of wilderness characteristics. The degrees of naturalness and outstanding opportunities

for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would decline over the expected life of the RMP.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
568 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

This reduction would occur principally because Alternative A would not specifically establish

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics . Wilderness characteristics could be expected

to degrade over time, principally from incremental impacts that would occur as consequences of:

● Allowing motorized land uses, mineral sales and leases, ROWs and other land use

authorizations that are incompatible with maintaining wilderness characteristics;

● Generally managing affected areas without adequate resource allocations or special

designations that, although established for other purposes, also would have the incidental

effect of helping to maintain wilderness characteristics;

● Rapidly increasing demands for access to and use of public lands for multiple purposes

that are projected to occur in the Decision Area, largely due to the region’s population and

development growth.

4.12.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Although cultural and heritage resources are not included as primary attributes contributing

to wilderness characteristics, future site development for public interpretive and educational

purposes, excavation for scientific study, and similar activities may have negligible to minor

effects on wilderness characteristics. Difficulty of access would relegate most site development or

interpretation to the periphery of such areas. Impacts would be negligible.

4.12.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

The use of motorized vehicles on paved and unpaved roads results in emissions of particulate

matter and of CO, NO2, volatile organic compounds, and SO2 from the combustion of fuel.

Under Alternative A, no specific measures are planned to control fugitive dust emissions that

exceed regulatory limits, such as by lowering speed limits, using dust suppressants, reducing

vehicle use intensity or duration, reducing route density, or considering temporary, seasonal, or

permanent route closures. Instead, these measures would be taken on a case-by-case basis as

problems are identified, which generally is not as effective as a proactive approach. Projected

population growth is expected to result in increased use of motorized vehicles, potentially

resulting in minor to moderate long-term impacts to naturalness through deteriorated air quality.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Utility corridors under Alternative A would be designated along the borders of the Batamote

Mountains area of the Ajo Block and in the Saddle Mountain area. These corridors, if utilized,

could have moderate impacts on naturalness along the extremities of wilderness characteristic

areas. Impacts would accrue mainly through direct, long-term surface disturbances and

indirect, residual impacts to visual resources. Up to 16,000 acres of areas exhibiting wilderness

characteristics could be impaired or foregone over the long-term under full utilization of the

utility corridors. Elsewhere, utility corridors would have negligible to minor effects on wilderness

characteristic areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 569

Eight to ten new solar energy plants of 8,000 to 10,000 acres each are expected to be constructed

in the first 5 years of the plan, with one or two additional plants constructed every 5 years over the

life of the plan. In addition, there will be an increase of requests for transmission lines and access

for operations and maintenance of the solar farms. Naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive, unconfined recreation could be subject to major impacts, potentially completely

foregone. Over the life of the plan, up to an estimated 21,500 acres known to have wilderness

characteristics would be exposed to major impacts from energy development. These impacts

would be located in the lower elevations of the Gila Bend Mountains and Saddle Mountain,

with the effects mainly occurring on the lower desert plains and bajadas (areas with 5 percent

elevation slope or less). These slopes are suitable for solar installations, utility infrastructure, and

transportation alignments.

Transportation-corridor demand will increase with regional population growth over the life of the

plan. Transportation corridors could be sited anywhere, as indicated by regional transportation

planning over the preceding 10 years. Permanent transportation and associated LUA corridors

could cause major to moderate degradation of wilderness characteristics. These impacts would

mainly be found in the Gila Bend Mountains and Saddle Mountain areas, with road corridors

sited in less mountainous terrain and often overlapping on lands subject to the solar and energy

developments described previously.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Efforts to minimize livestock impacts on rare plant and desert tortoise habitats could result in

localized and moderate degradation of naturalness to the extent that livestock waters are moved to

new areas where no manmade structures exist.

Indirect and moderate impacts on naturalness could result where livestock congregate around

water sources, corrals, staging areas, or fence lines, leading to erosion, trampling, impairment of

scenery and vistas, dust emissions, and damage to the plant communities. Conversely, naturalness

in and around rare plant and desert tortoise habitats could be indirectly enhanced if livestock

waters were modified or moved from such areas. This would result in a moderate, but localized,

improvement in naturalness.

Implementation-level decisions that would increase the number or density of fences, livestock

waters, or corrals could result in reduced naturalness where these livestock management structures

are obvious features within the landscape.

Efforts to minimize livestock impacts on plants by moving or replacing livestock watering sites

could result in localized degradation of naturalness in those areas where watering sites appear.

However, naturalness could be partially restored from this action where livestock watering sites

are removed.

Continuing the current livestock program could have localized impacts on naturalness and

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. Taken as a whole,

however, current-grazing regimes would not detract from nor greatly alter currently inventoried

and documented wilderness characteristics over the life of the plan. Landscapes like Saddle

Mountain and Face Mountain, documented to have wilderness characteristics in 1980, still

retain wilderness character at the same or even greater levels today, after an additional 30 years

of livestock grazing.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
570 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Localized impacts could occur with potential minor to moderate effects due to: (1) livestock-use

adjustments with increased or fewer animals; (2) changes to grazing management systems; (3)

potentially large ephemeral turnouts causing short-term impacts on naturalness and loss of

solitude and primitive recreation opportunities from trail-cutting and damage to vegetation by

livestock and cattle waste; and (4) construction or abandonment of rangeland developments.

Such actions would degrade or enhance naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation.

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

About 12,700 acres of state mineral rights overlap with Lower Sonoran areas known to have

wilderness characteristics. Developing and mining these valid existing rights would entail

disturbing the land surface and building roads for access and extraction activities. The use

of Federal surface rights during development of state minerals would impact wilderness

characteristics through the long-term loss of naturalness, both on the parcel itself and on

surrounding public lands. The related sights and sounds of mining activity would degrade or

eliminate opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation on affected parcels.

Impacts could be mitigated using strategies determined jointly with the State of Arizona or

through Federal purchase of the mineral estate. The likelihood of State mineral ownership

being developed is considered low to moderate in the Lower Sonoran. Consequently, impacts

from potential development of State mineral estate would be considered negligible to moderate

over both the short and long-term.

Implementation of Alternative A would leave all areas with wilderness characteristics open to

entry under the mining laws. Mining claims could be located and minerals extracted, impacting

naturalness and the opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. Mining claim

location, assessment, and development could have negligible to major impacts on wilderness

characteristics, not only from the mining itself, but also from access roads, transport, and

increasing public access to remote areas.

It is impracticable to accurately assess impacts from locatable mineral development because these

developments are driven by the location of mineral deposits. Accordingly, the loss or impairment

of wilderness characteristics is more likely where there is moderate to higher locatable mineral

potential, primarily the wilderness characteristic areas in the northern Gila Bend Mountains and

Saddle Mountain areas and the central part of the Batamote Mountains. On the other hand, impacts

are anticipated to be only minor to negligible, in areas with low locatable mineral potential.

Short- and long- term moderate impacts to wilderness characteristics could result from oil, gas,

sodium and geothermal energy leasing; however, the potential for mineral leasing in these areas

is low, reducing the likelihood of impacts. Wilderness characteristics in the southern part of

Saddle Mountain could be degraded over the southern third of the area if geothermal energy is

developed. Between 5,000 and 10,000 acres of wilderness characteristic lands could be subject to

minor to moderate impairment from energy development under generous leasing development

scenarios for geothermal or oil and gas.

Saleable mineral potential (mainly crushed stone, sand and gravel, decorative rock, granite,

volcanic and stone) is present in nearly all of the Gila Bend Mountains, Saddle Mountain, and the

Ajo Block (BLM 2004 and 2009).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 571

The number of new mineral pits or quarries that might locate in areas with wilderness

characteristics is not known; however, impacts to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would likely have major, long-term impacts in

localized areas if they do. Both mountainous, wash, and bajada areas could be affected, depending

on location, demand and salable mineral contracts. Over the life of the plan, areas such as Saddle

Mountain and the north part of the Gila Bend Mountains and lands located near major county

and state roads and communities, would potentially be more subject to mineral sales. Wilderness

characteristics in more remote, mountainous interior areas and in the Ajo Block would be less

likely to be impacted over the life of the plan.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

The lack of specific decisions intended to protect ecological, biological, soil and water resources

would tend to cause the degradation of natural resources over the life of the plan and therefore

degrade naturalness. Minor to moderate long-term impacts to naturalness would result from

the lack of comprehensive, area wide allocations to protect core areas of wildlife habitat.

Constructing facilities in wildlife movement corridors and sensitive habitats, not improving

habitat connectivity, and not minimizing physical barriers to movement would impact wilderness

characteristics by detracting from naturalness.

Minor long-term contributions to naturalness and primitive recreation may result if populations

of native wildlife are maintained at current or enhanced levels. In the Saddle Mountain area,

implementation of Alternative A would continue to restrict fencing in bighorn sheep lambing

areas but would provide no other measures to protect the naturalness of this area through the

protection of core wildlife habitat.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Because Alternative A would not establish recreation standards and management prescriptions

for visitation, facility development, or other recreation-related activities, recreation standards

would not be employed to protect or maintain wilderness characteristics. Overall, long-term

loss, impairment, or diminishment of wilderness characteristics due to recreation management

would be minor to moderate in localized areas, and potentially impact up to 25 percent of

wilderness characteristics. On the other hand, about 75 percent of such lands would be managed

under compatable ROS classifications, offering protection to wilderness characteristics. These

remaining areas would experience negligible to no effects from the absence of wilderness

characteristics management emphasis.

Four existing SRMAs (Saddle Mountain, Ajo Trails, Gila Trails, and Sentinel Plain Lava

Flow) would continue in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative A, overlapping 203,800 acres

known to contain wilderness characteristics. (See Table 4.18, “Acres of Lands with Wilderness

Characteristics Within SRMAs and ROS Settings, Alternative A” (p. 572)). Because Alternative

A would not allocate any lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, at some point in the

future, these SRMAs might have standards established for visitation, facility development, or

other recreation-related considerations that would not maintain wilderness characteristics, thus

impairing or impacting them to a minor degree.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
572 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table 4.18. Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs and ROS

Settings, Alternative A

SRMA

ROS

Saddle Mountain Sentinel Plain Ajo Trails Gila Trails

Rural 0 0 0 2,400

Roaded Natural 2,100 2,700 13,600 9,200

Semi-Primitive Motorized 34,400 4,300 88,200 38,500

Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized 0 8,300 0 100

Primitive 0 0 0 0

Total acres of Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics

36,500 15,300 101,800 50,200

Areas outside these SRMAs would continue to be managed as an ERMA and would not have

facilities or visitation standards established to conserve wilderness characteristics, potentially

causing long-term impacts to wilderness characteristics on approximately 72,700 acres.

The existing recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) management classes would be implemented

under Alternative A and would interact with wilderness characteristics as identified in Table 4.18,

“Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs and ROS Settings, Alternative

A” (p. 572). Rural and roaded natural areas tend to have more intensive recreation and land uses

that shift the landscape away from naturalness, are less remote, and provide less opportunity

for solitude.

About 75 percent of wilderness characteristic acreage is located within semi-primitive motorized,

semi-primitive nonmotorized, and primitive ROS classes. Semi-primitive motorized areas tend to

have more dispersed motorized uses, providing moderate opportunities for solitude away from

roads and generally maintaining naturalness. However, continued motorized access could degrade

naturalness over time, particularly considering the expected population increases. Semi-primitive

nonmotorized and primitive areas do not have motorized access and tend to support protection

and maintenance of wilderness characteristics.

SRPs would continue to be authorized and may include competitive or commercial permits.

Short- and long-term degradation of wilderness characteristics could result.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Because the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC in the Lower Sonoran is known to contain wilderness

characteristics, maintaining this ACEC designation with existing restrictions on motorized

vehicles and livestock developments would support the conservation of such characteristics.

Not designating the Agua Caliente Road as a 30-mile Back Country Byway would have no

impact on wilderness characteristics.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

The lack of a comprehensive travel management plan, combined with the expected increase in

motorized recreation use, could result in moderate long-term losses or impairment of wilderness

characteristics. Under Alternative A, off-highway vehicle use would be limited to existing or

designated roads and trails except in wilderness areas and the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC.

Wilderness areas and the ACEC would be closed to motorized travel.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 573

Approximately 1,670 miles of road would be open for motorized use. Current route density

and use intensities in the Ajo Block, the Gila Bend Mountains, and the Saddle Mountain areas

would be maintained, potentially fragmenting wilderness characteristics, moderately reducing

the amount of landscape in a natural condition, and diminishing opportunities for solitude and

primitive recreation throughout. Wilderness characteristics would remain unchanged in the core

areas away from roads and primitive roads, but the long-term amounts of acreage protecting

wilderness characteristics over the long term could be potentially smaller than prescribed in

any other alternative.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

VRM classifications on wilderness characteristics are detailed in Table 4.19, “Acres of Lands

with Wilderness Characteristics Within Visual Resources Management Classes, Alternative

A” (p. 573). Approximately 75,200 acres of wilderness characteristics in the Lower Sonoran

would be managed to VRM Class II standards, which would support continued naturalness.

Approximately 88,300 acres of wilderness characteristics in the Lower Sonoran would be

managed as VRM Class III, and 113,000 acres of wilderness characteristics in the Lower Sonoran

would be managed as VRM Class IV. VRM Class III and VRM Class IV would tend to allow the

moderate degradation of naturalness and natural conditions, especially in more pristine areas,

over the lifetime of the RMP.

Table 4.19. Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within Visual Resources

Management Classes, Alternative A

Visual Resource Management Classes

Alternative Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Lower Sonoran

Alternative A 0 75,200 88,300 113,000

Alternative B 0 65,300 199,500 11.700

Alternative C 0 103,645 44,655 100

Alternative D 0 0 0 0

Alternative E 0 97,400 125,800 1,900

SDNM

Alternative A 0 62,800 67,000 23,200

Alternative B 0 146,000 7,000 0

Alternative C 0 40,800 0 0

Alternative D 0 0 0 0

Alternative E 0 42,000 100 0

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

A lack of decisions in Alternative A specifically intended to protect or restore native vegetation

could impact naturalness ranging from minor effects to major ecosystem conversion. Small,

localized harvesting of plant materials would result in negligible short-term impacts on

naturalness. Not minimizing the spread of nonnative, noxious species would impact the

naturalness of the wilderness characteristic areas over the long term, with potential moderate to

major effects. The loss of native plants and the spread of non-native vegetation would contribute

to increased size and intensity of wildfires, which in turn would destroy the non-fire adapted

native vegetation of the Sonoran Desert.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
574 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Because Alternative A would not allocate any lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics,

future standards and management prescriptions established for visitation, facility development,

other recreation-related considerations, land use authorizations, visual resources, and other

land uses would not be employed to protect or maintain wilderness characteristics. Overall,

long-term loss, impairment, or diminishment of wilderness characteristics would be anticipated in

localized areas, with major impacts happening on about 5 percent of land and minor impacts on

wilderness characteristics on 23 percent. The remaining 72 percent of wilderness characteristics

would experience minor, negligible, or no effects from the absence of management to protect

wilderness characteristics.

4.12.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from air quality on wilderness characteristics would be similar to those discussed under

Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except, the degree of potential impacts in the SDNM

would be much less, trending from minor to negligible. Proclamation-stipulated management

prescriptions, in and of themselves, consigns protective measures for the Monument’s objects and

landscapes, joined with stipulated limitations on OHV travel.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Utility corridors under Alternative A would be designated along State Route 238, I-8, and the

TEP transmission lines, potentially impacting wilderness characteristics in the desert bajadas of

the Sand Tank Mountains and along the Butterfield Stage corridor. The corridor, if utilized, could

have moderate impacts on naturalness along the extremities of these wilderness characteristic

areas, mainly through direct long-term surface disturbances and indirect visual resource

aftereffects. Wilderness characteristics on up to 7,600 acres could be impaired or foregone over

the long-term under full development scenarios for the utility corridors. Protection of Monument

objects under the Proclamation, however, could mitigate these impacts to minor if only smaller

parts of the corridors nearest the highways were utilized and strict visual mitigation applied.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts would be the same as those described under 4.11.2 Common to All Alternatives.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Substantial protection of ecological, biological, soil, and associated Monument objects would

occur due to the Monument management under the Proclamation, which in turn would offer

greater protection to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation.

Long-term enhancement of naturalness and primitive recreation may result if populations of

native wildlife are maintained at current or enhanced levels. Enhanced wildlife populations

might result from additional waters, which in turn would increase opportunities for primitive

recreation opportunities like wildlife observation and hunting. Wildlife waters would continue to

be developed and maintained on a case-by-case basis. The presence of new permanent waters or

other structures would pose minor, albeit long-term, impacts to naturalness.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 575

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

The Gila Trail SRMA in the SDNM would cover some areas exhibiting wilderness characteristics

in the central Maricopa Mountains north of Highway 238. Because Alternative A would not

manage any lands to protect wilderness characteristics, this SRMA could have future standards

established for visitation, facility development, and other recreation-related considerations that

could fail to protect wilderness characteristics. Areas outside of this SRMA would continue to be

managed as ERMAs and, as such, would not have facilities or visitation standards established to

conserve wilderness characteristics, potentially causing minor long-term impacts.

Existing recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) management classes would be implemented

under Alternative A and would interact with wilderness characteristics as identified in Table 4.18,

“Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs and ROS Settings, Alternative

A” (p. 572). Impacts from implementation of ROS classes would be the same as described

previously for the Lower Sonoran. Wilderness characteristics would be maintained unchanged

in semi-primitive, nonmotorized areas and experience minor impairment along the Anza Trail.

Elsewhere, the condition of wilderness characteristcs would mostly be unchanged over the life of

the plan by maintaining current ROS classes.

Special recreation permits (SRPs) would continue to be authorized and may include commercial

permits in areas with wilderness characteristics. Short-term degradation of wilderness

characteristics could result, mainly for solitude opportunities.

Most current forms of recreation pursuits, with the exception of target shooting, travel

management, and its associated OHV uses, would have negligible impacts on wilderness

characteristics. Allowing dispersed nonmotorized camping throughout the SDNM would promote

retention of wilderness characteristics by providing opportunities for primitive, unconfined

recreation. Hunting, hiking, sightseeing, backpacking, orienteering, and horseback riding would

have negligible to no impacts on wilderness characterisitcs.

The use of firearms throughout the SDNM could diminish naturalness and opportunities for

solitude where shooter refuse (e.g., spent shells, targets, trash) or gunfire degrades the landscape.

Target shooters damage rocks and destroy plants through the use of these items as targets or when

they are located behind shooting areas or on backdrops. Areas closest to urban areas with decent

road access could have moderate impacts with a complete loss of naturalness over localized areas.

Remote areas with poor motorized access would experience negligible to minor effects over

the life of the plan.

Impacts on wilderness characteristics from travel management and OHV use are subsequently

addressed below in the From Travel Management analysis and will not be addressed further

in this analysis.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Maintaining the Vekol Valley ACEC in the SDNM would have no impacts as the ACEC does not

contain wilderness characteristics. Not designating I-8 or State Route 238 as National Scenic

Byways would have no impact on wilderness characteristics.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
576 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative A, OHV use would be limited to existing or designated roads and trails

except in wilderness areas and the Vekol Valley ACEC. About 570 miles would be open for

motorized use in the SDNM. The lack of a comprehensive travel management plan combined

with the expected increase in recreation use could result in some long-term loss or impairment

to wilderness characteristics along open roads. Moreover, there would be some fragmentation

of wilderness characteristic acreage and landscapes from roads and primitive roads passing

through or entering areas. Overall, these impacts would be negligible to minor, as the Monument

Proclamation prohibits cross-country motorized travel and harm to or removal of Monument

objects. Wilderness characteristics would remain undisturbed and generally unchanged in core

areas removed from roads and primitive roads.

It is assumed most existing motorized vehicle roads, primitive roads, and wash routes would be

kept open under this alternative. Motorized routes would continue into the Maricopa Mountains,

the Butterfield Stage/Anza Trail area, the Sand Tank Mountains, and the White Hills. All

these areas, with the exception of the White Hills and the western part of the South Maricopa

Mountains, would be penetrated or crossed by the maximum number of vehicle routes in the

desert plains, through washes, and across foothills and uplands. The amount of wilderness

characteristics exposed to the sights and sounds of motorized travel would be the greatest under

this alternative, and the moderate adverse effects on solitude and primitive recreation would

be the maximum level presented by any alternative. Moreover, the wilderness characteristic

landscapes and acreage represented within the Sand Tank Mountains would be subject to major

fragmentation and segmentation into smaller areas under this alternative.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran

except that the collection of seeds, plant materials, flowers, dead or down plant materials, or

other vegetative materials is generally prohibited in the SDNM. Long-term contributions to

naturalness would result from the protection of the Monument’s biological and ecological objects.

Additionally, the use of native species and seeds in restoration projects and the control of invasive

species would contribute to maintaining or enhancing naturalness and natural conditions.

Limiting the spread of non-native vegetation would reduce the size and intensity of wildfires

that destroy native vegetation, representing additional protection for the Monument’s non-fire

adapted plant communities.

From Visual Resource on Wilderness Characteristics

VRM classifications on areas that exhibit wilderness characteristics are identified in Table 4.19,

“Acres of Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Within Visual Resources Management Classes,

Alternative A” (p. 573). Approximately 62,800 acres of wilderness characteristics would be

managed to VRM Class II standards, which would support continued naturalness. Approximately

67,000 acres of wilderness characteristics would be managed as VRM Class III, and 23,200

acres would be managed as VRM Class IV. However, the Monument Proclamation’s restrictions

on travel, mineral development, and other land use authorizations, as well as its restrictions

on changing or impairing current visual and scenic landscape conditions means that impacts

to visual resources are expected to be negligible. As a result, wilderness values directly and

indirectly associated with scenery and visual resources would not be greatly influenced over the

lifetime of the RMP.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 577

From Wilderness Characteristics Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Because Alternative A would not allocate any SDNM to be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, no future standards or management prescriptions established for protection of

management objects, visitation, facility development or other recreation-related considerations,

land use authorizations, visual resources, or other land uses would be employed to protect or

maintain wilderness characteristics. Overall, long-term loss, impairment or diminishment of

wilderness characteristics would be anticipated in localized areas, with major impacts occurring

on about 5 percent and minor impacts on 4 percent of wilderness characteristics. The remaining

91 percent of wilderness characteristics would experience minor, negligible, or no effects from

the absence of wilderness characteristics management emphasis due to the overarching protection

established by the Monument Proclamation.

4.12.4. ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B identifies the greatest extent of uses on public lands and provides opportunities for

those uses, including motorized recreational opportunities. As under Alternative A, no part of

the Decision Areas would be allocated to protecting wilderness characteristics under Alternative

B. Naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation

would be maintained only as an incidental by product of management actions implemented

for other purposes. Although some individual proposed decisions would protect wilderness

characteristics, the overall effect of Alternative B would be to moderately reduce the extent,

distribution, and quality of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation over the life of the RMP.

Nevertheless, Alternative B would contribute to naturalness and outstanding opportunities

for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation to a greater degree than Alternative A.

Implementation of measures to control fugitive dust emissions, emphasize wildlife habitat

connectivity, assure use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, maintain native wildlife

populations (especially sensitive species), and restrict motorized travel to a designated route

system all would support maintaining naturalness. In contrast, increased development of cultural

sites for public visitation and increased density of new wildlife and livestock water developments

would detract from naturalness to a greater degree than would Alternative A.

4.12.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

Compared to Alternative A, Alternative B would more effectively reduce impacts to naturalness

due to deteriorated air quality by controlling excessive fugitive dust through a variety of methods.

Moreover, the overall route system and road network would be reduced by 17 percent under

Alternative B, further reducing areas subject to increased dust emissions and noncompliance.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

A framework for the proactive management of cultural and heritage resources would be enacted

under all Action Alternatives. Under Alternative B, the development of cultural sites for public

visitation would be emphasized. Future site development for public interpretive and educational

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
578 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

purposes, excavation for scientific study, or similar activities would reduce naturalness. Such

impacts would be greater than under Alternative A due to Alternative B’s emphasis on the

development of cultural sites for public visitation.

4.12.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts of multiuse utility corridors, LUAs and other land use allocations would generally

be similar to those described under Alternative A except that Alternative B would allow

major utilities to be developed outside of existing corridors, which would degrade wilderness

characteristics where they occur. Wilderness characteristics near Saddle Mountain and the

Batamote Mountains would be most impacted along their perimeters, with up to 8,000 acres

impacted under maximum use of the utility corridors. Perimeter areas are most subject to the

sights, sounds, surface disturbance and physical infrastructure found in utility corridors.

Impacts from utility-scale renewable energy development would be the same as described under

Alternative A.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Improved forage or vegetation conditions from modified grazing practices or reduced livestock

numbers could result in long-term impacts that would maintain or improve naturalness because

forage allocated to livestock would instead be available to native wildlife. Impacts from livestock

infrastructure management would be similar as described under Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from mineral and energy management would generally be the same as under Alternative

A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

In general, ecological, biological, soil, and water resource decisions under Alternative B would

contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than those under Alternative A by emphasizing the

maintenance and restoration of natural landscapes, vegetation and soils, connectivity of wildlife

habitat, use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, and maintaining or enhancing populations

of native wildlife, especially sensitive species.

Limiting or restricting the construction of facilities in wildlife movement corridors and sensitive

habitats, improving habitat connectivity, and minimizing physical barriers to movement would

support wilderness characteristics by protecting naturalness. The density of artificial wildlife

waters could be increased. Construction activities would detract from naturalness, causing

short-term impacts to wilderness characteristics, while the presence of new permanent structures

would detract from naturalness in the long term.

Reintroducing, transplanting, and supplemental stocking of native wildlife; using existing earthen

livestock waters as refugia for native wildlife where livestock grazing is no longer permitted;

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 579

and restricting or mitigating the placement of LUAs, and fences to avoid adverse impacts to

wildlife would occur under Alternative B to maintain populations of native wildlife. Long-term

contributions to naturalness may result from such actions if populations of native wildlife would

be maintained at natural levels or enhanced.

Under Alternative B, seasonal restrictions would be placed on competitive and speed events

authorized by SRPs in Category I or Category II tortoise habitat; mining restrictions would be

implemented to ensure no net loss of tortoise habitat; and conservation measures for endangered

species such as Sonoran pronghorn and special status species such as cactus ferruginous pygmy

owl would be enacted. Such management decisions may result in long-term, contributions to

naturalness if native or sensitive wildlife species would be conserved.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

All areas with wilderness characteristics would be located within SRMAs, with the exception of

the Sentinel Plain and Oatman Mountain areas. As Alternative B would not manage SRMA or

ERMA areas to protect wilderness characteristics, no future standards would be established for

visitation, facility development, or other recreation-related considerations that would necessarily

consider naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreation. The lack of management actions specifically protecting wilderness characteristics

could impact them.

Recreation management in the Gila Bend and Ajo SRMAs would focus on maintaining the low

intensity, dispersed use, and natural character of the area and would tend to support protecting

wilderness characteristics. Recreation management in the Saddle Mountain SRMA would support

more intensive recreation uses and could include actions such as developing additional vehicle

routes or hiking trails that would be less supportive of wilderness characteristics. Recreation

management in the Ajo Trails SRMA would focus on providing enjoyable motorized recreation

experiences, including the development of additional vehicle routes, thus slightly diminishing

wilderness characteristics along roads and primitive roads over the long-term. Wilderness

characteristics in the interior of these areas would be less affected by recreation management

actions.

Existing ROS management classes would be replaced by back country, front country, and

community interface settings under Alternative B. Approximately 76 percent of areas with

wilderness characteristics would be allocated as back country, which are nonmotorized, dispersed

recreation use areas that would support protecting wilderness characteristics. back country

settings, nonetheless, would be intersected by passage zones, which would provide motorized

recreation access into areas with wilderness characteristics. Impacts from passage zones would be

similar in effect to the semi-primitive motorized ROS settings described under Alternative A.

The remaining portions of areas with wilderness characteristics would be allocated mainly to front

country under Alternative B, which are settings for intensive resource-dependent recreation uses

and not generally conducive for protecting wilderness characteristics in the long-term. Impacts

from front country recreation uses would be similar in effect to the roaded natural and rural

ROS settings under Alternative A.

Since Alternative B would not manage any lands to protect wilderness characteristics,

future recreation standards and management prescriptions established for visitation, facility

development, and other recreation-related considerations would not be employed to protect or

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
580 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

maintain wilderness characteristics. Overall, long-term loss, impairment or diminishment of

wilderness characteristics due to recreation management would be minor to moderate in localized

areas, or foregone altogether in localized areas subject to development, or on lands more heavily

utilized by motorized users or by recreational target shooting. This could potentially affect up to

24 percent of areas with wilderness characteristics. On the other hand, about 76 percent of such

lands will be managed as back country, offering protection for wilderness characteristics. These

remaining areas with wilderness characteristics would experience negligible to no effects from the

absence of wilderness characteristics management emphasis.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC, which contains wilderness characteristics, would lose its

designation under Alternative B and vehicle travel through roads in the area would be allowed.

Such actions would slightly threaten known wilderness characteristics in the area, with potential

minor loss or diminishment of such values over the long term.

Designating the Agua Caliente Road as a 30-mile Back Country Byway would have no impact on

wilderness characteristics.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative B, vehicles would be limited to designated routes and a comprehensive travel

management system would be developed. Route miles could be reduced by an estimated 25

percent over the life of the plan. This would allow for maintenance of wilderness characteristics,

especially where wilderness characteristics are threatened or subject to heavy motorized use and

the proliferation of vehicle routes. This protection would be offered by the selective closure

of vehicle routes and/or re-routing of others.

Alternative B's closures and restrictions would primarily be on roads that provide duplicate

access, so these changes would not substantially change the overall array of motorized vehicle

access in areas with wilderness characteristics from Alternative A. However, where these route

vehicle limitations, restrictions, or closures overlap with wilderness characteristics, long-term

protective contributions to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation would result.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Decisions specifically intended to protect or restore native vegetation under Alternative B could

impact naturalness ranging from minor to moderate effects, more than Alternative A. Minimizing

the spread of nonnative, noxious species would impact the naturalness of the wilderness

characteristic areas over the long term, with potential moderate protective effects. Hindering

the spread of non-native vegetation would also assist with decreasing the size and intensity of

wildfires, and limiting ecosystem conversions of the non-fire adapted native vegetation of the

Sonoran Desert over the long-term. Long-term contributions to naturalness would result from the

use of native species and seeds in all restoration.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 581

Approximately 65,300 acres would be managed to VRM Class II standards and 119,500 acres to

VRM Class III standards, which would tend to support continued naturalness. Overall, Alternative

B represents 90 percent fewer acres of wilderness characteristics managed to Class III or Class IV

visual than under Alternative A, which would help to maintain naturalness and landscape-based

sightseeing. In addition, the emphasis on use of dark skies technologies would help to protect

wilderness and associated scenic characteristics under Alternative B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

As under Alternative A, no lands would be allocated to protecting wilderness characteristics.

Impacts would be slightly less than described under Alternative A due to more proactive

management for Travel, recreation management, visual resources, and cultural and heritage

resources. Overall, long-term loss, impairment or diminishment of wilderness characteristics

would be anticipated in localized areas, with major impacts occurring on less than 2 percent and

minor impacts on up to 23 percent of areas with wilderness characteristics. The remaining 75

percent of wilderness characteristics would experience minor to no effects from the absence of

management emphasis for wilderness.

4.12.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Three above-ground, one mile wide utility corridors would be allocated. These impacts would

accrue along the periphery of areas with wilderness characteristic. Impacts would be similar

to those described under Alternative A, except the potential footprint of effects on wilderness

characteristics would be smaller and more negligible. Acreage potentially affected would be

reduced by 1,200 acres, and restricted to lands near Bender Wash south of I-8.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

The prospective for improved forage or vegetation conditions from modified grazing practices

and a 31 percent reduction in AUMs could result in long-term vegetative and visual impacts on

the landscape that would maintain or improve naturalness. Forage allocated to livestock would

instead be available to native wildlife. The sights of cattle trailing, cow waste, and trampled

vegetation would be moderately reduced, enhancing wilderness characteristics. Impacts from

livestock infrastructure management would be similar as described under Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative B, all areas with wilderness characteristics would be located within SRMAs.

As Alternative B would not allocate lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics,

future standards established for visitation, facility development, and other recreation-related

considerations would be established that would not necessarily consider naturalness and

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
582 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation; thus impacting

wilderness characteristics. Recreation management, however, would focus on maintaining the

low intensity, dispersed use, and natural character of the area and would tend to support protecting

wilderness characteristics.

Existing ROS management classes would be replaced by RMZs settings under Alternative B.

The principal advantage of SRMA allocations under Alternative B would be that wilderness

characteristic would be managed subject to the RMZs displayed in Table 4.20, “Acres of Lands

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within SRMAs and Recreation Management

Settings, Alternative C” (p. 586) (although not managed to protect them).

Most current forms of dispersed recreation use, with the exception of target shooting, would have

negligible impacts on wilderness characteristics, as described previously under Alternative A.

The overall impact on wilderness characteristics from recreational target shooting would be

negligible under Alternative B. The use of firearms would has the same impacts as described

under Alternative A, except these effects would be limited to a much smaller area of the

Monument. The area most impacted would be located on lands west of the South Maricopa

Mountains wilderness. The reduced road network under this alternative would further offer fewer

suitable landscapes available for target shooting, limiting the breadth and scope of associated

impacts in potentially suitable target shooting areas. On the other hand, target shooters could be

more concentrated along the fewer miles of open road, thus increasing impacts in localized areas.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

The Vekol Valley ACEC designation would be removed; however, no impacts would occur

because the ACEC does not have wilderness characteristics. Along the Juan Bautista de Anza

NHT, emphasis would be placed on motorized access to interpretive facilities. Motorized access

would impact wilderness characteristics directly adjacent to the Anza NHT. Such impacts would

be similar to Alternative A and are considered inconsequential. Not designating I-8 or State Route

238 as National Scenic Byways would have no impact on wilderness characteristics.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative B, vehicles would be limited to designated routes and a comprehensive travel

management system would be developed. This would allow for maintenance of wilderness

characteristics, especially where wilderness characteristics are threatened by heavy motorized use

and proliferation of vehicle routes. The selective closure of vehicle routes or re-routing of others

would constitute most specific route designations.

Alternative B would reduce vehicle route system miles by over 12 percent. Route closures and

restrictions would primarily be on roads that provide duplicate access, so these changes would

not considerably change the motorized vehicle access from Alternative A. However, where these

route limitations, closures, or restrictions overlap with wilderness characteristics, long-term

contributions for maintaining naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation would result.

Potential impacts from use of existing roads to wilderness characteristics are reflected by

reductions in the opportunity for solitude, changing the quality of primitive, unconfined

recreational experiences, and detracting from the naturalness of an area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 583

The motorized vehicle travel route network designated in Alternative B represents slightly more

protection for wilderness characteristics than provided by Alternative A. Closures or restrictions

on about 70 miles of road and primitive road would protect or enhance wilderness characteristics,

mainly in the Sand Tank Mountains and White Hills areas. Wilderness characteristics elsewhere

would not be as well protected.

The use of designated roads and primitive roads by motorized vehicles could impact the

opportunity for solitude most of all. These types of impacts are most often found and most intense

during the winter months (November through April). The greater the number of routes within

areas of wilderness characteristics, the greater the potential to impact wilderness characteristics.

Under existing guidance, motorized vehicles were generally allowed to pull off from the

centerline of an existing trail as far as 300 feet onto public land. Under this alternative, the

vehicle would only be allowed to travel 25 feet from centerline, greatly reducing the potential

disturbance footprint on wilderness characteristics.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts are similar to those described for Alternative A.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Approximately 146,000 acres in the SDNM would be managed to VRM Class II standards, which

would support continued naturalness. Approximately 7,000 acres would be managed as VRM

III. Overall, Alternative B represents fewer acres of wilderness characteristics managed to Class

III and IV than under Alternative A, which would help to maintain naturalness. In addition, the

emphasis on use of dark skies technologies would help to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative B. However, due to the Proclamation and protection of Monument objects, coupled

with associated restrictions on travel, mineral development, and other land use authorizations,

degradation of current visual and scenic landscape conditions is not expected.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

Like Alternative A, no lands would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Impacts

would slightly less than described under Alternative A due to more proactive management for

travel, recreation management, visual resources, and cultural and heritage resources. Overall,

long-term loss, impairment or diminishment of wilderness characteristics would be anticipated in

localized areas, with major impacts occurring on less than 1 percent and minor impacts on up

to 4 percent of areas with wilderness characteristics. The remaining 95 percent of wilderness

characteristics would experience minor, negligible or no effects from the absence of wilderness

characteristics management emphasis, due to the overarching protection established by the

Monument Proclamation.

4.12.5. ALTERNATIVE C

In general, Alternative C would contribute to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation to a much greater degree than Alternatives A and B.

This is due primarily to the allocation of 240,300 acres (128,100 acres in Lower Sonoran and

112,200 acres in SDNM) as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics (see Map 2-4c).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
584 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In the Lower Sonoran, although land uses, such as major mineral extraction or new LUAs

servicing valid existing rights, could still occur in areas of wilderness characteristics, managing

these lands would place a priority on directing incompatible land uses to other locations or

requiring that they be implemented in a manner that would minimize or mitigate impacts to

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation.

In the SDNM, protecting wilderness characteristics would be a priority for lands allocated for this

purpose when approval of other land uses or management actions is being considered.

Under Alternative C, private or state inholdings would be acquired when available; closed

vehicle routes would be converted for use by bicycle, equestrian, or hiking trails, as appropriate;

existing, unused disturbed areas would be rehabilitated to meet natural resource restoration

objectives; recreation facilities would be developed when compatible with protecting wilderness

characteristics; new LUAs would be excluded to minimize impacts on lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics; compatibility of other proposed projects with maintenance of

wilderness characteristics would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis; and commercial recreation

operations would be permitted only if consistent with wilderness characteristics. Such actions in

both Decision Areas would result in contributions to naturalness and outstanding opportunities

for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation within lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics.

Under Alternative C, the allocation of WHAs (Lower Sonoran), removal of ineffective wildlife

water developments, lack of new wildlife water construction, prohibition on wood harvesting,

allocation of the Saddle Mountain SCRMA (Lower Sonoran), greater allocation of VRM Classes

II and III, reclassification of all livestock grazing allotments to perennial use only, allocation of

SRMAs coinciding with all areas of wilderness characteristic, restrictions to motorized travel, and

enlargement of the Coffeepot - Batamote Botanical ACEC all would contribute substantially to

maintenance or enhancement of naturalness.

4.12.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

Actions and impacts from air quality decisions would be the same as under Alternative B.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Implementation of Alternative C measures for cultural and heritage resources would contribute to

naturalness to a greater degree than Alternatives A and B due to increased emphasis on cultural

resource protection and less emphasis on development for public visitation.

4.12.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

In the Lower Sonoran, impacts from lands and realty would be similar to those described under

Alternative B. However, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics allocations would

be exclusion areas for utility-scale renewable energy development, LUAs and multiuse utility

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 585

corridors. Accordingly, impacts from such LUAs would mainly be indirect, chiefly visual and

overall considered negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative B.

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from management of minerals resources would be the same as those described under

Alternative B, with one exception. Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be closed to mineral material sales. Naturalness, solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation

indicators would not be impacted by discretionary mineral material sales for rocks, gravel, sand,

granite and other common materials.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Four expansive WHAs would be allocated to protect core areas of wildlife habitat and would

moderately contribute to the naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation exhibited on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The

allocation of WHAs would overlap and moderately support the maintenance of wilderness

characteristics on approximately 48 percent (117,100 acres) of lands managed to protect such

characteristics, especially in the Gila Bend and Ajo Block areas.

Impacts from reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of native species using

existing earthen livestock waters as refugia for native wildlife, where livestock grazing would

no longer permitted; and the restricting or mitigating the placement LUAs, and fences to avoid

adverse impacts to wildlife would be the same as under Alternative B.

Impacts under Alternative C due to restrictions placed on competitive and speed events authorized

by SRPs in Category I and/or Category II tortoise habitat, mining restrictions (Lower Sonoran)

in tortoise habitat, and conservation measures for sensitive species such as Sonoran pronghorn

and cactus ferruginous pygmy owl would be enacted. Such management decisions may result in

long-term contributions to naturalness on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

If native, sensitive wildlife species would be conserved, more so than under Alternative B as

additional management actions aimed at this goal would be implemented under Alternative C.

Overall, implementation of the ecological and biological resources measures under Alternative C

would contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than would implementation of Alternatives A

and B by protecting core areas of wildlife habitat, emphasizing connectivity of wildlife habitat,

removing ineffective wildlife water developments, lack of new wildlife water construction,

prohibiting wood harvesting, requiring use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, and applying

measures to maintain populations of native wildlife, especially sensitive species.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative C, nearly all areas with wilderness characteristics would be located within

SRMAs, with the exception of the Sentinel Plain area south of I-8. Compared to Alternative B,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
586 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

with its focus on motorized recreation opportunities, recreation management in Alternative C

would be more compatible with protecting wilderness characteristics with a more balanced set

of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The future standards established for

visitation, facility development, and other recreation-related activities in the SRMAs would

consider naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreation.

Areas with wilderness characteristics that are not allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics would be released from such management considerations. This action could result

in a gradual impairment or loss of wilderness characteristics in unallocated areas over the life of

the plan, totaling up to 148,400 acres, or 39 percent of all lands with wilderness characteristics.

These figures represent a worst case scenario. Actual impacts are anticipated to be much less

than described under Alternatives A and B due to other land use operational procedures and

protective prescriptions.

Impacts from front country, back country, community interface and passage zones would be

similar to Alternative B. On areas with wilderness characteristics not established to protect such

characteristics, approximately 66 percent of lands would be managed as back country. Allocated

back country settings would support protecting naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive recreation. Approximately 95 percent of lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics would be located in back country settings, which would support protecting these

characteristics as identified in Table 4.20, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness

Characteristics within SRMAs and Recreation Management Settings, Alternative C” (p. 586).

Table 4.20. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within SRMAs

and Recreation Management Settings, Alternative C

Recreation Management Setting

SRMA

Back Country Front Country

Community

Interface

Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics

Ajo 58,200 600 0 58,800

Gila Bend Mountains 50,100 1,300 0 51,400

Saddle Mountain 14,700 3,200 0 17,900

SDNM 110,200 2,000 0 112,200

SRMA allocations under Alternative C would substantially contribute to naturalness and

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation than would Alternatives A and B.

Impacts from the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA would be similarly compatible with protecting

wilderness characteristics as described under Alternative B. Management of the Saddle Mountain

and Ajo SRMAs under Alternative C would be more compatible with protecting wilderness

characteristics due to a greater focus on nonmotorized recreation uses.

Actions and impacts resulting from administration of SRPs would be similar to Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative C would enlarge the Coffeepot – Batamote ACEC to 63,300 from Alternative A

and B’s 8,900 acres, overlapping with approximately 12,800 acres of lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. Measures to conserve the outstanding botanical diversity and sensitive

plant and wildlife species in the ACEC would preserve naturalness. Designating the Agua Caliente

Road as a 30 mile Back Country Byway would have no impact on wilderness characteristics.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 587

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative C would close, limit, limit seasonally, or administratively restrict up to 30 percent

(estimated 500 miles) of currently existing road mileage than would be instigated under

Alternative A, and an estimated 101 road miles limited or close to public use than under

Alternative B. Route closures in the Ajo SRMA would moderately contribute to protecting

wilderness characteristics by decreasing motorized vehicle access and increasing naturalness and

opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation.

Projected road closures in the Saddle Mountain SRMA would moderately contribute to protection

of wilderness characteristics by closing a few key routes and increasing naturalness and

opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation. Route designation projections for the Gila

Bend Mountains SRMA could support protecting wilderness characteristics if certain routes

are closed during travel management planning. Long-term contributions to naturalness and

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would for the most

part occur in areas where projected route restrictions or closures to motorized travel overlap with

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

As under Alternative B, localized harvesting of plant materials in the Lower Sonoran would result

in short-term, minor, detractions from naturalness. Under Alternative C, long-term impacts pacts

from vegetation resources would be similar to those described under Alternative B, including

long-term contributions to naturalness resulting from the prohibition on wood harvesting, use of

native species in restoration projects, and control of invasive species which would limit the spread

of non-native vegetation and reduce the size and intensity of wildfires.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative C, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed

under VRM Class II, as identified in Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness

Characteristics and VRM Classes, Alternative C” (p. 587). Accordingly, there would be

few noticeable visual intrusions to distract from the naturalness of the areas. VRM Class II

allocations would safeguard naturalness and scenic vistas in lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, more so than under Alternative A and B. Alternatives A and B do not contain

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Table 4.21. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics and VRM

Classes, Alternative C

Alternative Class I Class II Class III Class IV

Lower Sonoran

Alternative C 0 128,100 0 0

Alternative D 0 276,500 0 0

Alternative E 0 55,400 0 0

SDNM

Alternative C 0 112,200 0 0

Alternative D 153,000 0 0 0

Alternative E 0 110,900 0 0

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
588 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunity for unconfined and primitive recreation would be

maintained and receive priority management attention on 128,100 acres of lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics, representing 46 percent of lands with wilderness characteristics

in the Lower Sonoran. For the most part, this would prevent the any level of impairment or loss of

naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or loss or dilapidation of solitude and primitive

recreation opportunities through resource development, motorized use, or increased visitor or

commercial uses on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Wilderness characteristics on the remaining 54 percent of area with wilderness characteristics

could be diminished or foregone over the long-term. Impacts, whatever their varying magnitudes,

would derive primarily from increased motorized recreation use, mining, utility-scale renewable

energy development and lands and realty actions. However, a designated and implemented travel

route management system would further mitigate or diminish impacts on lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. Overall, impacts to areas of wilderness characteristics not allocated as

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be considered minor to major.

4.12.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

No new multiuse utility corridors and only underground LUA uses in the Gila Bend to Santa Rosa

and I-8corridor would be authorized. No communication sites would be allowed. These actions

would contribute to maintaining naturalness more than Alternatives A and B.

Impacts along I-8 would be similar as described under Alternative B, affecting lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics along the northern parts of Bender Wash. The sights, sounds

and intrusion of roads, utilities and communication facilities in this corridor would be less

apparent in areas of wilderness characteristics to the south allocated as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A and B, except no ephemeral grazing

would occur. This re-classification would enhance naturalness in the long term as ephemeral

forage would not be removed and would become available to wildlife. The sight, sound, smell

and other impacts from large ephemeral turnouts on the SDNM would not occur, enhancing

naturalness and maintaining opportunities for primitive recreation in a more natural appearing and

untrammeled environment. Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would have both

amplified and proactive contributions to naturalness, solitude and primitive recreation values.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Overall, implementation of the ecological, biological and vegetative resources measures under

Alternative C would contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than would implementation of

Alternatives A and B by protecting core areas of wildlife habitat, emphasizing connectivity of

wildlife habitat, removing ineffective wildlife water developments, lack of new wildlife water

construction, prohibiting wood harvesting, requiring use of native vegetation in restoration efforts,

and applying measures to maintain populations of native wildlife, especially sensitive species.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 589

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

SRMA allocation of the entire SDNM under Alternative C would substantially contribute to

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation than would

Alternatives A and B. Compared to Alternative B, with its focus on motorized recreation

opportunities, recreation management in Alternative C would be more compatible with

protecting wilderness characteristics with a more balanced set of motorized and nonmotorized

recreation opportunities. Future standards established for visitation, facility development, and

other recreation-related activities in the SDNM would consider naturalness and outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation.

Existing ROS management classes would be replaced by zones under Alternative C. Areas with

wilderness characteristics not allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

would be managed as the RMZs displayed in Table 4.20, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics within SRMAs and Recreation Management Settings, Alternative

C” (p. 586).

Most current forms of recreation use, with the exception of target shooting, would have negligible

impacts on areas with wilderness characteristics, as described in Alternative A.

The overall impact on wilderness characteristics from recreational target shooting would be

negligible under Alternative C. The use of firearms would have the same impacts as described

under Alternative B. except adaptive and proactive management would be applied to these lands

to manage shooting. The reduced road network under this alternative would further offer fewer

suitable landscapes available for target shooting, limiting the breadth and scope of associated

impacts in potentially suitable target shooting areas. On the other hand, target shooters could be

more concentrated along open roads, thus increasing impacts in localized areas.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Removal of the Vekol Valley ACEC would have the same lack of affect on wilderness

characteristics as under Alternative B. The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would be managed with a

priority on scientific research opportunities while protecting the historic landscape elements and

cultural resources, while providing compatible public use and interpretive opportunities. Impacts

to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation are

not anticipated on areas of wilderness characteristics adjacent to the Anza NHT.

Designation of State Route 238 as a National Scenic Byway would maintain naturalness, through

the prescription and maintenance of more natural appearing Sonoran Desert landscapes along I-8

and State Route 238. Impacts would moderate along I-8 and negligible along State Route 238.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Closure of over 36 percent of road miles in the SDNM, as compared with the road network

prescribed under Alternative A, would contribute to wilderness characteristics maintenance or

enhancement by closing key routes and increasing naturalness and opportunities for primitive,

unconfined recreation. Long-term contributions to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would occur in areas where these route restrictions

or closures to motorized travel overlap with lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Compared with Alternative A, Alternative C represents a moderate protective enhancement

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
590 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

for lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, both in lands allocated, and lands not

allocated, to protect wilderness characteristics.

The motorized vehicle route network presented in Alternative C represents considerably more

protection for wilderness characteristics than provided by the travel management networks under

Alternative A and B. Closures or restrictions on over 212 miles of road and primitive road would

protect wilderness characteristics in all lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The

Alternative C route management network reduces impacts from road use on lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics, increases solitude values, and improves the extent and quality

of primitive, unconfined recreational experiences. Under this alternative, vehicles would be

allowed to travel only 25 feet from the centerline, thus greatly reducing the potential footprint of

staging and camping disturbances within areas of wilderness characteristics.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts are similar to Alternative B with one exception; ephemeral forage would remain on

the lands, enhancing naturalness and maintaining current aesthetic values valued by primitive

recreationists.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

No impacts are anticipated on wilderness values from VRM management. Under Alternative

C, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed under VRM II,

as identified in Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics

and VRM Classes, Alternative C” (p. 587). This VRM allocation would contribute toward

naturalness of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, appreciably more so than

under Alternatives A and B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation would be

maintained and receive priority management attention on 112,200 acres of lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics, representing 73 percent of Monument areas with wilderness

characteristics. For the most part, this allocation would have moderate influence in preventing

the loss of naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or loss or degradation of solitude and

primitive recreation opportunities, whether through increased visitor use, increasing motorized

activity, land use authorizations, or commercial uses.

Areas with wilderness characteristics not managed to protect wilderness characteristics total

40,800 acres, representing 27 percent of the Monument’s areas with wilderness characteristics.

Over the life of the plan, wilderness characteristics on up to 12,200 acres, or about 25 percent

of unallocated lands, could experience minor loss or diminishment due to recreation uses,

infrastructure installed to protect Monument objects, cultural resource management, and other

land use authorizations. Overall, Alternative C represents more potential loss of 38 percent more

wilderness characteristics than described under Alternative A due to more proactive visitor use,

cultural resource, and travel route management, along with associated infrastructure.

Unallocated areas with wilderness characteristics would be managed to VRM Class II (see

Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics and VRM Classes,

Alternative C” (p. 587)). The VRM classifications would, for the most part, maintain naturalness

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 591

within areas of wilderness characteristics not allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Protection visually would be much greater than presented by Alternatives A and

B, because all acreage would be managed as VRM Class II.

4.12.6. ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would place the greatest emphasis on resource protection and conservation and

on opportunities to visit remote settings and experience nonmotorized, primitive recreation

opportunities. All areas with wilderness characteristics in both Decision Areas would be allocated

as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative D, or approximately

429,500 acres (276,500 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 153,000 acres in the SDNM, see Map

2-4d). Management under Alternative D would be the most protective of naturalness and

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation among all alternatives.

Under Alternative D, any proposed developments, actions, or other uses would be required to

consider and maintain naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation within the 429,500 acres that would be managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Additionally, a prohibition on wood harvesting, widespread allocation of VRM

Class I in the SDNM, discontinuance of all livestock grazing, maximum restrictions and closures

to motorized travel, and designation of certain expansive ACECs would contribute substantially

to protecting wilderness characteristics.

Impact analysis on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics described under

Alternative D are based on the assumption that all the units contain wilderness characteristics,

including all lands included in the citizen’s proposal. It may not necessarily be the case, based on

BLM’s knowledge of the Planning Area, that the entire citizen’s proposal addressed in Alternative

D contains wilderness characteristics.

4.12.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts for air quality decisions would be the same as under Alternative B.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Cultural resource decisions under Alternative D would likely contribute to naturalness to a greater

degree than under Alternatives A, B, and C due to increased emphasis on resource protection and

less emphasis on development for public visitation.

4.12.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from allocation of utility-scale renewable energy development and utility corridors

would be similar as described under Alternative C. All lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics in the Lower Sonoran would be exclusion areas. Such decisions would contribute

to maintaining naturalness and natural landscapes to a greater degree than all other alternatives.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
592 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, closing all livestock grazing allotments when current permits expire

would support long-term maintenance of naturalness. All forage allocated to livestock would

instead be available to native wildlife. Compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, implementation of

the Alternative D grazing management would result in increased contributions to naturalness.

Fencing, corrals, roads, wells, staging areas and other infrastructure affiliated with livestock

operations could be removed and the landscapes restored or reclaimed. There would be no visual,

aesthetic, trampling, or olfactory evidence of large turnouts of livestock, creating more natural

and undeveloped landscapes.

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Restrictions, prohibitions, exclusions and closures on mining, leasing, saleables and exploration

would provide the maximum protection to all 276,500 acres of lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. Impacts could still occur from leasable and locatable minerals, but

these would represent minor to moderate localized impacts and be similar to those described

under Alternatives B and C.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Under Alternative D, dispersed, undeveloped recreation opportunities would be emphasized.

Route systems would be designated that decrease wildlife habitat fragmentation, wildlife

disturbance, and vegetation damage. Unlike Alternative A, B and C, land use authorizations,

mining sites, developments, facilities, and activities would be mitigated with particular attention

to maintaining wildlife habitat and movement corridors. Such actions would support protecting

wilderness characteristics on approximately 119,800 additional acres (27 percent) of lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Impacts could be moderate to major depending

on location. Impacts would take the form of added protection to naturalness and outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. Hunting and wildlife viewing

opportunities could especially improve.

The removal of all wildlife water developments would provide moderate long-term enhancements

to naturalness due to the removal of man-made structures in lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics; however, a potential major long-term loss of naturalness, hunting and wildlife

observation opportunities, would result due to loss of wildlife populations cut off from natural

water sources and dependent on removed artificial wildlife waters.

Impacts from reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of native wildlife; existing

earthen livestock waters being used as refugia for native wildlife where livestock grazing is no

longer permitted; and the restricting or placing LUAs, and fences to avoid adverse impacts to

wildlife would be similar to Alternatives B and C. Overall, however, implementation of the

ecological and biological resources decisions under Alternative D would detract from naturalness

in contrast to B and C due to the removal of all wildlife water catchments, but would contribute to

naturalness compared to Alternative A due to decision.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 593

Overall, recreation management in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative D would contribute to

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation to a substantially

greater degree than all other alternatives under consideration. Alternative D would focus on

nonmotorized, low intensity recreation, which would help protect wilderness characteristics.

All lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed in concert with

ERMA areas, with approximately 276,500 acres overlapping (see Table 4.22, “Acres of Lands

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within Recreation Management Areas and

Settings, Alternative D” (p. 593)). Allocating lands to ERMA in the Saddle Mountain, Gila

Bend Mountains, and Ajo areas could, in some circumstances, contribute in loss or damage to

wilderness characteristics, primarily because proactive planning and management of recreation

uses supporting and protecting wilderness characteristics to meet resource goals and objectives

that are lacking under Alternative A would not occur. SRPs would not be issued for commercial,

competitive, or vending under Alternative D, further enhancing solitude and primitive recreation.

Table 4.22. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within

Recreation Management Areas and Settings, Alternative D

Setting

SRMA or ERMA

Back Country Front Country Community Interface

Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics

ERMA (no SRMAs

would be allocated in

Alternative D).

0 0 0 276,500

SDNM 149,500 3,500 0 153,000

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, four ACECs would be designated to protect and conserve cultural and

natural resource values. These ACECs overlap approximately 148,100 acres (34 percent) of lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics; thus contributing substantially to naturalness.

Unlike Alternative A, ACEC management prescriptions under Alternative D would have

moderate to major effect on preserving lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Not designating the Agua Caliente Road as a 30 mile Back Country Byway would have no

impact on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Effects would be as described

under Alternative A.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Closure of an estimated 53 percent of motorized road network miles prescribed under Alternative

A to motorized recreation use through travel management decisions and coinciding with lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics would decrease impacts of motorized vehicles

and human uses. Moreover, Alternative D’s potential travel management motorized network

would support long-term maintenance of naturalness and primitive, unconfined recreation, with

unroaded tracts to a greater extent than any other alternative.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, long-term impacts from vegetation resources would be similar to those

under Alternative B and C, including long-term contributions to naturalness resulting from the

prohibition on wood harvesting, use of native species in restoration projects, and control of

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
594 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

invasive species which would limit the spread of non-native vegetation and would reduce the size

and intensity of wildfires.

From Visual Resource Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, all lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed

with VRM Class II designations. These lands would receive nearly the highest visual and scenic

resource protection, with greater wilderness characteristic acreage under VRM Class II than

under any other alternative.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

All areas with wilderness characteristics in the Lower Sonoran would be managed to protect those

characteristics. Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunity for unconfined and primitive recreation

would be maintained and receive priority management attention on 276,500 acres. For the most

part, this allocation would prevent the loss of naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or

loss or degradation of solitude and primitive recreation opportunities, whether through increased

visitor use, increasing motorized activity, or prohibited commercial uses.

All Lower Sonoran lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed for protection of

wilderness characteristics over the long term, with management augmented by VRM Class II

visual resource protection allocations. Alternative D represents the largest contiguous extent of

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics allocations under any of the alternatives.

4.12.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

No multiuse utility corridors would be designated and no new LUAs would be allowed. These

decisions would contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than all other alternatives and protect

wilderness characteristics over the largest possible area.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, closing all livestock grazing allotments when current permits expire would

support long-term maintenance of naturalness as all forage allocated to livestock would instead is

available to native wildlife. Compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, implementation of Alternative

D’s grazing management would result in increased naturalness. Fencing, corrals, roads, wells,

staging areas and other infrastructure affiliated with livestock operations would be removed and

the landscapes restored or reclaimed. Evidence of livestock trampling and waste would disappear

over time as well. Temporary sights, sounds, smells and aesthetic impacts associated with large

ephemeral turnouts would be avoided. Consequently, opportunities for solitude and primitive

recreation would be maintained or even enhanced due to the absence of human activity and

infrastructure associated with livestock grazing management.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 595

Impacts are similar to Alternative D, described under the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Compared with Alternative A, impacts on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

from recreation management would be considered negligible.

In the SDNM, 100 percent of allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be within the SDNM SRMA, of which 98 percent are in the back country RMZ as identified in

Table 4.22, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics within Recreation

Management Areas and Settings, Alternative D” (p. 593). Allocation of SRMAs would have

impacts on lands allocated to protect wilderness characteristics. Future standards established for

visitation, facility development, and other recreation-related activities must consider naturalness

and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. In addition,

Alternative D would focus on nonmotorized and low intensity recreation, which would help

protect and add to wilderness characteristics. All wilderness characteristic lands would be

allocated as such, with these values paramount, with the exception of Monument objects, in all

land use decisions, allocations and planning.

The prohibition of target shooting throughout the SDNM would maintain naturalness and

opportunities for solitude because copious shooter refuse (e.g., spent shells, targets, trash),

damage or destruction of plants, rocks and protected Monument objects, and the unrestrained and

inescapable sound of gunfire would be removed from the SDNM landscape. All direct and indirect

recreational target shooting impacts would be eliminated under this alternative, as opposed to the

more wide-spread, but localized, target shooting impacts described under Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Removal of the Vekol Valley ACEC would have the same lack of impact to lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics as described under Alternative B. The Juan Bautista de Anza

NHT would be managed with a priority on protecting cultural resources while providing some

scientific research opportunities that are non-ground disturbing. Impacts to naturalness and

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation are not expected on

allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics next to the Anza NHT.

Designation of I-8 and SR-238 as National Scenic Byways would have no impact on wilderness

characteristics except to emphasize maintenance of current scenic values in the Bender Wash area

along the south side of the highway.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Closure of over 62 percent of road miles within the SDNM to motorized recreation use through

travel management decisions where routes traverse lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics would eliminate impacts of motorized vehicles and human uses in these areas.

Alternative D’s travel management prescriptions support long-term maintenance and protection of

naturalness and primitive, unconfined recreation to a greater extent than any other alternative.

The landscapes with wilderness characteristic are the largest and most intact land areas brought

forward in the range of action alternatives due to the road and travel management decisions

under Alternative D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
596 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

All lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics within the SDNM would be closed OHV

allocation areas. No new roads could be constructed, providing the maximum protection over the

long-term from new roads or primitive roads.

The motorized vehicle route network designated in Alternative D represents considerably more

protection for lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics than provided by the travel

management networks under Alternative A, B and C. Closures or restrictions on over 370

miles of road and primitive road would protect or have major enhancing effects on wilderness

characteristics on all lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The Alternative D travel

management network eliminates impacts from road use on wilderness characteristics; increases

solitude values to the broadest extent in the SDNM wilderness characteristic areas, presents the

largest and least fragmented wilderness characteristic areas, and improves the extent and quality of

primitive, unconfined recreational experiences across the largest scope of any of the alternatives.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Visual Resource Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative D, all SDNM lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be managed under VRM Class I. These lands would receive the strongest visual and scenic

protection.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

All areas with wilderness characteristics in the SDNM would be managed to protect those

characteristics. Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunity for unconfined and primitive recreation

would be maintained and receive priority management attention on 153,000 acres allocated as

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. For the most part, this allocation would

prevent the loss of naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or loss or degradation of

solitude and primitive recreation opportunities, whether through increased visitor use, increasing

motorized activity, or by commercial or recreation uses.

All SDNM areas with wilderness characteristics would be managed as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics over the long term, with management augmented by a closed OHV

area designation, maximum visual resource protection, and the most acreage allocated as lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Moreover, the lands allocated under Alternative D

encompass five large tracts. This represents the largest contiguous extent of lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics allocated under any of the alternatives.

4.12.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Under Alternative E, approximately 166,300 (55,400 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 110,900

acres in the SDNM) would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

(Map 2-4e). Implementation of Alternative E would contribute to protecting wilderness

characteristics to a lesser degree than would Alternatives C and D, but would support protecting

wilderness characteristics to a substantially greater degree than would Alternatives A and B.

This is due primarily to the allocation of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 597

within which any proposed developments, actions, or other uses, would be required to consider

and maintain naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreation. In addition, the allocation of one WHA to protect core areas of wildlife habitat,

case-by-case management of artificial wildlife waters, prohibition on wood harvesting, allocation

of VRM Class II, allocation of SRMAs, restrictions or closures to motorized travel, and

designation of four ACECs all would contribute substantially to safeguarding wilderness

characteristics in areas not allocated to protect wilderness characteristics.

4.12.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Wilderness Characteristics

Actions and impacts from air quality decisions would be the same as under Alternative B.

From Cultural and Heritage Resource on Wilderness Characteristics

Overall impacts from cultural resource management including an emphasis on resource protection,

scientific research, and inventory with some sites would be made available for public use, group

use, and heritage sites would be similar to Alternative C.

4.12.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from decisions relating to utility-scale renewable energy development, multiuse utility

corridors, LUAs, and other lands uses would be similar to Alternative D on lands managed

to protect wilderness characteristics and similar to Alternative B for areas with wilderness

characteristics not managed to protect those characteristics.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative E in the Lower Sonoran, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

would be managed under a perennial-ephemeral grazing regime, which would have impacts

similar to a combination of Alternatives A and C. Livestock forage allocations, livestock use

adjustments, changes to grazing management systems, and construction or abandonment of

rangeland developments would include strong consideration for wilderness characteristics.

Areas with wilderness characteristics that would not be allocated to protect those characteristics

(225,500 acres) would be subject to impacts similar to those described under Alternatives A

and C. Implementation of Alternative E would contribute to naturalness to a lesser degree than

Alternative D (where all allotments would be closed), similar to Alternatives B and C, and to a

small but greater degree than Alternative A (current management practices) due to consideration

and protection offered allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

From Minerals Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from mineral management would be similar to Alternative C.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
598 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Impacts from reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of native wildlife; using

existing earthen livestock waters as refugia for native wildlife where livestock grazing is no

longer permitted; maintenance of wildlife habitat connectivity; and restricting or mitigating the

placement of LUAs, and fences to avoid adverse impacts to wildlife would be similar to all other

Action Alternatives. Overall, implementation of the ecological and biological resources measures

under Alternative E would contribute to naturalness to a similar degree as under Alternative C

and a to greater degree than under Alternatives A, B, and D due to emphasizing connectivity of

wildlife habitat, use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, measures to maintain populations

of native wildlife, and a lack of measures to unnaturally manipulate native wildlife populations.

As under Alternative D, the Gila Bend Mountains WHA would be allocated and managed to

protect native vegetation and expansive, un-fragmented wildlife habitat and movement corridors.

Under Alternative E; however, there would be no overlap between lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics and the WHA as there would be under Alternative D. The Gila Bend

Mountains WHA would contribute to the naturalness of lands with wilderness characteristics not

managed to protect such characteristics under Alternative E.

Development of wildlife waters on a case-by-case basis would have impacts on areas with

wilderness characteristics similar to those described in Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Allocation of SRMAs would have moderate impacts to lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics as future standards established for visitation, facility development, and other

recreation-related considerations would consider and be guided by maintaining naturalness and

outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. The Saddle Mountain

SRMA would help protect lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, although its

emphasis on community recreation with a balance of motorized and nonmotorized recreation

would allow moderate degradation of some unmanaged wilderness characteristics. The Ajo

SRMA would help maintain lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics by focusing

intensive motorized recreation outside of these areas. In both SRMAs, Backcountry recreation

settings will maintain wilderness characteristics of lands managed to protect such characteristics

(see Table 4.24, “Alternative A Mineral Entry Status” (p. 668)). In summary, impacts from

SRMA allocations under Alternative E are similar to Alternative A, except that the SRMAs under

Alternative E are driven by benefit-based prescriptions and outcomes.

Table 4.23. Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics Within SRMAs

and Recreation Management Settings, Alternative E

Setting

SRMA

Back Country Front Country

Community

Interface

Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics

Ajo 45,500 0 0 45,500

Saddle Mountain 4,600 0 0 5,500

SDNM 107,400 3,500 0 110,900

Management of SRMAs where no areas are managed to protect wilderness characteristics may

maintain such characteristics as an incidental result of recreation decisions; however, the focus

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 599

of management would not be intended to protect characteristics and could likely result in loss

of those characteristics in the long-term. The Gila Bend SRMA would contribute to protecting

wilderness characteristics to an extent similar to Alternative B.

All 55,400 acres allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

assigned to the back country (46,400 acres in the Ajo SRMA and 4,600 acres in the Saddle

Mountain SRMA), which would help protect wilderness characteristics, ensuring maximum

protection. This is similar to Alternative A, where ROS classifications were applied.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Under Alternative E, four ACECs would be designated. The Coffeepot-Batamote-Sauceda

ACECand the Saddle Mountain ACECwould, respectively, overlap 44,400 and 4,600 acres of

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics and would overlap adjoining area with

wilderness characteristics that would not be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. The Cuerda de Lena ACEC would also overlap with areas with wilderness

characteristics that would not be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The focus

on protection and conservation of cultural and natural resource values of these ACECs would

contribute to maintaining naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation. Under Alternative E, prospective impacts would be greater than under

Alternatives A, B, and C but less than under Alternative D because fewer acres would be

allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative E than under

Alternative D.

Designating the Agua Caliente Road as a 30 mile Back Country Byway would have no impact on

wilderness characteristics.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative E would close, limit or seasonally restrict motorized use on an estimated 275 more

miles (31 percent) of road miles than under Alternative A and 140 more miles than under

Alternative B, and would open 10 more miles than under Alternative C and 260 more miles

than under Alternative D.

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics totaling 55,400 acres, would be limited OHV

use areas, which would assist in the protection of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation in such areas. Overall, route closures and restrictions

would generally have the same effect as described under Alternative C for lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics. Areas with wilderness characteristics not managed as such

would be much less protected than described under Alternative D, but much more protected by a

designated travel route network than described under Alternatives A or B.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

As under Alternatives B and C, small, localized harvesting of plant materials would result in

short-term detractions from naturalness. Under Alternative E, long-term supporting impacts from

vegetation resources would be similar to those under Alternative B, C, and D including long-term

contributions to naturalness resulting from the prohibition on wood harvesting, use of native

species in restoration projects, and control of invasive species which would limit the spread of

non-native vegetation and would reduce the size and intensity of wildfires.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
600 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed to VRM classes as

depicted in Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics and

VRM Classes, Alternative C” (p. 587). VRM allocations would support protecting wilderness

characteristics on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics with all acres assigned to

VRM II. Alternative E would provide less continuance to naturalness than Alternatives C and

D, but more than under Alternatives A or B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunity for unconfined and primitive recreation would

be maintained and receive priority management attention on 55,400 acres, or 18 percent of

Lower Sonoran lands. For the most part, allocations to lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics would prevent the loss of naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or loss or

degradation of solitude and primitive recreation opportunities on allocated lands, whether through

increased visitor use, increasing motorized activity, or prohibited commercial uses.

A total of 225,500 acres, representing 82 percent of area with wilderness characteristics in the

Lower Sonoran would not be managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Protecting wilderness

characteristics would not be a management priority for these lands. Moderate impacts on areas

with wilderness characteristics would be anticipated from mineral and energy development, new

roads and utility corridors, increased motorized recreation uses, and other land use authorizations.

However, major loss or impairment of wilderness characteristics would be localized to surface

disturbing activities.

Areas with wilderness characteristics not managed to protect such characteristics would be

managed to the VRM classes as listed in Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect

Wilderness Characteristics and VRM Classes, Alternative C” (p. 587) described under Alternative

E. In areas with wilderness characteristics, VRM classifications would contribute to protecting

wilderness characteristics and associated naturalness more so than under Alternatives A and B,

similar to Alternative C, and much less than under Alternative D.

4.12.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts from lands and realty decisions under Alternative E would be similar to those described

for Alternative C.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Characteristics

Areas with wilderness characteristics not allocated to protect those characteristics (42,100 acres

in the SDNM) would have impacts as described under C, except that ephemeral grazing would

occur. Ephemeral grazing would temporarily detract from or impair naturalness in the short

term, as ephemeral forage would be removed and not available to wildlife. The sights, sounds,

smells, and other impacts from large ephemeral turnouts on the SDNM would occur, detracting

from naturalness and hindering visitors seeking opportunities for primitive recreation in a more

natural and untrammeled environment.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 601

From a livestock grazing management perspective, implementation of Alternative E would

contribute to naturalness to a lesser degree than Alternative D, similar to Alternative C, and to a

small but greater degree than Alternatives A and B.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness

Characteristics

Overall, implementation of the ecological and biological resources measures under Alternative E

would contribute to maintaining naturalness to a similar degree as under Alternative C and a to

greater degree than under Alternatives A, B, and D. This result is primarily due to emphasizing

connectivity of wildlife habitat, use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, measures to

maintain populations of native wildlife, and a lack of measures to unnaturally manipulate native

wildlife populations. Development of wildlife waters on a case-by-case basis would have minor

impacts on areas with wilderness characteristics as described under Alternative A, but only in

localized areas. Impacts would be boosted to moderate in localized areas if new road access were

required to access new water developments.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Continuance of naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation

would be similar to Alternative C. Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

include 107,400 acres (or 99 percent) of back country and 3,500 acres of front country. In areas

of wilderness characteristics that would not managed to protect those characteristics, 1,600

acres would be assigned to the back country zone, which would tend to protect wilderness

characteristics. About 1 percent of these wilderness characteristics would be allocated to the front

country and thus much more likely to incur a degradation of wilderness characteristics. Impacts

resulting from authorization of SRPs would be similar to those described under Alternative B.

Impacts from any specific recreation use on lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

would be considered negligible and easily corrected or mitigated through adaptive management.

Areas not managed to protect wilderness characteristics would, for the most part, retain wilderness

characteristics over the long term, as described under Alternative C, along with their associated

primitive recreation and solitude opportunities.

The prohibition of target shooting throughout the SDNM would maintain naturalness and

opportunities for solitude because copious shooter refuse (e.g., spent shells, targets, trash),

damage or destruction of plants, rocks and protected Monument objects, and the sound of gunfire

would be removed from the landscape.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Characteristics

Removal of the Vekol Valley ACEC would have the same impacts as those described under

Alternative B. Impacts from managing the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would be the same as

described under Alternative D.

Designation of I-8 and State Route 238 as National Scenic Byways, of 30 miles or 18 miles length

respectively, would have a slight protective effect due to prescriptions and management oversight

over the maintenance of scenic values along these highways.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
602 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Travel Management on Wilderness Characteristics

Route closures and restrictions, representing a 40 percent reduction in road and primitive

road miles than presented by Alternative A, would have the same effects as described under

Alternative C.

Impacts from the SDNM Route Designation would be identical to those described under

Alternative C.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Impacts to areas with wilderness characteristics are similar to those described under Alternatives

A and B.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Characteristics

Lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be managed to VRM Class II as

depicted in Table 4.21, “Acres of Lands Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics and VRM

Classes, Alternative C” (p. 587). This VRM allocation would support protecting wilderness

characteristics in lands allocated to protect those characteristics. Due to fewer acres managed to

protect wilderness characteristics, Alternative E would offer less protection for visually-related

wilderness characteristics than Alternatives C and D, but more so than under Alternatives A or B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Characteristics

Naturalness, solitude, and the opportunities for unconfined and primitive recreation would be

maintained and receive priority management attention on 110,900 acres allocated to lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics, representing 72 percent of Monument lands

identified to possess wilderness characteristics. Impacts would be similar to those described under

Alternative C, with only 1 percent less acreage allocated to lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics than for that alternative. For the most part, this allocation would prevent the loss of

naturalness, the depreciation of scenic values, or loss or degradation of solitude and primitive

recreation opportunities, whether through increased visitor use, increasing motorized activity,

or commercial uses.

Areas with wilderness characteristics but not allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics total 42,100 acres, representing 28 percent of the total Monument lands identified

to possess wilderness characteristics. Minor to negligible changes to the nature of these lands

would be anticipated, as fully described under Alternative C.

Proposed VRM classifications would maintain naturalness within areas known to possess

wilderness characteristics, but not allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Scenic and visual resource protection visually would be much greater than brought forward by

Alternatives A and B, because all acreage under Alternative E would be managed as VRM Class

II, but less than the visual resource protection prescriptions represented by Alternative D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 603

4.13. IMPACTS ON WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

This section analyzes the impacts from resource management actions on Wildland Fire Resources.

Impacts on fire and fuels management would result from actions that would affect the type and

abundance of fuels, increase or limit sources of ignition, and affect fire-suppression activities.

Non-native plant establishment and spread can greatly increase the amount of fuels, the intensity

and size of fires, as well as shorten fire-return intervals. Short-term effects on fire and fuels

management, which are defined as those lasting no more than 5 years, are important, but the more

critical impacts would be those that would endure throughout and past the life of the RMP.

The largest factor contributing to increased desert wildland fires stems from the increased

population growth of Metropolitan Phoenix. Fuel conditions fluctuate greatly due to annual

precipitation levels and the presence of non-native plants. Due to establishment and spread of

non-native plants, Sonoran desert scrub and riparian areas within the Planning Area, which

are not adapted to fire, are now at high risk of major, long-term changes to the native plant

communities (BLM 2003).

Illegal border activity will also continue to provide increased human-caused fires. Military

training operations over and adjacent to the Planning Area will also continue to be and additional

source of human-caused fires. All of these sources of wildfires are exacerbated by the fact that

annual exotic grasses and forbs continue to spread throughout the planning, area providing a

continuous fuel bed for wildfires especially in above average rainfall years.

4.13.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.13.1.1. Indicators

The following impact indicators were used in this assessment:

● Amount of annual exotic grasses or forbs, measured pounds per acre

● Fire frequency – This indicator is measured by the change in the number of human-caused

wildland fires. This indicator measures the effectiveness of management actions which are

preventative such as education and restrictions to travel and use within and outside the WUI.

The number of human-caused starts is dependent on access and development.

● Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) - This indicator measures the effectiveness of fuels,

ES and other vegetation treatments. Change in FRCC is dependent on changes in fire return

interval and fire severity and is a measure of the degree of departure from an historical

reference condition as it pertains to both vegetation seral classes and fire frequency. BLM

policy requires current and desired resource conditions related to fire management to be

described in terms of three condition classes known as FRCC.

4.13.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of wildland fire are made:

● A direct relationship exists between the density of human use within the Planning Area and

the frequency of human-ignited fires (and the intensity of use is expected to increase over

the life of the plan),

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Wildland Fire Management
604 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● A direct relationship exists between fuel loading and potential fire size and intensity.

● Invasive species will carry fire and an increase in invasive species will decrease fire return

intervals and increase fire intensities.

● Livestock and water supply developments could be used for fire suppression when water

is present.

● Increased motorized vehicle activity or increased number of motor vehicle routes will result

in an increased number of starts within the Planning Area.

● If non-fire adapted vegetative communities experience wildland fire, they will move into

the CC 3 category.

4.13.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Wildland Fire Management

There would be no impacts to wildland fire management from actions proposed under the

following resource management programs:

● Caves and Cave Resources

● Paleontological and Geological Resources

● Water Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

4.13.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375). In terms of changes to a plant community, as described

by Fire Regime Condition Class, a negligible or minor impact would result in no change to

condition class. A plant community currently in CC1 would remain in CC 1 if it experienced a

minor change. A moderate impact would be represented by a change in CC from CC1 to a CC2

or a change in CC2 to a CC3. A major impact would be represented by a change in CC from

the current condition class to a CC3.

4.13.2. Common to All Alternatives

4.13.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Wildland Fire Management

Air resources may have a general impact on fire and fuels management in areas that are

nonattainment for PM10. Within these areas it may not be practical to utilize prescribed fire as a

management tool. Following AZDEQ smoke permitting requirements will ensure that impacts to

air quality are minor.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 605

Cultural and heritage resources may have an impact on fire and fuels management activities in

areas where cultural resources are present. This will require close cooperation with a cultural

resources resource advisor during suppression operations. Fuels treatment activities will need to

be designed to avoid known cultural and heritage sites while implementing mitigation measures

to protect unknown occurrences of these resources. Close coordination with cultural resource

specialists and following the Section 106 consultation process will ensure that impacts to cultural

and heritage resources are in most cases minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wildland Fire

Management

Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat management may have an impact on fire and fuels

management in areas where these resources are present. This resource will require close

cooperation with resource advisors and implementation of conservation measures where

appropriate. Fuels treatment activities will need to be designed to avoid, mitigate these resources

and may result in treatments being modified or relocated to avoid major consequences. Close

coordination with resource specialists and following the Section 7 consultation process will

ensure that impacts to Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat are minor.

From Public Safety and Hazardous Materials on Wildland Fire Management

Public safety and hazardous materials considerations will have an impact on fire and fuels

management activities in areas where known or suspected hazards are present. This will require

closed coordination with resource advisors and may result in modified suppression tactics being

used to prevent firefighters from being exposed to hazardous materials. Fuels treatments may

require surveys for hazardous materials prior to treatment as well as mitigation measures for

encounters with previously unknown contaminated areas. Use of mitigation measures and

coordination with resource advisors will result in most impacts being minor, but in certain cases

wildfire suppression operations will have to be indirect allowing larger areas of desert plant

communities to burn and the impact will be major.

From Special Designations on Wildland Fire Management

Special designation areas will have an impact on fire suppression and fuels treatment activities.

Activities will have to follow the restrictions for each of these areas (Wilderness, ACECs,

NHT) and may restrict the use of mechanized suppression tactics and fuels treatments. Most

restrictions do allow exceptions for restricted uses with prior authorization from line managers,

in most situations this will mitigate the impacts to fire suppression activities and allow impacts

to be relatively minor (e.g. with line manager approval we can utilize aviation resources in

a wilderness to keep a fire small).

From Soil Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Soil resources may have a general, localized impact on fire and fuels that would remain the same

across all alternatives. Sensitive soil types or areas where run-off is a management concern could

reduce the ability to conduct prescribed fires in some areas. The management of wilderness areas,

cultural and heritage resources, and special status species would also have an impact on fire

and fuels in all alternatives as treatment methods would be constrained particularly with regard

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
606 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

to use of equipment. From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management Fuels

treatment activities will reduce the size and severity of wildfires within the Planning Area and will

improve the fire regime condition class rating for lands within the Planning Area. Prevention

and mitigation activities will reduce the number of human-caused starts and thus maintain

condition class rating for the lands within the Lower Sonoran Planning Area. A full suppression

response will reduce the size of fires within the Planning Area. Fire and fuels management

activities and treatments could result in damage to resources by spreading weeds and creating soil

disturbance, but by following mitigation measures and close coordination with resource advisors

these negative impacts should remain minor.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

Fuels treatment activities will reduce the size and severity of wildfires within the Planning

Area and will improve the fire regime condition class rating for lands within the Planning

Area. Prevention and mitigation activities will reduce the number of human-caused starts and

thus maintain condition class rating for the lands within the Lower Sonoran Planning Area. A

full suppression response will reduce the size of fires within the Planning Area. Fire and fuels

management activities and treatments could result in damage to resources by spreading weeds

and creating soil disturbance, but by following mitigation measures and close coordination with

resource advisors these negative impacts should remain minor.

4.13.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are described for All Alternatives in the Lower Sonoran.

4.13.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts are described for All Alternatives in the Monument.

4.13.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.13.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wildland Fire Management

While corridors could serve as areas of non-native plant establishment, associated roads may

increase access to areas to where fire suppression is needed. If fuel levels in corridors are

maintained at low levels, they could also be used as fire breaks during fire-suppression activities.

Overhead utility lines and aboveground pipelines in corridors would continue to present hazards

to fire fighters during suppression operations in site-specific areas. The establishment of solar

energy farms will reduce the incidence of fire in the immediate vicinity of the solar panels, but an

increased road network in and around the perimeter of the solar fields may lead to non-native

plant establishment and an increased incidence of fires.

From Livestock Grazing on Wildland Fire Management

The Cameron allotment in the Lower Sonoran would remain closed and all grazing allotments

south of I-8 and within the SDNM would be permanently terminated at the expiration of current

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 607

permits. All other allotments in both Decision Areas would be open and classified as perennial,

ephemeral, or perennial-ephemeral. In years of higher precipitation and vegetation growth,

ephemeral grazing would reduce fuel levels from annual and perennial plants, although not

enough to alleviate the risk of fire in non-fire adapted communities in these high-growth years.

Allotments classified as perennial and perennial-ephemeral would also have year-long livestock

use which would likely decrease fuel production somewhat. Conversely, continued livestock

use would cause the introduction and continued spread of invasive species, increasing the fire

load. A few existing range water sources for livestock could provide sources of water for use in

fire-suppression activities.

From Minerals Management on Wildland Fire Management

Mineral development and associated roads would increase the spread of invasive species but also

provide improved access for fire suppression.

From Vegetation Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Ecological and biological resources management under Alternative A would target populations

of invasive and noxious weeds and restrict uses in areas of importance to special status and T

species. This could decrease sources of non-native plant populations and minimize establishment

and spread near targeted areas, which may decrease fuel levels, fire intensity, and lengthen

fire-return intervals in the long term.

From Visual Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Visual resources would be managed using Class I (91,800 acres in the Lower Sonoran and

158,700 acres in the SDNM Decision Areas), Class II (116,300 acres in the Lower Sonoran and

91,600 acres in the SDNM), Class III (279,600 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 116,400 acres in

the SDNM Decision Areas) and Class IV (442,500 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 119,700 acres

in the SDNM) VRM designations. Class I and Class II designations require the highest level of

restoration and reclamation when activities that disturb the visual landscape occur, which could

require more restoration and reclamation activity to preserve the scenic quality.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wildland Fire Management

A lack of protection for wilderness characteristics would not limit activities that increase the

potential for non-native plant establishment and spread and, in the long-term, would likely lead

to increases in fuel levels, intensity, size of areas burned, human-ignited fires, and shortened

fire-return intervals.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impact from wildland fire management are the same across all alternatives with the exception of

Alternative A which allows for the management of wildfire for multiple objectives. Fire and fuels

management under Alternative A would use wildfire as a tool to achieve resource goals in areas

adapted to and tolerant of fire and use MIST when possible. In Alternative A, use of fire as a tool

is restricted to the interior chaparral community in the Miami-Globe area. Specific management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
608 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

actions also would include a reduction in fuel levels using guidelines in the Arizona Statewide

LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality Management (BLM 2004).

4.13.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Increased levels of recreation would likely increase the level of human-ignited fires, surface

disturbance, and fuel levels associated with non-native plant establishment and spread. Increased

recreation would be expected in all areas, but particularly in SRMAs, totaling 379,400 acres in the

Lower Sonoran, as well as along the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT.

Under Alternative A, the lack of facilitated recreational management on designated access point

requirements, recreation (e.g. user selected camping sites, campfires, and target shooting) could

increase potential for human-ignited fires from sparks, escaped fires, and firebrands.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC, 8,900 acres in the Lower Sonoran would be closed to motorized

vehicle use. Such restrictions could limit access to areas for fire suppression and limit surface

disturbance and non-native plant establishment.

Under Alternative A, the current OHV-class designation and route system would generally

remain in place. Motorized vehicles would be limited to existing or designated routes on 819,500

acres of the Lower Sonoran, and approximately 110,700 acres of the Decision Area would be

closed to motorized-vehicle use. Emergency and administrative uses off-road, such as for fire

suppression would be authorized. These limits would help limit increases in fuel levels from

non-native plant establishment. Although motor-vehicle use is limited to existing or designated

routes, few routes have been designated as open, limited, or closed to use. This could increase

fuel loads because the lack of such designations would mean the absence of a clearly delineated

travel network, increased route proliferation, and an elevated degree of surface disturbance and

associated increase in non-native plant establishment.

4.13.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

143,900 acres would be allocated as an SRMA in the Monument.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

The Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC, 3,500 acres in the SDNM would be closed to motorized

vehicle use. Such restrictions could limit access to areas for fire suppression and limit surface

disturbance and non-native plant establishment.

Under Alternative A, the current OHV-class designation and route system would generally remain

in place. In SDNM, approximately 325,200 acres would be limited to existing or designated

routes and 161,200 acres would be closed. Emergency and administrative uses off-road, such

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 609

as for fire suppression would be authorized. These limits would help limit increases in fuel

levels from non-native plant establishment. Although motor-vehicle use is limited to existing

or designated routes, few routes have been designated as open, limited, or closed to use. This

could increase fuel loads because the lack of such designations would mean the absence of a

clearly delineated travel network, increased route proliferation, and an elevated degree of surface

disturbance and associated increase in non-native plant establishment.

4.13.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.13.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wildland Fire Management

The effects on fire and fuels that would occur from multiuse utility corridors and LUAs would be

similar to those described in Alternative A, Utility-scale renewable energy sites and other lands

uses would similarly impact fire and fuels over the long term by increasing the potential for

non-native plant establishment and spread and increasing access for fire-suppression activities, as

described in Alternative A.

Effects of land use and disposal in the SDNM would be similar those identified under Alternative

A.

From Livestock Grazing on Wildland Fire Management

Under Alternative B, impacts from livestock-utilization levels would be the same as described

under Alternative A. Except, fewer livestock would cause an increase in fuel load.

From Minerals Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts from mineral resource decisions would be the same as Alternative A.

From Vegetation Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Vegetation resources management under Alternative B would target populations of invasive

and noxious weeds, actively restore disturbed areas, and restrict uses in areas of importance to

special status and T species. Compared to Alternative A, these actions could decrease sources of

non-native plant propagules and minimize establishment and spread near targeted areas, which

may decrease fuel levels and fire intensity and lengthen fire-return intervals in the long term.

Development and maintenance of wildlife waters in both Decision Areas would involve the need

for access roads associated with these waters. While such roads would increase access for fire

suppression activities, they would also increase access for other activities, which could increase

the occurrences of human-ignited fires, as well as fuel levels associated with non-native plant

establishment and spread.

From Visual Resources on Wildland Fire Management

In terms of VRM, 51,400 more acres would be assigned to VRM Class I and II in the Lower

Sonoran and 127,400 more acres would be assigned to VRM Class II in the SDNM compared to

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
610 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative A. Such increases in VRM Class I and/or Class II areas would proportionally decrease

overall changes to the vegetation communities from surface disturbing activities, thus decreasing

spread of non-native plants that increase fuel loads.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

Fire/fuels management decisions provided by Alternative B are similar to those of Alternative

A, with the exception that wildfire would not be managed to meet multiple objectives. Under

Alternative B, all wildfires would be suppressed regardless of whether the plant community is

fire adapted or not. The fire adapted communities make up less than one percent of the public

lands within the Planning Area making managing wildfire for multiple objectives an impractical

option. Prescribed fire may still be implemented to benefit fire-adapted plant communities

such as the desert grassland areas (such as those found in the Vekol Valley of the SDNM) and

chaparral/mid-elevation scrub areas. Full suppression of wildfires in plant communities that

are not adapted to fire, such as Sonoran Desert scrub, would decrease their conversion into

non-native grasslands. This, in turn would reduce the size wildfires occurring within the Planning

Area. Fuels management treatments would be integrated with vegetation management activities

to reduce the occurrence and density of weed species, restore plant communities damaged by

wildfire, and to protect areas from future fire occurrence.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

4.13.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts from SRMA allocations in the Lower Sonoran would be the same as described under

Alternative A, although more widespread as 779,800 acres would be designated as SRMAs

under Alternative B. As the recreation uses increase in the Decision Area, more widespread

active management of recreation users could help decrease fire danger by reducing the spread of

invasive species, improper use of campfires, and inappropriate target shooting. In addition, about

45 percent of the Lower Sonoran would be allocated as back country RMZ, which would limit

activities that lead to increases in fuel levels from non-native plant establishment in disturbed

areas.

Alternative B would also allocate 34 percent of the Decision Area as front country RMZ

and 9 percent as community interface RMZ, which are the main settings for intensive

resource-dependent recreational uses and thus would not be as conducive to limiting fuel levels

and minimizing human-ignited fires over the long term as the back country RMZ. Front country

and community interface RMZ allocations would be similar in effect to the roaded-natural and

semi-primitive, nonmotorized settings under Alternative A. The remaining areas not allocated as

SRMAs in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative B would be managed as ERMAs with impacts

similar to those described in Alternative A, although impacts would be much less widespread as

only about one-fifth the Decision Area would be within the ERMA allocation under Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 611

Under Alternative B, vehicle use in the Lower Sonoran would be limited to designated routes

within the 828,360 acres outside of wilderness areas, and closed on 101,800 acres in wilderness

areas. Designated access points for motorized and mechanized entry is recommended for entry

into public lands, particularly near metropolitan areas. Limiting motorized/mechanized uses

would help limit or contain the amount of surface disturbance and non-native plant establishment.

In each of the Decision Areas, 70 miles of routes would be closed, which would eliminate the

impacts of motorized-vehicle use on fire and fuels management along the closed routes; however,

it would also decrease access for fire suppression activities along the same routes.

Under Alternative B, agencies involved in fire-suppression activities may drive off-road in time

critical situations. This would allow access to areas such as closed-routes and aid in reducing

time needed to access and suppress fires. Accessing a fire sooner may decrease the overall size of

the area that would burn, decrease risk to fire fighters, and decrease the cost of fire suppression.

Native vegetation not adapted to fire in burned areas may not be able to compete with non-native

plants, especially grasses that respond favorably to fire. Reducing the size of burned areas would

lower the overall potential for non-native plant establishment and spread and limit associated

increases in fuel levels.

4.13.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

The entire SDNM would be allocated as one SRMA under Alternative B, with 76 percent of

SDNM being allocated as back country RMZ and 22 percent allocated as front country RMZs.

While the majority of the Decision Area would be in the back country RMZ, thus limiting

activities that lead to fuel levels, Alternative B would also allocate the largest area among the

alternatives to the front country RMZ that would not place such limits on fuel levels.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

In the SDNM, 328,700 acres would be limited to designated routes and 157,700 acres in

wilderness areas would be closed. Designated access points for motorized and mechanized

entry is recommended for entry into public lands, particularly near metropolitan areas. Limiting

motorized/mechanized uses would help limit or contain the amount of surface disturbance and

non-native plant establishment. In each of the Decision Areas, 70 miles of routes would be

closed, which would eliminate the impacts of motorized-vehicle use on fire and fuels management

along the closed routes; however, it would also decrease access for fire suppression activities

along the same routes.

Under Alternative B, agencies involved in fire-suppression activities may drive off-road in time

critical situations. This would allow access to areas such as closed-routes and aid in reducing

time needed to access and suppress fires. Accessing a fire sooner may decrease the overall size of

the area that would burn, decrease risk to fire fighters, and decrease the cost of fire suppression.

Native vegetation not adapted to fire in burned areas may not be able to compete with non-native

plants, especially grasses that respond favorably to fire. Reducing the size of burned areas would

lower the overall potential for non-native plant establishment and spread and limit associated

increases in fuel levels.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
612 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.13.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.13.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wildland Fire Management

In the Lower Sonoran, impacts from multiuse utility corridors and LUAs would be similar to

Alternatives A and B. Impacts from considering requests for major utilities outside of designated

corridors and proposals for utility-scale renewable energy sites and other uses would be similar to

Alternative B.

In the SDNM, the Santa Rosa-Gila Bend and I-8 multiuse utility corridors would be designated;

however, impacts would be reduced as only transportation and underground utilities would be

allowed. Underground utilities would be less of a hazard to fire fighters than the overhead and

aboveground utilities authorized under Alternative B.

Finally, impacts on fire and fuels from land use authorizations would be further decreased as uses

that dedicate more than 1 acre over the long term would not be approved.

From Livestock Grazing on Wildland Fire Management

The types of impacts from the continuation of livestock utilization levels would be the same as

described under Alternatives A and B. However, under Alternative C, supplemental ephemeral

grazing would not be allocated on allotments that are presently classified as perrenial/ephemeral.

This wouldcausee an increased fuel load during abundant ephemeral forage years.

From Minerals Management on Wildland Fire Management

Mineral resource decision impacts would be the same as Alternatives A and B.

From Vegetation Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

From Visual Resources on Wildland Fire Management

More acres in both decisions areas would be assigned to VRM Class I and II than under

Alternatives A or B. Such increases in VRM Class I and/or Class II areas would proportionally

decrease overall changes to the vegetation communities from surface disturbing activities, thus

decreasing spread of non-native plants that increase fuel loads.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wildland Fire Management

Approximately 128,100 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 112,200 acres In the SDNM would be

allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. These special designations and

allocations, combined with the back country RMZ designation, would minimize non-native plant

establishment, thus decreasing associated fuel levels and fire intensities.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 613

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

The impacts of fire management decisions on fire and fuels resources is the same as Alternative B.

4.13.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative C would allocate 640,300 acres of SRMAs, which is slightly

less than those allocated in Alternative B. Impacts due to the active management of recreation

uses in SRMA allocations would be similar to but less widespread than under Alternative B.

In addition, 66 percent of the SRMAs would be assigned to the back country RMZ under

Alternative C, which would further reduce impacts in the form of increased fuel loads and

human-ignited fires associated with front country and community interface RMZs. Impacts from

management of ERMAs in the Lower Sonoran under Alternative C would be similar in nature to

Alternative B, except the scope would decrease proportionately as ERMAs would only cover 20

percent of the area covered under Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

Under Alternative C, impacts from limiting motorized/mechanized vehicles to existing or

designated routes as well as designating routes as open, limited, or closed to OHV use would be

the same as described under Alternative B.

Impacts from encouraging designated access point use for entering public lands would be the

same as under Alternative B.

Specific impacts from closing routes would be the same as under Alternatives A and B, although

more widespread as 319 more miles of routes would be closed compared to Alternative A; and

121 more miles of routes would be closed compared to Alternative B. Impacts from allowing

agencies involved in fire-suppression activities to drive off-road in time critical situations would

be the same as described under Alternative B.

4.13.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

As under Alternative B, the entire SDNM would be allocated as an SRMA; however, five percent

more lands in the Monument would be assigned to the back country RMZ, which would slightly

decrease the area exposed to a greater potential of increased fuel loads and human-ignited fires. In

addition, actions that would decrease surface disturbance and opportunities for non-native plant

establishment would occur due to a change in management emphasis to be more protective of

Monument resources. In the SDNM, limits on camping site locations and campfires could limit

the extent of human ignited fires. Limits on target shooting in both Decision Areas could have a

similar impact.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
614 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative C, impacts from limiting motorized/mechanized vehicles to existing or

designated routes as well as designating routes as open, limited, or closed to OHV use would be

the same as described under Alternative B.

Impacts from encouraging designated access point use for entering public lands would be the

same as under Alternative B.

Specific impacts from closing routes would be the same as under Alternatives A and B, although

more widespread as 252 more miles of routes would be closed compared to Alternative A; and

80 more miles of routes would be closed compared to Alternative B. Impacts from allowing

agencies involved in fire-suppression activities to drive off-road in time critical situations would

be the same as described under Alternative B.

4.13.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.13.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wildland Fire

Management Impacts from multiuse utility corridors and LUAs in the Lower Sonoran would be

similar to those under Alternative C, although not as widespread as there would only be seven

multiuse utility corridors allocated.

ACECs would be exclusion areas outside of utility corridors which would limit vehicles and

reduce the opportunities for non-native vegetation establishment and spread, resulting in fewer

human-induced ignitions. Smaller test sites could be located within the ACECs which would

result in impacts similar to Alternative B.

From Livestock Grazing on Wildland Fire Management

Under Alternative D, all grazing allotments would be closed when their current permits expire.

As allotments are closed, there would be the potential for an increase in fuel levels, which

could lead to increases in fire intensities and a shortening of fire-return intervals. Conversely,

livestock would no longer be present to introduce and spread invasive species thus avoiding a

further increase in fuel load.

From Minerals Management on Wildland Fire Management

The types of impacts from mineral resource decisions would be the same as Alternatives A, B, and

C, but much less area would be impacted due to the large areas closed to mineral development.

From Vegetation Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

From Visual Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 615

Alternative D provides the most acres assigned to VRM Class I and II (77 percent in the Lower

Sonoran and 100 percent in the SDNM) among all of the alternatives. These allocations would

minimize the potential for non-native plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels

and fire intensities, as well as require restoration to a greater extent than under any of the other

alternatives.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wildland Fire Management

Approximately 276,500 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 153,000 acres in the SDNM would be

allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, which would involve the largest

area protected under these designations among the alternatives. These allocations would minimize

the potential for non-native plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels and fire

intensities, as well as require restoration to a greater extent than under any of the other alternatives.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

The impacts of fire management decisions on fire and fuels resources is the same as Alternative B.

4.13.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Alternative D would allocate a total of 100,200 acres of SRMAs, which is the smallest area

allocated as SRMAs among the Action Alternatives. Impacts would be similar to Alternative

B; however, impacts from allocating front country and community interface RMZs would be

greatly contained due to 256,500 fewer acres devoted to these RMZs under Alternative D. These

management prescriptions would greatly decrease non-native plant establishment and associated

increases in fuel levels, fire intensities, and shortened fire-return intervals. The remaining 830,000

acres not allocated as SRMAs in the Lower Sonoran would be managed as ERMAs. While

general impacts would be similar in nature to Alternative B, the scope would be reduced under

Alternative D because a much reduced route network would limit motorized access to these areas,

this limiting the spread of invasive species and human-ignited fires.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts from limiting vehicles to existing or designated routes in both Decision Areas would be

the same as under all other Action Alternatives. Alternative D would close the most acres and

the greatest number of miles among the alternatives, which would cause the greatest decrease

in surface disturbance and non-native plant establishment in the Decision Area. Impacts from

allowing agencies involved in fire-suppression activities to drive off road in time critical situations

would be the same described under Alternative B.

4.13.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Overall impacts of allocating none of the SDNM as SRMAs would be decreased non-native

plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels, fire intensities, and shortened-return

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
616 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

intervals. Impacts from vehicle camping restrictions would reduce human-ignited fires from

sparks, escaped fires, and firebrands due to limiting camping to existing and designated sites in the

SDNM. Closure of areas to target shooting would eliminate this use as a cause of fire ignitions.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

4.13.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.13.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Wildland Fire Management

In the Lower Sonoran, impacts from multiuse utility corridors and LUAs would be similar to

Alternatives A and B. Impacts from considering requests for major utilities outside of designated

corridors and proposals for utility-scale renewable energy sites and other uses would be similar to

Alternative B. In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative E would designate 8 corridors, thus decreasing

impacts. In the SDNM impacts from utility corridors, future LUA, utility-scale renewable energy

development sites, and other land uses would be similar to Alternative C with a few exceptions,

The Gila Bend-Santa Rosa utility corridor would allow above-ground utility lines with impact to

fire and fuels similar to Alternative B.

From Livestock Grazing on Wildland Fire Management

Under Alternative E, effects from grazing would be similar to Alternative B in both Decision

Areas.

From Minerals Management on Wildland Fire Management

Mineral resource decision impacts would be the same as Alternatives A, B, and C.

From Vegetation Resources on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

From Visual Resources on Wildland Fire Management

The types and extents of impacts from VRM in both Decision Areas would be the similar to

Alternative C.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wildland Fire Management

In the Lower Sonoran, 55,400 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, and 110,900 acres would be managed as such in the SDNM, which would be

less than under Alternatives C and D (but more than Alternatives A and B, where no lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated). These special designations

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 617

and allocations would minimize non-native plant establishment and associated increases in fuel

levels and fire intensities.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wildland Fire Management

The impacts of fire management decisions on fire and fuels resources is the same as Alternative B.

4.13.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts from SRMA allocations would be most similar to Alternative C. This would support

avoiding an increase in non-native plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels, fire

intensities, and shortened fire-return intervals.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

The types of impacts from limiting vehicles to designated routes in both Decision Areas would be

the same as under all other Action Alternatives. Requiring vehicles to utilize designated access

points in the metropolitan areas would have the same impacts as in Alternative B. Impacts from

closing 200 miles of routes in the Lower Sonoran would be the same as under Alternative C, and

would result in more area of impact compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, but a smaller area of

impact compared to Alternative D. Impacts from allowing agencies involved in fire-suppression

activities to drive off-road in time critical situations would be the same as those described in

Alternative B.

4.13.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Recreation Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts from SRMA allocations would be most similar to Alternative C. This would support

avoiding an increase in non-native plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels, fire

intensities, and shortened fire-return intervals.

As under Alternative B, C and D, the entire SDNM would be managed as one SRMA . Impacts

would be similar to Alternative C. Approximately 16 percent of the area would be allocated to

the front country RMZ and 84 percent to back country RMZ. This would decrease non-native

plant establishment and associated increases in fuel levels, fire intensities, and shortened-return

intervals. Impacts from restrictions that would be placed on recreational uses, including limiting

camping to existing and designated sites and closing the SDNM to target shooting. These types of

restrictions would decrease the likelihood of invasive species spread and human ignited fires.

From Travel Management on Wildland Fire Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Lower Sonoran, except

closing 194 miles of the routes in the SDNM would result in more area of impact compared to

Alternatives A, B, and C, but a smaller area of impact compared to Alternative D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
618 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.14. IMPACTS ON LANDS & REALTY MANAGEMENT

The analysis of impacts on lands and realty from the alternatives considered is focused on the

effects on land tenure (ownership) and the opportunities for land use authorizations (including

utility-scale renewable energy development) within the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision

Areas.

Land tenure adjustments include acquisition of non-public lands as well as disposals of identified

parcels. The amount of land managed by the BLM could increase or decrease depending on the

availability of land to acquire and the ability of the BLM to dispose of land. For the SDNM, all

public lands will remain under Federal ownership.

4.14.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.14.1.1. Indicators

Management actions described in the alternatives could result in impacts to the lands and realty

program. Indicators used to quantitatively assess management changes include:

● Acres retained in public lands base,

● Acres identified as being suitable for disposal,

● Acres identified as land use authorization (LUA) avoidance and exclusion areas,

● Acres avoided and excluded from utility-scale renewable energy development, and

● Public land acres proposed for withdrawal.

4.14.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of lands and realty are made:

● Alternatives A through E identify specific parcels potentially suitable for disposal. It is

expected that over the next 20 years, all acres identified will be removed from Federal

ownership.

● Lands not designated as potentially suitable for disposal will be retained.

● Withdrawals are completed for many types of uses, including power-site reserves, power

projects, administrative sites, stock driveways, and irrigation projects. In some cases, other

Federal agencies pursue and hold withdrawals, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). With such withdrawals, surface management jurisdiction may actually

be transferred to the other Federal agency. However, for the purposes of analysis, only the

acres of public lands (withdrawals) retained under BLM management are analyzed or used as

an indicator to determine availability of public land for multiple-use purposes in this document.

● LUAs, including ROWs, leases, and permits, are used for roads, water pipelines, natural gas

pipelines, power lines, telephone lines, fiber-optic cables, railroads, highways, canals, ditches,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Lands & Realty Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 619

apiary sites, and communications sites. Acres of open, avoidance, and exclusion areas are

used as indicators to determine the availability for LUAs.

● Lands that fall under the low sensitivity conflict analysis areas are assumed to be fully

developed over the next 20 years.

4.14.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Lands & Realty Management

There would be no impacts to lands and realty from actions proposed under the following

program areas:

● Public safety & hazardous materials management,

● Wild horse and burro management.

4.14.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

In addition to the description of qualitative terms for the intensity of impacts discussed in

Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375), the qualitative intensity levels

from impacts from other program areas on lands and realty are further described below through a

range of varying thresholds, based on the indicators described above.

Negligible: 100 acres or less potentially would be disposed, acquired, avoided to LUAs, excluded

to LUAs, or withdrawn, and conflicts with LUAs would be nonexistent.

Minor: 100 to 5,000 acres potentially would be disposed, acquired, avoided to LUAs, excluded

to LUAs, or withdrawn, and conflicts with LUAs would be limited.

Moderate: 5,000 to 10,000 acres potentially would be disposed, acquired, avoided to LUAs,

excluded to LUAs, or withdrawn, and conflicts with LUAs would occur but could be mitigated.

Major: 10,000 acres or more potentially would be disposed, acquired, avoided to LUAs, excluded

to LUAs, or withdrawn, and conflicts with LUAs would be of concern.

4.14.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.14.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Lands & Realty Management

The lands and realty program must follow policy, regulations, and laws at all levels of government

to minimize fugitive dust when processing all lands actions. Proposals for actions that could

potentially degrade air quality would have to be mitigated, sited in acceptable alternative

locations, or, in some rare cases, be denied. According to ADEQ, there are currently three

PM10 nonattainment zones in the Planning Area (the Ajo, Miami, and the Phoenix areas).

Approximately 79,900 acres of BLM-managed surface estate lie within these nonattainment

areas. This makes up 6 percent of Lower Sonoran BLM-managed acres, which requires the BLM

to include mitigating stipulations within the grants of new authorization in these nonattainment

zones. This could potentially increase the number of LUA applications rejected if they do not

agree to the terms and conditions established in the offered grants.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
620 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Complying with laws and regulations that govern air quality could affect LUAs and BLM actions

to obtain physical and legal access; however, there are currently no known impacts, and change is

undetectable. Therefore impacts would be negligible.

From Cave Resources on Lands & Realty

There are currently no known impacts from cave resources to land tenure, LUAs, withdrawals, or

utility-scale renewable energy development. However identification of additional caves within

the Planning Area could potentially decrease BLM-managed surface acres available for disposal,

limit LUA processing, or prevent utility-scale renewable energy development in site specific

areas. Due to the relatively small scale of these sites, impacts to lands likely would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Lands & Realty

LUAs that traverse areas where livestock grazing occurs could occasionally require mitigation

that involves excluding livestock grazing during the construction and rehabilitation phases of

the project. Mitigation could also be required to facilitate livestock movement or provide for

public safety (e.g. fencing and cattle guards) throughout the effective period of the authorization.

Impacts from livestock grazing would be negligible, as grazing would be unlikely to prohibit

LUAs or disposals.

From Paleontological Resources on Lands & Realty

As with cave resources, there are currently no known impacts from paleontological resources

to land tenure, LUAs, withdrawals, or utility-scale renewable energy development. However,

identification of additional paleontological sites within the Planning Area could potentially

decrease the BLM surface acres available for disposal, LUA processing, and utility-scale

renewable energy development. However, even if sites were to be discovered, impacts to lands

would be small and localized and therefore are considered negligible.

From Soil Resources on Lands & Realty

Soils management would call for developments and ground disturbing activities to be located

away from areas of significant desert pavement, cryptogamic crust, and other sensitive or fragile

soils that are vulnerable to disruption or have high wind or water erosion potential. This would

affect the authorization of LUAs and the BLM’s actions to obtain physical and legal access.

Proposals for actions that could potentially impact these soil types would be mitigated, sited in

acceptable alternative locations, or, in some rare cases, denied. In all alternatives, efforts to

minimize impacts to watersheds and soils would result in increased project costs and may result in

project redesign or a shifted location. Overall, impacts would be minor.

From Vegetation Resources on Lands & Realty

Managing for vegetation calls for the avoidance of all surface disturbing activities (which include

any development related to LUAs) within Acuna cactus habitat. Acuna cactus habitat constitutes

3 percent of the Planning Area (approximately 37,600 acres), and avoiding these areas would

presumably cause moderate impacts to lands and realty, however, due to the fact that this habitat

is isolated from population and utility service areas, impacts would be negligible.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 621

Vegetation clearing in and around utility corridors would be restricted across all action

alternatives. This would present conflict for LUA holders and future proponents who need to

access utility lines for operation and maintenance purposes. Impacts would be minor.

From Water Resources on Lands & Realty

Management actions to avoid degradation to water resources and limit water developments

through all of the alternatives could affect LUAs by limiting the number of LUAs processed to

obtain legal and physical access to new water developments. Proposals for facilities and LUAs

that would potentially degrade water resource quality would be mitigated, sited in acceptable

alternative locations, or, in some rare cases, denied. Due to limited water resources within the

Planning Area, impacts would be minor.

From Wildland Fire Management on Lands & Realty

Wildland fire management would generally help protect facilities on public lands authorized

through the lands and realty program by reducing fuel loads and suppressing fires. However, there

would be a possibility of losing control of prescribed fire treatments and damaging aboveground

facilities. Overall, these impacts would be negligible to minor.

4.14.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Lands & Realty

The management of fluid minerals, solid leasable minerals, mineral materials, and locatable

minerals could result in requests for s such as ROWs and permits for utilities and access roads.

Direction to pursue a mineral entry withdrawal would require a lands action to process the

withdrawal. Therefore, the more lands that are available to mineral entry, the higher the potential

for an increase work measures for the lands and realty program.

From Vegetation Resources on Lands & Realty

The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, which is designated in every alternative, consists of 41,907

acres (approximately 5 percent of the Decision Area). This area would be allocated as an LUA

avoidance area and would be excluded from potential renewable development, which could

potentially increase land use activities on nearby Federal lands. As an LUA avoidance area and an

exclusion area for renewable utility-scale energy development, impacts would be moderate.

4.14.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals Management

The Monument Proclamation prohibits mineral activities within the Monument, which would

eliminate the need for authorizing mineral-development LUAs. This would have a minor impact

on the lands and realty program.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
622 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.14.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.14.3.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for the both Decision Areas under Alternative A.

4.14.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

LUAs, land tenure adjustments, acquisition of access to public lands, and utility-scale renewable

energy LUAs could be affected by cultural resources management direction. Lands and realty

actions are considered Federal undertakings and must avoid inadvertent damage to Federal and

non-Federal cultural resources through compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. When a lands

action is proposed, an inventory is conducted, and impacts to important cultural sites are avoided

by project redesign/rerouting, project rejection, or mitigation of adverse impacts through data

recovery. Such actions to avoid adverse impacts could increase processing costs and processing

time for both the Federal and non-Federal parties, which could dissuade the proponent from

utilizing Federal lands for their proposed project if the suggested mitigation strategies are too

cumbersome. However, these types of impacts would be negligible as a whole.

Under Alternative A, land use authorizations (including renewable utility-scale renewable

energy authorizations) would continue to be permitted on a case-by-case basis with appropriate

mitigation measures to protect cultural resources. Impacts to lands and realty would be negligible

as there are no major restrictive allocations, only site specific concerns.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Small distribution systems (including communication sites) within

the Lower Sonoran would be authorized on an as-needed case-by-case basis. This would have a

negligible impact on the lands and realty program, as there are no allocations placed upon the

program itself, which would restrict these types of facilities from being authorized in certain

resource vulnerable areas.

Ten 1-mile wide utility corridors would be designated under Alternative A. Large distribution

systems would be encouraged to be situated within these utility corridors. The confinement of

all major linear LUAs within the utility corridors would present minor impacts, as it would

assist the lands and realty program in managing these facilities, while also limiting resource

degradation throughout the Planning Area. Conflicts between LUA holders and other uses within

these corridors would be possible.

Land Tenure. In Alternative A, there is the potential that approximately 30,800 acres (3 percent

of the public lands within the Decision Area) would leave Federal ownership. Impacts from land

tenure actions are anticipated to be moderate to major, as the disposal of Federal lands would

mean that the Federal lands base would be minimized, thus limiting the amount of lands eligible

for potential authorizations. Impacts from the potential acquisition of non-Federal lands would

result in the opposite impact, as the Federal land base in the Planning Area would be increased,

thus increasing the potential for more LUAs on these additional lands.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 623

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Renewable energy facilities were not

specifically addressed in previous planning efforts; therefore, impacts would be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management

Priority species direction would have several impacts on the lands and realty program by

restricting authorizations in certain areas to avoid impacts to priority wildlife species' habitats,

(e.g., Sonoran pronghorn antelope, lesser long-nosed bat, and Acuña cactus); Categories I, II, and

III desert tortoise habitat; or other important habitats. Decisions throughout the action alternatives

could require new facilities to be installed in less than desirable locations to avoid such habitats.

Since pronghorn antelope habitat is located in an area not likely subject to land use authorizations,

restrictions in such habitat would not be significant. Restrictions in Sonoran desert tortoise

habitats, however, would likely impact LUAs that use utility corridors as most mountains in the

Decision Areas where these developments occur include Sonoran desert tortoise habitat.

Where seasonal restrictions limit the time available to complete activities, relocation of surface

facilities may be required. Proposed activities such as land tenure changes or requests for LUAs

would be evaluated to ensure that they do not allow a net loss in Sonoran desert tortoise habitat

(Categories I, II and III). In addition, appropriate mitigation measures would be required for

approval of land use authorizations on a case-by-case basis to protect tortoise habitat, long-nosed

bat habitat, Acuña cactus habitat, or other important habitats.

Facilities proposed to be constructed under various LUAs or access easements in areas where

special status species (or their habitat) are present may need to be mitigated, constructed in

alternative locations, or, in some rare cases, dropped from consideration. Land tenure adjustments

such as exchanges or sales proposed in areas where special status species could be adversely

affected may need to be restructured or eliminated from consideration. Such actions could

increase processing costs and time for the Federal and non-Federal parties.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Implementation of Alternative A would retain the allocations of 379,400 acres of the Lower

Sonoran in four SRMAs. The placement of power lines, pipelines, or communication facilities

outside existing utility corridors and other land use authorizations, such as apiary permits, could

be restricted to specific locations or excluded from certain locations within the SRMAs to support

maintaining the desired recreational setting, accommodate recreation facilities and developments,

or avoid public safety concerns. Specifically, land use authorizations could be restricted within

1⁄4-mile of historic and prehistoric trail segments within the Lower Gila Trail Historic SRMA and

in the southern and western portions of the Saddle Mountain SRMA that are managed for remote

and undeveloped recreation. Impacts would are anticipated to be minor.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

The Juan Batista de Anza NHT (consisting of 7,300 acres, less than 1 percent of the Decision

Area) and designated wilderness areas (consisting of 91,750 acres, approximately 10 percent

of the Decision Area) are LUA exclusion areas and areas closed to utility-scale renewable

energy development throughout all Action Alternatives. These congressional designations pose

a major impact to lands and realty, due to the large amount of acres that prohibit new LUAs.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
624 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

These exclusions could trigger more extensive use on nearby Federal lands or discourage utility

developments from developing in local areas.

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC (consisting of 8,900 acres) would be an LUA avoidance area,

which could require new facilities to be installed in less than desirable locations to avoid sensitive

areas. The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would also be an area that prohibits utility-scale renewable

energy development. These restrictions would concentrate use on public lands designated as low

sensitivity for utility-scale renewable energy development and lands outside LUA exclusion and

avoidance areas within the Planning Area. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

All public lands within the ACECs and the Anza Trail would be retained, and state and private

lands would be acquired if there is a willing seller. This would prevent any lands within these

areas from being “suitable for disposal,” thus limiting the agency’s ability to use funds to

acquire highly desired parcels in accordance with FLFTA. However, by retaining and managing

consolidated tracts of land, the agency’s ability to meet many of the program specific objectives

would become less cumbersome and could result in more efficient and cost effective management.

Impacts would be minor to moderate.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Under Alternative A, 110,700 acres would be closed to vehicle use. These closures could

effectively be a moderate to major impact to the lands and realty program, as they could restrict

land use authorizations in these areas.

Approximately 798,100 acres would be restricted to existing routes, and 21,400 acres would be

limited to designated routes. These restrictions could have a moderate to major impact on the

lands and realty program as they would limit opportunities for land use authorizations to areas

along existing or designated routes if the authorization (e.g., ROW) required motorized vehicle

access for construction, operation, or maintenance (unless administrative access was granted

for such purposes).

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Alternative A has 91,800 acres within Class I, all of which lie within wilderness areas; therefore,

impacts from visual VRM Class I designations would be negligible. For impacts from wilderness,

refer to Impacts from Special Designations.

Within Alternative A, 116,300 acres (approximately 13 percent of the Decision Area) would be

allocated to VRM Class II. LUAs (particularly ROWs)s would be buried or relocated as needed

or otherwise designated to be compatible with their surroundings to ensure scenic integrity in

VRM Class II. The BLM would not approve LUAs 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 proposals and deter utility development in the Planning Area. Designating

VRM Class II areas in the Lower Sonoran could increase stipulations or mitigation on LUAs,

though not necessarily excluding them in these areas. Typical stipulations or mitigation could

include imposing greater design and sitting requirements during development. Portions of the

designated multiuse utility corridor that crosses the Batamote and Coffeepot Mountains in the

Lower Sonoran would overlap with VRM Class II areas, which could trigger the need for higher

mitigation standards for major utilities and other LUAs. However, there is little likelihood of

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 625

demand for such authorizations in this area, so there would be little practical effect on land use

authorizations. Impacts are anticipated to be minor to moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative A.

4.14.3.2.1. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Land use authorization would be allowed within the Monument if

the surface disturbing activity does not disturb any Monument objects. Impacts from this action

would be moderate, as the mitigation required to limit the impacts to the objects could promote

more intensive use on nearby Federal lands or would dissuade proponents from developing

on Federal lands altogether.

Three 1-mile wide utility corridors would be designated under Alternative A. Large distribution

systems would be encouraged to be situated within these utility corridors. The confinement of

all major linear LUAs within the utility corridors would present minor impacts, as it would

assist the lands and realty program in managing these facilities while also limiting resource

degradation throughout the Planning Area. Conflicts between LUA holders and other uses within

these corridors would be possible.

Land Tenure. No lands would be allocated as suitable for disposal in the Monument. Impacts

would be negligible from this action, as there are few lands within the Monument that meet the

criteria for determining which lands are suitable for disposal.

The potential acquisition of non-Federal lands within the Monument would result in the increase

and greater consolidation of Federal lands. This would assist management in fulfilling the

objectives set forth in the Monument Proclamation but would also increase the potential for

more LUAs on these additional lands. Impacts from potential acquisitions within the Monument

would be major.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Renewable energy facilities were not addressed

in previous planning efforts; therefore, impacts would be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonroan, with

the exception that varying wildlife habitats are protected as a Monument object by the Monument

Proclamation, which could limited LUAs from being authorized in the Monument. Impacts

would be minor.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
626 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In the SDNM, retaining the Lower Gila Historic Trail SRMA (137,100 acres) could place

restrictions on land use authorizations as described for the Lower Sonoran, although these would

be unlikely to be different from those required throughout the SDNM based on the Monument

Proclamation. Impacts are anticipated to be minor.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

that the Juan Batista de Anza NHT would consist of 7,800 acres, approximately 2 percent of the

Decision Area) and designated wilderness areas would consist of 157,700 acres, approximately 32

percent of the Decision Area). There also is only one ACEC (Vekol Valley Grasslands) allocated

under Alternative A in the SDNM. Because the ACEC lies within the SDNM, the prescription

set forth for the ACEC are met by the designation of the SDNM. The SDNM as a whole is

an exclusion area to utility-scale renewable energy development and an LUA avoidance area;

therefore, impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Under Alternative A, 161,200 acres would be closed to vehicle use. These closures could

restrict land use authorizations in these areas as a result of access limitations. Approximately

247,200 acres would be restricted to existing routes, and 78,000 acres would be limited to

designated routes, which could limit opportunities for land use authorizations to areas along

existing or designated routes if the authorization (e.g., ROW) required motorized vehicle access

for construction, operation, or maintenance (unless administrative access was granted for such

purposes).

Not having a designated route network within the Monument could create minor impacts to

current LUA holders who hold LUAs within the I-8 and Santa Rosa to Gila Bend utility corridors,

as access roads to their facilities are not designated for administrative purposes only and are open

to the public. This leaves their facilities susceptible to vandalism. However, not designating

routes within the utility corridors also minimizes potential conflicts with future LUAs within the

corridors.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under impacts from Alternative A in the Lower

Sonoran, with exception that 158,700 acres (all within wilderness areas) would be allocated as

VRM Class I and 91,600 acre would be designated as VRM Class II. Impacts would be minor to

moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative A.

4.14.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.14.4.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for the both Decision Areas under Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 627

4.14.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran, except

that Alternative B calls for the assurance that easements will be retained in Federal ownership

to assure long term use, protection, and access to important sites that occupy a particular and

definitive role in the cultural landscape or are important to the local Native American tribes. This

action would limit the amount of acreage allocated as suitable for disposal. Impacts from this

action would be negligible to minor.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Unlike Alternative A, LUA restrictions from resource program areas

have been consolidated in the lands and realty program through two allocations: LUA exclusion

areas and LUA avoidance areas. Exclusion areas are areas where new land use authorizations

would be prohibited (except within designated multi-use utility corridors or for public safety

purposes, as permitted by the authorizing official). LUA exclusion areas include designated

wilderness areas, Sentinel Plain (military land relinquished back to the BLM), the Juan Bautista

de Anza NHT, and lands designated under VRM Class I. LUA avoidance areas would be areas

where new land use authorizations would be strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in these

avoidance areas would have to be compatible with the purpose for which the area was designated,

not be otherwise feasible on lands outside the avoidance area. LUA avoidance areas include

ACECs, BLM threatened and endangered species habitats (including desert tortoise habitats),

VRM Class II lands, SCRMAs, the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, and cultural sites allocated to a use

category (such as public and conservation use sites).

Under Alterative B, 126,500 acres (approximately 13 percent of the Decision Area) would be

designated as LUA exclusion areas, and 520,900 acres (approximately 51 percent of the Decision

Area) would be designated as a LUA avoidance areas. Impacts from the designation of LUA

exclusion areas would be moderate to major, as no new authorizations would be prohibited

within these areas. This restriction would promote more intensive use on nearby Federal lands or

would dissuade proponents from developing on Federal lands altogether. While less restrictive,

LUA avoidance areas would have a minor to moderate impact on the lands and realty program

because it could potentially dissuade proponents from utilizing Federal lands for their facilities

because extensive mitigation strategies would be required to meet the purposes for which the area

was initially designated for.

Similar to Alternatives C, D, and E, communication facilities in Alternative B would be authorized

only within the designated Oatman Mountain Communication Site or within previously disturbed

areas on an as–needed, case-by-case basis. Newly designated communication site locations would

be evaluated within the Decision Area to meet future demands if needed. The small number of

communication sites in the Planning Area could dissuade proponents from placing facilities on

Federal lands. However, impacts would be anticipated to be negligible to minor, as there is still

ample space on the Oatman Mountain Communication Site for future development and designated

sites would be considered if the demand for communication facilities drastically increase.

Ten 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be designated under Alternative B (the same

number of multi-use corridors as Alternative A, but more than any other action alternative),

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
628 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

in which all compatible utility uses (including transportation, telephone, irrigation, water/gas

pipelines, fiber-optic and electrical transmission lines) would be allowed unless otherwise

specified by the authorizing official. The confinement of all major linear LUAs within the

multi-use utility corridors would present moderate impacts, as it would assist the lands and realty

program in managing these facilities while also limiting resource degradation throughout the

Planning Area. In some cases, the requirement that all major linear LUAs be placed within these

corridors could dissuade proponents from placing facilities on Federal lands as these corridors

may not be the most direct or feasible route to their desired facility connections.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A, except that there is

the potential that approximately 41,600 acres (4 percent of the public lands within the Planning

Area) would leave Federal ownership. Among the alternatives, Alternative B would propose the

most acres suitable for disposal. Impacts would be major.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Management decisions related to the

authorization of utility-scale renewable energy developments was guided by the Analysis

of Renewable Energy Development (Appendix N, Analysis for Renewable Energy

Sensitivity (p. 1263)), which used GIS data to depict varying degrees of resource sensitivity to

utility-scale renewable energy development on Federal lands. The Analysis for Utility-scale

Renewable Energy Sensitivity (Appendix N, Analysis for Renewable Energy Sensitivity (p. 1263))

characterizes public lands in one of four sensitivity categories used to make decisions on where to

permit utility-scale renewable energy developments on Federal lands. These sensitivity categories

include: prohibited, high, moderate, and low known sensitivity. The categories were then use to

identify utility-scale renewable energy development exclusion and avoidance areas.

In Alternative B, potential renewable energy developments would be prohibited on lands that

fall under the “excluded” areas. Applications for renewable energy developments in “high or

moderate sensitivity” categories would be avoided. The areas prohibited from renewable energy

development constitute 16 percent of the Decision Area (approximately 145,000 acres). The

impacts would be minor to moderate, as this action would promote more intensive use on nearby

Federal lands or would dissuade proponents from developing on Federal lands altogether.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran except

that wildlife movement corridors would be allocated to assist in the protection of priority species

movement throughout the Planning Area under Alternative B. In Alternative B, 332,300 acres

(totaling approximately 36 percent of BLM-managed land in the Lower Sonoran) would be

allocated as wildlife movement corridors. This would concentrate use on public lands that lie

under the low sensitivity allocation. This would have a minor impact on the lands and realty

program, as LUAs would not be excluded within wildlife movement corridors, but avoided

if possible.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Under Alternative B, the general impacts of allocating SRMAs and ERMAs would be similar

to those described under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, nearly three times the

acres would be allocated to nearly three times the number of SRMAs. Over the life of the plan,

substantial increases in recreational use are expected. An increased number of SRMAs may help

to manage recreation uses to avoid conflicts with land use authorizations. Conflicts are most likely

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 629

in SRMAs near the urban interface and those planned for intensive recreation activity, including

the Buckeye Hills East Trails, Ajo Trails, and Arlington Trails SRMAs that would be allocated

primarily for motorized recreation uses, as well as the other urban interface SRMAs (Saddle

Mountain, Rainbow Valley, and Buckeye Hills West) that would be allocated for mixed motorized

and nonmotorized uses. Recreation within the SRMAs would be managed to maintain or produce

various recreation settings and opportunities; which could restrict, limit or require that land use

authorizations be mitigated in active recreation areas. Impacts would be moderate.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed for Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran, except

that Alternative B would allocate approximately 21 miles of the Agua Caliente Road as a

Back Country Byway. In an effort to protect the view shed from the byway, no above-ground

surface-disturbing activities would be allowed within sight of Agua Caliente Road. This would

prevent above-ground utilities such as communication sites, power lines, or telephone lines from

crossing or running parallel to the road. Therefore, these types of uses would be directed to the

nearest multi-use utility corridor, which might not be the optimal location for these uses and could

potentially saturate the available space in the corridor. Anticipated impacts would be minor.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except that

slightly fewer acres (101,800) would be closed to OHV use and slightly more acres (828,360)

would be restricted to designated routes. Impacts would still be moderate to major.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran, except

fewer acres (64,900 acres) would be managed as VRM Class II (7 percent as compared to 13

percent in Alternative A). Decreasing the total VRM Class II acres could lessen restrictions on

LUAs. Impacts would be expected to be minor.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative A.

4.14.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Unlike Alternative A, LUA restrictions from resource program

areas have been consolidated in the lands and realty program through two allocations: LUA

exclusion areas and LUA avoidance areas. LUA Exclusion areas are areas where new land use

authorizations would be prohibited (except within designated multi-use utility corridors or for

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
630 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

public safety purposes, as permitted by the authorizing official). LUA exclusion areas include

designated wilderness areas, the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, and lands designated under VRM

Class I. LUA avoidance areas would be areas where new land use authorizations would be

strongly discouraged. Authorizations made in these avoidance areas would have to be compatible

with the purpose for which the area was designated and not be otherwise feasible on lands outside

the avoidance area. LUA avoidance areas would include, ACECs, VRM Class II lands, SCRMAs,

the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, and cultural conservation and public use sites.

Under Alternative B, 164,900 acres (approximately 33 percent of the Monument) would be

designated as LUA exclusion areas. The remaining portions of the Monument, consisting of

321,500 acres (approximately 60 percent of the Monument), would be designated as LUA

avoidance areas. This restriction would have moderate to major impacts, as it would promote more

intensive use on nearby Federal lands or would dissuade proponents from developing on Federal

lands altogether. While less restrictive, LUA avoidance areas would have a minor to moderate

impact on the lands and realty program because they could potentially dissuade proponents from

utilizing Federal lands for their facilities, due to the fact that they would have to use extensive

mitigation strategies to meet the purposes for which the area was initially designated for.

No communication sites are designated within the Monument. Impacts would be anticipated to be

negligible to minor. The lack of communication sites in the Monument could dissuade proponents

from placing facilities on Federal lands or would inundate the Oatman Mountain Communication

Site with new facilities if there were an increase in demand for this use.

Three 1-mile wide multiuse corridors would be designated under Alternative B (the same number

of multiuse corridors as Alternative A, but more than any other action alternative). All compatible

utility uses (including transportation, telephone, irrigation, water/gas pipelines, fiber optic and

electrical transmission lines) would be allowed in these corridors unless otherwise specified

by the authorizing official. The confinement of all major linear LUAs within multiuse utility

corridors would present moderate impacts, as it would assist the lands and realty program in

managing these facilities, while also limiting resource and Monument object degradation. In

some cases, the requirement that all major linear LUAs be placed within these corridors could

dissuade proponents from placing facilities on Federal lands as these corridors may not be the

most direct or feasible route to their desired facility connections.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Monument.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Potential utility-scale renewable energy

development and other large-scale LUAs would be prohibited within the Monument. This would

have a moderate impact to the lands and realty program, as this action would promote more

intensive use on nearby Federal lands outside of the Monument boundaries or would dissuade

proponents from developing on Federal lands altogether.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

The impacts of the SRMA allocation in the SDNM are similar to those in the Lower Sonoran.

Differences include subsuming the Gila Trails SRMA into the larger SDNM SRMA, which

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 631

includes a back country RMZ, the Lower Gila Historic Trails RMZ, and the Sonoran Desert

RMZ. Impacts would still be minor.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative A for the Monument, except that the

Vekol Valley ACEC would not be carried forward. Due to the fact that the Monument is already

allocated as an LUA avoidance area and prohibits utility-scale renewable energy development,

impacts would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Monument, except that

slightly fewer acres (157,700) would be closed to OHV use and slightly more acres (328,700)

would be restricted to designated routes. Impacts would still be moderate to major.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM, except that

under Alternative B, inserting the Gila Bend to Santa Rosa multiuse utility corridor into a VRM

Class III area would reduce the restrictions placed on associated land use authorizations within the

corridor. However, outside the corridor, designating approximately 219,000 acres of the Decision

Area as VRM Class II (26 percent percent increase in VRM Class II acres compared to Alternative

A) could restrict land use authorizations by imposing greater design and siting requirements.

Impacts would be minor, as the Monument is already a LUA avoidance area under Alternative B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative B.

4.14.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.14.5.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for the both Decision Areas under Alternative C.

4.14.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran, except

that Alternative C contains two cultural resource allocations referred to as SCRMAs. These

designations would impact approximately 124,600 BLM acres, or 13 percent of the Decision

Area. Because SCRMAs are moderate sensitivity renewable energy conflict areas, utility-scale

renewable energy development would be avoided within SCRMAs. This in turn would place more

strain on low sensitivity areas within the Planning Area. Similarly, SCRMAs would be designated

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
632 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

as LUA Avoidance areas, preventing certain LUAs from being authorized in these SCRMAs,

resulting in the same impacts as to utility-scale renewable energy development potential.

According to the management prescription in Alternative C for SCRMAs, all lands within the

SCRMAs would be required to be retained in Federal ownership. The potential acquisition of

lands in the SCRMAs could increase the amount of land managed by the BLM. These newly

acquired lands would hold the same restrictions on utility-scale renewable energy developments

and other LUAs; therefore impacts from the potential acquisition of inholdings would be the

same. By retaining and managing consolidated tracts of land, the agency’s ability to meet many of

the program specific objectives would become less cumbersome and could result in more efficient

and cost effective management. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Impacts would be that same as those described in Alternative B for

the Lower Sonoran, except that more acres (604,300 acres, approximately 65 percent of the

Decision Area) would be designated as a LUA avoidance areas. Impacts would be major.

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Impacts related to multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative

B; however, Alternative C would remove the Gila Bend to Ajo corridor and a section of the El

Paso Natural Gas and TEP corridors that travel from Ajo, AZ to the Tohono O’odham Indian

Reservation. Impacts would be moderate.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A, except that there is

the potential that approximately 39,600 acres (4 percent of the public lands within the Planning

Area) would leave Federal ownership. Alternative C would propose more acres suitable for

disposal than in Alternative A, B, and E, but less than Alternative D. Impacts would be major.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Impacts would be the same as those described in

Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran, except that more acres would be excluded from renewable

energy development under Alternative C. Impacts would be major.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

except that the Saddle Mountain and Gila Bend Mountains WHAs’ management prescriptions

for placement of LUAs would concentrate land uses to already developed or disturbed areas and

avoid core wildlife areas. For the Batamote Mountains and Cuerda de Lena WHAs, management

prescriptions would require avoidance to the maximum extent possible of land uses within the

WHAs, except within the designated corridor that traverses the Batamote WHA or if no other

appropriate location could be found. These decisions could restrict land uses and authorizations

and increase stipulations and mitigation on projects located within the WHAs. However, the

practical effects of these limitations, are expected to be minimal due to the remoteness of the

WHAs, which hold little potential for such land uses. In addition, restrictions in the Cuerda de

Lena area due to the presence of Sonoran pronghorn antelope would likely preclude any such

land uses regardless of the WHA allocation.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 633

Impacts from establishing six SRMAs, two ERMAs, and one SMA in the Lower Sonoran would

be similar to those discussed under Alternative B, although slightly more widespread due to a 10

percent increase in area covered by the SRMAs under Alternative C. Alternative C would allocate

the San Tan Mountains as an ERMA, not an SRMA. Impacts would remain moderate.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative Bfor the Lower Sonoran except that

the Coffeepot ACEC would be replaced with the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC , which consist of

63,300 acres, an area larger than under Alternative A or B but less than under Alternatives D or

E. Impacts would be moderate to major from this designation.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except that

fewer acres (101,800) would be closed to OHV use and more acres (828,360) would be restricted

to designated routes. Alternative C would be the least restrictive alternative to the LUAs, due

to the fact that the fewest acres would be closed to vehicle use, potentially increasing access in

certain areas of the Lower Sonoran. Impacts would be moderate.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Under Alternative C, impacts from VRM would be similar to Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran,

with the exception that substantially more acres would be managed under VRM Class II (42

percent of the Decision Area, compared to 13 percent in Alternative A). This would present minor

to moderate impacts to the lands and realty program.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

Under Alternative C, 128,100 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. These lands constitute approximately 14 percent of the Decision Area. Under

Alternatives C, these areas would be LUA avoidance areas where proposed LUAs, including

communication sites, permits, LUAs, and utility-scale renewable energy development, would

be discouraged. If placement in these areas is necessary, holders would be required to meet

additional mitigation measures to meet the objectives set forth for lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. In many cases, applicants may be discouraged to utilize Federal

lands for these purposes altogether.

Alternative C calls for the acquisition of all state and private land inholdings within these areas

when there is a willing seller. As with all land acquisitions, adding more land to Federal

management would place additional financial responsibility on the agency, as it will have more

land to manage.

Under Alternative C, additional restrictions would be placed on LUA holders who already have

authorizations for facilities. All maintenance procedures on these existing LUAs would be

required to be compatible with protecting wilderness characteristics and protecting or improving

natural or heritage resource conditions. This could become a financial burden on current LUA and

permit holders within these areas, and in select cases, some might vacate existing authorizations.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
634 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts from wilderness characteristics would be moderate, due to the fact that these areas are for

the most part secluded from high intensity population areas.

4.14.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described from cultural and heritage resources in the Lower

Sonoran, except that 17,700 acres would be allocated as a SCRMA under Alternative C in the

Monument. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Impacts would be that same as those described in Alternative B for

the Monument.

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Only two 1⁄2-mile wide multiuse utility corridors (underground facilities only) would be designated

in Alternative C. As a result, there would be even less space for additional utility lines to be

placed in these corridors compared to Alternatives A and B, which could spur conflicts between

LUA holders. Impacts would be moderate.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Monument.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Impacts would be the same as those described

in Alternative B for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from establishing the SDNM as an SRMA would be similar to Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Monument, except that

State Highway 238 would be designated as scenic byway under Alternative C in the SDNM.

Impacts from these designations would be negligible, as no visual impacts from overhead utility

lines would exist because all LUAs would be required to be placed underground along the I-8 and

Gila Bend to Santa Rosa Multiuse Utility Corridors (where the byway runs). For impacts related

to this lands and realty action, refer to the Impacts from Lands & Realty under Alternative C.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 635

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM, except that

approximately 267,300 acres of VRM Class II (55 percent of the Monument, an increase of about

37 percent over Alternative A) designations could prohibit, restrict, or modify the location of

other land use authorizations, as VRM Class II are allocated as LUA avoidance areas. Impacts

would be minor to moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran, except

that 112,200 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

(approximately 23 percent of the Monument).

4.14.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.14.6.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for the both Decision Areas under Alternative D.

4.14.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Because more emphasis would be placed on the protection of cultural resources under Alternative

D, it may be more difficult for LUAs to be approved than under any other alternative. More

LUAs would be restricted in areas of sensitive cultural resources under Alternative D than under

Alternatives B or C due to the management of priority areas and cultural resource allocations.

While there are no SCRMA designations within the Decision Area for Alternative D, these

areas have been designated as ACECs within this alternative. For impacts related to these

ACEC designations, refer to the Impacts from Special Designations Management section for

Alternative D.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Impacts would be that same as those described in Alternative B for

the Lower Sonoran, except that under Alternative D, the greatest number of acres (510,700

acres, approximately 60 percent of the Decision Area) would be designated as LUA exclusion

areas. Impacts would be major.

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Impacts related to multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative

C; however, Alternative D would propose the fewest multiuse utility corridors (7 corridors).

The Palo Verde Devers and Santa Rosa to Gila Bend corridors would be eliminated from this

alternative. Impacts would be moderate.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
636 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A, except that there is

the potential that approximately 22,800 acres (2 percent of the public lands within the Decision

area) would leave Federal ownership. Alternative D would propose the least amount of acres

suitable for disposal, compared to any other alternative. Impacts would be major.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Impacts would be the same as those described

in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran, except that Alternative D would prohibit the greatest

amount of acres available for utility-scale renewable energy development (511,500 acres,

approximately 55 percent of the Decision Area). Impacts would be major.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from establishing four SRMAs, four ERMAs, and one SMA in the Lower Sonoran would

be similar to those under Alternative B but would occur over a smaller area (a 60 percent decrease

in acres compared to Alternative B and a 64 percent decrease compared Alternative C).

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

that the number of acres allocated as ACECs would be substantially greater. Under Alternative

D, 263,700 acres (approximately 28 percent of the Decision Area) would be designated as

ACECs. Unlike Alternatives A, B, and C, all ACECs are LUA exclusion areas and LUAs would

be restricted to designated multiuse utility corridors within these ACECs. Impacts from these

allocations would be major.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except that

substantially more acres (378,300) would be closed to OHV use and substantially fewer acres

(551,900) would be restricted to designated routes. Alternative D would be the most restrictive

alternative to LUAs, due to the fact that the most amount of acres are closed to vehicle use,

potentially increasing the access limitations in certain areas of the Lower Sonoran. Impacts

would be major.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

that 622,400 acres (67 percent of the Decision Area, compared to 13 percent in Alternative A)

would be designated VRM Class II lands. Alternative D would be the most restrictive alternative

to the lands and realty program, as almost 87 percent of the Decision Area is either an LUA

avoidance or exclusion area. All designated multiuse utility corridors would be located within

VRM Class III areas, which would not result in such restrictions. Impacts would be moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 637

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

that 276,500 acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

(approximately 30 percent of the Decision Area compared to 14 percent in Alternative C). Under

Alternative D, lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be LUA exclusion areas,

which makes it the most restrictive alternative to the lands and realty program.

4.14.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Alternative D would be the most restrictive alternative to LUAs in

the Monument, with major impacts expected. The entire Monument (486,400 acres) would be

designated an LUA exclusion area, and there would be no multiuse utility corridor designations,

which means that no major linear LUAs would be allowed to traverse the Monument. As a

result, no LUAs would be allowed in the Monument (with the exception of authorizations related

to public safety). This action would promote more intensive use on Federal lands outside of

the Monument boundaries or would dissuade proponents from developing on Federal lands

altogether. The lack of multiuse utility corridors in the Monument also could disrupt future

proposals for major utility lines from the eastern to the western portions of the State.

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Monument.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy. Development Impacts would be the same as those described

in Alternative B for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat management would be negligible to lands and

realty, as the entire Monument would be designated an LUA exclusion area, and lands within

the SDNM would not be available for disposal. These impacts from this action can be found in

the Impacts From Lands & Realty.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Due to the fact the Monument is a LUA exclusion area and prohibited from utility-scale

renewable energy development and disposals, the impacts from recreation would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty Impacts would be the same as those discussed

in the Alternative B of the SDNM.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative C for the Monument, except that

I-8 would also be allocated as a scenic byway. Impacts would be negligible under Alternative

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
638 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

D, as I-8 is not allocated as a multiuse utility corridor and the entire Monument would be a

LUA exclusion area.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from travel management would be negligible, as the entire Monument would be

designated an LUA exclusion area.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts from VRM would be negligible under Alternative D, as the entire SDNM would be an

LUA exclusion area that prohibits utility-scale renewable energy development and land disposals.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be negligible under Alternative D, as the entire Monument would be an LUA

exclusion area that prohibits utility-scale renewable energy development and land disposals.

4.14.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.14.7.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified for the both Decision Areas under Alternative E.

4.14.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the Lower Sonroan.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Impacts would be that same as those described in Alternative B for

the Lower Sonoran, except that more acres (380,100 acres, approximately 40 percent of the

Decision Area) would be designated as LUA exclusion areas and fewer acres (310,200 acres,

approximately 28 percent of the Decision Area) would be designated as LUA avoidance areas.

Impacts would be major.

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Impacts related to multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative C.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A, except that there is

the potential that approximately 33,900 acres (3 percent of the public lands within the Planning

Area) would leave Federal ownership. Alternative E proposes more acres suitable for disposal

than Alternative D but fewer than Alternatives B and C. Impacts would be major.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 639

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy. Development Impacts would be the same as those described

in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran, except that more acres would be prohibited from

utility-scale renewable energy development (380,800 acres, approximately 41 percent of the

Decision Area) under Alternative E. This total is more than that proposed under Alternatives C,

but less than Alternative D. Impacts would be major.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as discussed under Alternatives C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran, except that

Agua Caliente Road would be designated as a back country byway. Impacts from this byway are

the same as those described under Alternative C.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except that

more acres (152,800) would be closed to OHV use and fewer acres (777 ,360) would be restricted

to designated routes, which would slightly decrease the access limitations in certain areas of the

Lower Sonoran. Impacts would be moderate to major.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative C. Under Alternative E, 55,400

acres would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. These lands

constitute approximately 5 percent of the Planning Area.

4.14.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D for the SDNM.

From Lands & Realty on Lands & Realty

Land Use Authorizations. Impacts related to LUA exclusion and avoidance Areas would be that

same as though described in Alternative D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
640 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts related to communication sites would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

Impacts related to multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative D.

Land Tenure. Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for the Monument.

Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Development. Impacts would be the same as those described

in Alternative B for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from recreation decisions under Alternative E in the SDNM would be similar to those

described under Alternative C.

From Special Designations on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those discussed in Alternative D for the Monument.

From Travel Management on Lands & Realty

Impacts from travel management would be negligible, as the entire Monument would be

designated an LUA exclusion area.

From Visual Resources on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Lands & Realty

Impacts would be negligible, as the entire Monument under Alternative D is already an LUA

exclusion area that prohibits utility-scale renewable energy development and land disposals. For

impacts related to these actions, refer to ???.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 641

4.15. IMPACTS ON LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Impacts on livestock grazing are generally the result of activities that affect forage levels, the

ability to construct range improvements, human disturbance of livestock, and costs associated

with livestock management to the operators. In general, management actions to improve or protect

resources could increase the amount of forage available for livestock grazing. Management

actions that increase surface disturbance and destroy vegetation would decrease the amount of

forage available for livestock grazing. Management actions that restrict the location, extent, or

type of rangeland projects may reduce the efficiency of the livestock management program and

reduce the area available for livestock grazing.

4.15.1. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

4.15.1.1. Indicators

Management actions described in the alternatives could result in impacts to the grazing program.

Indicators used to quantitatively assess management changes include the following:

● Reduction or increase of acres available for livestock grazing

● Reduction or increase of forage resources available to livestock grazing

● Limitations or restrictions on the access to, placement of, type of or scale of livestock

management facilities, including watering facilities and pipelines, livestock handling

facilities, and/or fencing.

4.15.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of livestock grazing are made:

● All existing leases and permits would be subject to Terms and Conditions by the authorizing

officer.

● Although some areas are more suitable for different classes of livestock, the impacts from

different classes of livestock would be similar and would not be discussed separately.

● Grazing is likely to directly impact the surface in areas where livestock concentrate.

● Construction of range improvements (e.g., fences, pipeline, water wells, troughs, and

reservoirs) would result in a localized loss of vegetation throughout their useful life.

● Range improvements generally lead to improved livestock distribution and improved resource

conditions.

● Livestock grazing management actions will comply with the Land Health Standards

(Appendix W, Land Health Standards (p. 1339)) and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

(Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253)).

● Requiring livestock operators to remove livestock during periods of drought for up to 1 year

would potentially impact livestock operator flexibility and viability. However, over the long

term this could maintain or improve the vegetative communities and forage conditions.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Livestock Grazing
642 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.15.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Livestock Grazing

There would be no impacts to livestock grazing management from actions proposed under the

following program areas:

● Air Quality

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

4.15.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are described using the following definitions:

Negligible: The impact would not be detectable or measurable. There would be no appreciable

change to available forage or the grazing operations.

Minor: The impact would be slightly detectable and measurable. There would be a slight change

to available forage and the grazing operations.

Moderate: The impact would be very apparent and measureable. There would be a limited

change to available forage and the grazing operations.

Major: The impact would be severe. There would be a substantial change to the grazing

operations.

4.15.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.15.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cave Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described in the Cultural and Heritage Resources analysis,

Common to All Alternatives for both Decision Areas.

From Paleontological Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described in the Cultural and Heritage Resources analysis,

Common to All Alternatives for both Decision Areas.

From Soil Resources on Livestock Grazing

Restricting developments and ground disturbing activities from areas of significant desert

pavement, cryptogamic crust, and soils that are vulnerable to disruption or have high wind

or water erosion potential could have a minor impact by limiting the location of livestock

management facilities. Allowing projects in these areas if mitigation occurs could offset this

impact. Limiting developments in these areas could reduce surface disturbance and retain forage

for livestock grazing.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 643

Managing the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trails consistent with National Park

Service standards would help protect the historic landscape and visual values of this historic trail.

This would have minor impacts to livestock operations by restricting range improvement projects

designed to improve livestock distributions (e.g. water developments, fences, etc.) on or near

the Anza Trail. This impact to improved livestock distribution could be offset by locating range

improvement projects 1/4 to 1/2 mile away from the trail and restricting salts and supplements

on or near the trail, as well.

Managing 249,500 acres as wilderness areas in both Decision Areas to maintain naturalness

would reduce surface disturbance and retain forage for livestock grazing. However, management

decisions intended to limit human intrusions and permanent facilities could have a minor

impact on livestock operations by restricting livestock use and the location of new rangeland

improvement projects to locations outside of the wilderness area.

From Water Resources on Livestock Grazing

Restricting facilities not related to water management :(a) outside riparian areas and the 100-year

floodplain of washes or water ways, (b) in a manner that avoids changing natural water flow

or watershed dynamics, and (c) consistent with other resource and public safety goals could

restrict the development of livestock management facilities or could require existing facilities

to be relocated or modified if they are significantly affecting watershed or floodplain function.

The intensity of the impact would generally be minor, but could vary based on the necessity

of the project.

From Wildland Fire Management on Livestock Grazing

Managing areas as suitable for wildland fire and allowing naturally ignited wildland fire,

prescribed fire, and treatments would have impacts, such as reducing the amount of forage and

area available for livestock grazing in the short term, but could improve vegetation condition in the

long term in fire-adapted communities. The level of impact would vary depending upon the size

of the area burned. Fire in Sonoran Desert communities that are not fire adapted would reduce the

amount of forage available to livestock on a longer term. Suppression of wildfires in the Sonoran

Desert would have short term-impacts by removing vegetation, but would reduce overall impacts

to livestock forage in the long term by retaining the vegetative communities and stabilizing the

soil. Impact intensities could range from negligible to major, depending on the size of the burn.

4.15.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Vegetation Resources on Livestock Grazing

Under all alternatives, emphasis is placed on protection of the vegetative communities across the

Decision Area. Management actions, such as requiring mitigation or avoidance of vegetation

removal for projects in order to protect vegetation resources, would protect or restore vegetation

communities and would generally increase available forage for livestock grazing. Actions that

would reduce, damage, or destroy vegetation communities, such as burning or thinning, would

generally decrease available forage for livestock grazing. Any of these actions are likely to be

negligible to minor in scale and in some cases may be short term.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
644 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Management of the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt to protect riparian habitat for Southwestern willow

flycatcher and the yellow-billed cuckoo may limit or exclude use of the riparian area. However,

this would have a negligible impact on livestock management, as currently only one allotment

makes use of the Green Belt. All other allotments have the Green Belt fenced off to livestock for

the enhancement of riparian vegetation and important wildlife habitat.

From Recreation on Livestock Grazing

The entire Lower Sonoran would be open to recreational target shooting under all alternatives.

Impacts from this would be negligible in areas of light use, and minor in areas of moderate to

heavy use. Direct and indirect impacts would include soil disturbance from vehicular traffic to and

from the sites and loss of vegetation from vehicles and human trampling. Additionally, litter from

shell casings and targets are often left behind, impacting the quality and quantity of vegetation

and soils affected. Additionally, impacts could be moderate to major if livestock are wounded

and/or killed, which would become a financial loss to the livestock operator.

4.15.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals on Livestock Grazing

New mineral development is not allowed within the Monument. Therefore no impacts from

mineraal management on livestock grazing are expected from any of the alternatives.

From Vegetation Resources on Livestock Grazing

Within the SDNM emphasis is placed on protection of the vegetative communities and the

vegetative objects of the Monument. Grazing management changes, such as requiring deferred or

seasonal grazing, could be required as mitigation if the intensity of the impact to the vegetation

from grazing (i.e. changes in vegetation composition, structure and diversity) is determined to

be at moderate levels. The impact to the livestock operators will depend on the scale of the

management change required and could vary from negligible to major and could include the

elimination of livestock grazing within parts or all of the Monument.

4.15.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.15.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Management Identification and protection of significant cultural resources would tend to protect

vegetation and maintain available forage. Activities associated with management of cultural and

paleontological resources would affect relatively small, localized areas and would not have

measurable impacts on livestock forage. Even under the most intense management (i.e. site

excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be very small. Fencing cultural

resource sites and excluding grazing from these sites would result in a minimal loss of forage.

Impacts would be negligible to minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 645

4.15.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

Land tenure adjustments could impact livestock operations and management. The potential

disposal of (30,800) acres would have impacts that range from negligible to major and vary by

allotment due to the loss of parcels that contain important range developments or facilities and/or

a reduction of forage available for livestock. Replacement or relocations of these facilities could

mitigate some of the impacts. Acquisition of parcels within allotments could help livestock

operations by eliminating or avoiding incompatible uses and facilitating management.

Development of energy projects, mainly solar, would have impacts ranging from moderate

to major on some livestock operations by removing acreage and associated forage available

for livestock grazing (AUM’s) and potentially remove livestock developments needed for the

appropriate management of livestock operations.

The designation of up to 10 multiuse utility corridors throughout the Decision Area could lead to

new access roads and associated increased vehicle traffic. The impacts would likely be negligible

from conflicts between vehicles and livestock (direct collision or harassment) where the corridors

are limited to administrative access only or current projects that already exist.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative A,grazing allotments in the Lower Sonoran would continue to be allocated

as perennial, perennial/ ephemeral, or ephemeral, as currently designated. Grazing permit

renewals would be based on rangeland health evaluations, with associated NEPA analysis, as

appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics and multiple use requirements. Because this

alternative is the least restrictive to livestock grazing, impacts to livestock operators are expected

to be negligible, and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the permit renewal

process. Approximately 830,200 acres, with a total of 17,541 corresponding AUMs, would

remain available for livestock grazing. Approximately 100,000 acres, comprised of the Cameron

Allotment, the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, the Sentinel Plain, Ajo parcels, and other areas that are

currently unavailable for grazing, would remain so for wildlife habitat and other uses. Existing

and proposed management actions would continue to involve each livestock operator, stakeholder,

and the interested public for individual allotments on a case-by-case basis.

Range improvement projects would be developed and analyzed pursuant to 43 CFR 4120-3.

Surface disturbance from constructing rangeland development projects and water sources would

cause negligible impacts from short-term losses of vegetation for forage, but would support

appropriate distribution and management of livestock in the long term.

From Minerals Management on Livestock Grazing

Mineral development within the 614,900 acres currently open to mineral entry could impact

livestock operations by disturbing surfaces and decreasing vegetation. Livestock could be

excluded during active mineral operations, thus reducing available forage. The level of impact on

livestock operations will vary by the size of the mineral development, but are generally expected

to be minor in scale.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
646 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Management actions that limit projects, such as requiring mitigation or relocation of projects

within 1⁄4 mile of active cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl nest sites, within 300 feet of the edge of

desert washes in wildlife corridors, within 4 miles of known lesser long-nosed bat roosts and in

category I and II desert tortoise habitat, could affect livestock grazing operations with impacts

that vary from negligible to minor by limiting the placement of or requiring mitigation for new

range improvement projects.

The requirement to keep domestic sheep grazing as far as practicable from bighorn sheep habitat

would effectively eliminate the possibility of sheep grazing within the majority of the Decision

Areas. However, this would likely only be a minor impact as all current grazing permits are

for cattle or horses.

Wildlife management actions that serve to support wildlife populations, such as not allowing new

fencing in bighorn sheep habitat, can impact livestock grazing by making livestock operations

less efficient, limiting livestock management options, or closing or restricting areas to livestock

grazing. The intensity of the impact would vary by the area restricted by the action. Constructing

new wildlife waters could have minor impacts from increased roads and road density and

increased conflicts between vehicles and livestock.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

As recreational use is expected to increase throughout the Decision Areas due to an increase

in the region's population, the greatest impacts to livestock grazing would likely occur from

recreation management.

The areas outside SRMAs would be allocated as ERMAs, which are managed to custodial

standards and do not provide structured recreational opportunities except where needed to

attain custodial activity based outcomes, visitor health and safety conflicts, user conflicts, or

resource stewardships objectives/standards. ERMAs would not typically include the proactive

development of facilities or specific management actions that would prevent conflicts between

grazing operations and recreation uses.

Under Alternative A, requiring SRPs and establishing camping facilities could control the

areas where surface disturbance from recreation occurs and reduce the loss of forage available

for livestock grazing. Managing recreation use and evaluating recreation impacts on resource

conditions could increase the amount of forage available for livestock grazing by restricting

increased recreation use. Managing areas to protect visual and scenic resources or as

semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive areas could have a minor impact by restricting the

location, extent, or type of rangeland improvement projects.

Existing ROS management classes would be retained under Alternative A. Areas that have an

ROS classification of rural or roaded natural, which are relatively rare in the Decision Areas, are

more likely to have moderate impacts with intensive recreation use that may displace livestock.

Areas that have a ROS classification of semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive would have

minor impacts and be less likely to have intensive recreation use that would displace or harass

livestock, but decisions intended to maintain these classifications could restrict the location,

extent, or type of rangeland improvement projects.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 647

Increased human activity including vehicular traffic, noise, OHV operation, and camping could

have a minor impact to grazing operations by increasing the likelihood of harassment, injury, or

displacement of livestock. This avoidance or displacement could negatively affect livestock

distribution patterns. In general, SRMAs would be more likely to have the type of intensive uses

that would cause these impacts. However, over the lifetime of this Plan, increases in population

and recreation would cause similar impacts in ERMAs, particularly near urban areas.

Under Alternative A, four existing SRMAs (totaling 285,000 acres) would be retained in the

Lower Sonoran. Recreation facilities could have minor impacts by displacing or harassing

livestock, limiting range developments, or impeding livestock operations. However, the SRMAs

would provide opportunities for active management of recreation, including directing uses to avoid

conflicts or minimizing uses that might harm livestock operations, potentially limiting the impact.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Managing the 8,900-acre Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would have a minor impact by reducing

grazing management flexibility and limit grazing in the area through the decision to not allow

new range developments.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

Allocation of 1670 miles of open routes under Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran could lead to

minor impacts due to conflicts between livestock and vehicles. This route system also supports

livestock operations by providing access to livestock developments. Fifteen miles of closed or

limited routes would minimize the level of conflict and the impact to livestock operations.

From Visual Resource Management on Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative A, only wilderness areas would be managed as VRM Class I. Restrictions on

range developments would occur from the Wilderness designation and VRM I would not add to

these impacts significantly. These requirements, such as restricting the height or location of a

project, would likely require only minor changes to any potential projects. Managing 19 percent

of the Decision Area under VRM Class II standards would place additional requirements on

range developments to comply with the visual protection requirements of the class. Managing

80 percent of the Lower Sonoran to meet VRM Class III or IV objectives would support range

developments with few requirements to comply with visual protection requirements.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative A.

4.15.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

The designation of 3 utility corridors within the Monument could lead to new access roads

and associated increased vehicle traffic. However impacts from the corridors would likely be

negligible from conflicts between vehicles and livestock, and may improve livestock distribution

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
648 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

across the Monument's allotments. New land use authorizations could have impacts to livestock

operations that vary from negligible to moderate, based on the size of the surface disturbance, due

to loss of forage and potential increase in conflicts between vehicles and livestock (direct collision

or harassment). Development of energy projects, mainly solar, is not expected to have impacts on

livestock operations as it is not likely any projects will be developed due to the emphasis placed

on protection of the objects of the Monument.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative A, livestock grazing permits on the SDNM south of I-8 would remain closed,

pursuant to the Presidential Proclamation. Livestock grazing on 252,500 acres north of I-8 would

continue to be allocated as perennial, perennial/ ephemeral, or ephemeral, for a total of 8,703

AUMs. Under current management, grazing permit renewals would be based on Rangeland

Health Evaluations, with associated NEPA analysis, as appropriate to allotment-specific

characteristics and if determined to be compatible with protecting Monument resources. Because

this alternative is the least restrictive to livestock grazing, impacts to livestock operators are

expected to be negligible, and would be addressed on a case-by-case basis through the permit

renewal process. Those areas (8,500 acres) where livestock grazing was found to be incompatible

with the protection of Monument objects would be addressed in individual allotment evaluations

and permit renewals. Existing and proposed management actions would continue to involve

each livestock operator, stakeholder, and the interested public for individual allotments on

a case-by-case basis.

Range improvement projects would be developed and analyzed pursuant to 43 CFR 4120-3.

Surface disturbance from constructing rangeland development projects and water sources would

cause negligible impacts from short-term losses of vegetation for forage, but would support

appropriate distribution and management of livestock in the long term.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

within the SDNM emphasis is placed on protection of the biological objects of the Monument.

Grazing management changes, such as requiring deferred or seasonal grazing, could be required

as mitigation if the intensity of the impact to wildlife from grazing (i.e. changes in vegetation

composition, structure and diversity) is determined to be at moderate levels. The impacts to the

livestock operators will depend on the scale of the management change required to mitigate the

impact and could vary from negligible to major and could include the elimination of livestock

grazing within parts or all of the Monument. However, these actions would be facilitated through

the rangeland health evaluation/ permit renewal process and/or a habitat management plan for

specific allotments or areas.

Domestic sheep grazing would be prohibited within the Monument which could reduce the

flexibility of the operators. However, this impact would be negligible because all current grazing

permits are for cattle.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

that in the SDNM, the Gila Trail SRMA would be retained to protect resource values and to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 649

restore surface disturbance from recreation uses within 1⁄4 mile of historic and prehistoric trails

segments, which could have a minor impact to livestock operations by increasing forage available

for livestock grazing.

Under Alternative A, the entire Monument (approximately 482,334 acres of public land) is

currently open to recreational target shooting. Impacts from this would be negligible in areas

of light use, and minor in areas of moderate to heavy use. Direct and indirect impacts would

include soil disturbance from vehicular traffic to and from the sites and loss of vegetation from

vehicles and human trampling. Additionally, litter from shell casings and targets are often left

behind, impacting the quality and quantity of vegetation and soils affected. Additionally, direct

impacts could be moderate to major if livestock are wounded and/or killed, which would become

a financial loss to the livestock operator.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

There are no special designations in the Monument that impact current livestock grazing

operations. The Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC is located in an area south of I-8 that is currently

closed to livestock grazing.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

Managing 568 miles of open routes in the SDNM under Alternative A could cause minor

impacts due to conflicts between livestock and vehicles. However this route system would also

support livestock operations by providing access to livestock and range improvements across

the allotments. Closed or limited routes would minimize the level of conflict with livestock and

the impact to livestock operations.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

Managing 19 percent of the Decision Area under VRM Class II standards would place some

requirements on range developments to comply with the visual protection requirements of the

class. These requirements, such as restricting the height or location of a project, would likely

require minor to moderate changes to any potential projects. Managing 49 percent of the SDNM

to meet VRM Class III or IV objectives would not place any substantial restrictions on range

developments, such as requiring the project be relocated. Only wilderness areas would be

managed as VRM Class I under Alternative A and would restrict future range developments.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative A.

4.15.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.15.4.1. Both Decision Areas

There are no unique impacts for both decision areas under Alternative B.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
650 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.15.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Identification and protection of significant cultural resources in the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area would tend to protect vegetation and maintain available forage. Activities associated with

management of cultural and paleontological resources would affect relatively small, localized

areas and would not have measurable impacts on livestock forage. For example, the Butterfield

West Public Use Site along the Anza-Butterfield Trail proposed under Alternative B may affect

the Amavisca Allotment, which is an ephemeral allotment. The Sundad Public Use Site proposed

for the Gable Ming Allotment may affect more vegetation and forage availability because the

Gable Ming is a perennial allotment (see Map 2-1b), However, impacts from these public use

sites are expected to be negligible because very little acreage is involved. Even under the most

intense management (i.e. site excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be

very small. Fencing cultural resource sites to exclude grazing from these sites would result in a

minimal loss of forage. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

In general, impacts from multiuse utility corridors, energy projects and Land Use Authorizations

(LUAs) on livestock operations would be similar to Alternative A. Development of new energy

projects could lead to moderate to major impacts on 452,000 acres due to the removal of acreage

available for livestock grazing and the loss of range improvement projects. The fewest amount

of LUA Exclusion areas (among the action alternatives) have been allocated in Alternative B,

therefore, development of new LUAs to be located outside of designated corridors could lead to

minor impacts on grazing operations due to the removal of forage for livestock and the likelihood

of additional road development and access leading to the potential increase in conflicts between

vehicles and livestock (direct collision or harassment).

Impacts from land tenure adjustment on livestock operations in the Lower Sonoran would be

the same scale of impact as described under Alternative A, However, more allotments would

be impacted due to the increase in acres (38,300 acres total) that would available for disposal

under Alternative B.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Alternative B identifies the greatest amoount of public lands sutiable for appropriate multiple uses,

with an empahsis on motoriazed and developed recreational uses. In the Lower Sonoran, only this

alternative proposes a decrease in AUMs except for Alternative D, which eliminates grazing.

Under Alternative B, approximately 830,200 acres would remain available for livestock grazing,

but perennial stocking rates would be reduced by approximately 41 percent. Approximately

10,431 AUMs would still be available as forage for cattle. Ephemeral grazing applications would

continue to be considered to supplement the base herds in years of above-average precipitation.

This alternative could make forage more available in the long run, which in turn would increase

weight gains in cattle. Conversely, however, managing perennial grazing allotments with a

reduction of 41% in the authorized grazing preference could have moderate to major impacts

by reducing the long-term viability of some livestock operations. The reduction in livestock

numbers could leave some operators with herd sizes too small to support their current operations.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 651

Operators would have to acquire additional lands in order to support a viable operation, which, in

some cases, could be cost-prohibitive. Other impacts would be similar to Alternative A.

From Mineral Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from mineral development on livestock operations would be similar to Alternative A,

but potentially occurring over more acres (653,200). The level of impact on livestock operations

will vary by the size of the mineral development, but are generally expected to be minor in

scale because livestock and mineral development often coincide on the same lands. Fencing of

specific developments would continue to occur, but these are typically small in scale, with minor

impacts to livestock grazing.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

where new roads are required for constructing new wildlife waters, which could cause minor

impacts from increased conflicts between vehicles and livestock,.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

The overall focus of Alternative B is on identifying the greatest extent of public land area

suitable for the widest potential array of appropriate uses, and on providing opportunities for

those uses, including an emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities. The overall effects

on livestock operations would be similar in nature to Alternative A. However, impacts would

increase to moderate levels as there would be a greater than a three-fold increase over Alternative

A in the area designated for SRMAs. Under Alternative B, impacts from front country and

community interface RMZ allocations would have moderate impacts and be similar to those from

the roaded natural ROS settings under Alternative A. Impacts from back country and passage

RMZs would be most similar to semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive nonmotorized ROS

settings under Alternative A and have only minor or negligible impacts on grazing operations and

livestock/recreation user conflicts. In particular, allotments in the SRMAs allocated for motorized

recreation use (Buckeye Hills East Trails, Ajo Trails, and Painted Rocks Trails SRMAs) and those

along the urban interface (Rainbow Valley/North Vekol, Saddle Mountain, and Buckeye Hills

West SRMAs) would experience the greatest conflicts with recreation use. The specific allotments

that would be impacted include Kirian, Lower Vekol, Palo Verde Mountains, Conley, Beloat,

Arnold, Powers Butte, Turner, Saddle Mountain, Ward, Carter-Herrera, Clem, Artex, and Childs.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Management of the 8,900 acre Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would the same as Alternative A. This

would have a minor impact to grazing operations by reducing grazing management flexibility by

limiting new range developments. Increased vehicle traffic associated with designating the Agua

Caliente Road as a backcountry byway could have minor impacts to the livestock operations by

increased conflicts between vehicles and livestock and potential increased vandalism of rangeland

improvement projects.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
652 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The proposed route network under Alternative B would cause conflicts similar to those described

under Alternative A on open routes, but slightly less widespread because approximately 70 fewer

miles of routes would be open to the public under Alternative B. This route system would continue

to support livestock operations by providing access to livestock and livestock developments.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from the allocation of VRM Classes on livestock operations would be similar (minor) to

those described under Alternative A. However, a 40 percent increase in areas managed under

VRM Class II standards would increase the area that additional mitigation, such as restricting the

height or location of a project, would be required on range developments.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative

B, resulting in no impacts.

4.15.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

For the SDNM Decision Area, land use allocations reflect the findings of the livestock grazing

Compatibility Analysis (Appendix E, Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the

Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)). Based on the results of the Compatibility

Analysis, livestock grazing has been determined to be incompatible with 8,498 acres, some

of which are cultural and heritage resources (the Anza and Morman Battalion trails, for

example). Under Alternatibe B, these 8,500 acres would be specifically fenced off to ensure that

non-compatible areas are protected, per the Monument proclamation. Approximately 83 miles of

fencing would be needed to exclude these areas to livestock grazing. Included in this areaa would

be approximately 10 acres around the North Tank on the Conley Allotment along the Anza NHT.

Identification and protection of additional cultural resources and Monument objects would tend

to protect vegetation and maintain available forage. Activities associated with management of

cultural and paleontological resources would affect relatively small, localized areas and would

not have measurable impacts on livestock forage. For example, four developed interpretive sites

are proposed under Alternative B. These include the Christmas Camp Public Use Site and the

Anza-Butterfield Interpretive Trail Area in the Conley Allotment, and the Bighorn and Happy

Camp Public Use Sites on the Bighorn Allotment (see Map 2-1b), However, impacts loss of

vegetation and available forage from these public use sites are expected to be negligible because

very little acreage would be involved in the development of these sites. Even under the most

intense management (i.e. site excavation), the amount of acreage disturbed would likely be very

small. Fencing additional cultural resource sites to exclude grazing from these sites would result

in a minimal loss of forage. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors on livestock operations would be the same as Alternative

A. New land use authorizations could have impacts to livestock operations; however, impacts

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 653

would likely be negligible, as the Monument is an avoidance area for projects. There will be no

impacts from the development of energy projects as the Monument is an exclusion area from

large renewable energy developments.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Alternative B identifies the greatest amount of public lands suitable for appropriate multiple uses,

with an empahsis on motorized and developed recreational uses. In the SDNM, this alternative

proposes the greatest decrease in AUMs except for Alternative E, which eliminates grazing on the

Conley Allotment and makes slight reductions on other Monument allotments, and Alternative D,

which eliminates grazing in the entire Planning Area.

Under Alternative B, those areas south of I-8 that were closed under the Presidential Proclamation

would remain closed. Stocking rates on grazing allotments north of I-8 would be allocated as

perennial grazing and would be reduced by approximately 39 percent. Ephemeral grazing

applications would continue to be considered. This alternative also eliminates approximately

8,500 acres currently available for grazing that have been determined to be incompatible with

the protection of Monument objects from livestock grazing. These 8,500 acres would be made

unavailable by fencing off these specific areas. This would leave approximately 244,000

acres of the Monument still open, with an associated 5,321 AUMs of forage for livestock use.

Approximately 83 miles of fencing would be needed to exlude these specific areas to livestock

grazing. Included in this area would be approximately 10 acres around the North Tank on the

Conley Allotment.

Additional water developments would likely be necessary to offset the loss of water sources

within the exclosures. Managing 8,500 fewer acres with more fence lines, fewer waters, and a

reduction of 39% in the authorized grazing preference could have a major impact by reducing the

long-term viability of some livestock operations, especially when considered with the cumulative

impacts of the closure of those areas south of I-8, as well. The reduction in livestock numbers

could leave some operators on the SDNM with herd sizes too small to support their current

operations. Operators would have to acquire additional lands in order to support a viable

operation, which, in some cases, could be cost-prohibitive. All associated range improvement

projects within and outside the fenced exclosuses would have to be addressed on a case-by-case

basis. Other impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Combined impacts from this alternative

would likely be minor to moderate for allotments such as Beloat, Arnold, Hazen, and Lower

Vekol, but could be moderate to major for operators of the Bighorn and Conley Allotments.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Most impacts would be similar those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

However, on the SDNM, 8,500 acres, with 83 miles of fencing, is proposed to be fenced off to

protect Monument objects from livestock grazing. This is the most fencing proposed in any of the

alternatives. Water sources within this exclosure may remain available for wildlife, which could

impact livestock that have come to rely on those water sources. This could result in livestock

tearing down fences to get to their habitual water holes, which in turn would result in downed

barbed wire and cattle trespassing into exclosures.

Diligence would be required from all parties to ensure fencing is maintained and adequate water

sources are provided for cattle and wildlife outside the exclosures. In general, direct impacts

from wildlife on livestock grazing would remain negligible, and resemble those described in

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
654 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative A. However, indirect impacts from the fence exclosure would require additional water

sources for the benefit of both livestock and widlife.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

The overall focus of Alternative B is on identifying an increase of public land area suitable for

the widest potential array of appropriate uses, and on providing opportunities for those uses,

including an emphasis on motorized recreation opportunities. The overall effects on livestock

operations would be similar in nature to Alternative A; however, impacts would increase over

Alternative A as the area designated for SRMAs increases. Under Alternative B, impacts from

Front Country and Community Interface RMZ allocations would likely be similar to those from

the roaded natural ROS settings under Alternative A. Impacts from Back Country and Passage

RMZs would be most similar to semi-primitive motorized and semi-primitive nonmotorized

ROS settings under Alternative A.

Managing the entire SDNM as a destination SRMA would restrict recreation facilities, and

emphasize nonmotorized access and natural landscapes potentially increasing forage available

for livestock grazing compared to Alternative A. Managing 84 percent of the SDNM SRMA to

meet Back Country RMZ objectives, however, could restrict the location, extent, or type of

rangeland improvement projects compared to Alternative A. This would likely have, at most, a

minor impact to livestock operations.

Under Alternative B, impacts from recreational target shooting would be similar to Alternative

A. However, only about 95,900 acres would be available for target shooting activities. This is

approximately 386,434 fewer acres available for target shooting than under Alternative A, and

a significant decrease (80.3%) in potential impacts to forage and vegetative cover available for

livestock, as well as a decrease in the chances of the animals themselves being injured or killed by

target shooters. Therefore, impacts from target shooting under alternative B is expected to be

negligible to minor. This alternative would not impact licensed hunting in the Monument.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the SDNM. However, under

Alternative B, the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACECwould no longer be designated because the

Monument Proclamation provides adequate protection for the resources intended to be protected

under the original ACEC. Additionally, approximately 10 acres of the Anza NHT around

North Tank on the Conley Allotment would be fenced off. Livestock grazing was found to be

incompatible with this Monument object and would be excluded from this site. Mitigation in the

form of an alternate water source for livestock may be required.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

The proposed route network under Alternative B would cause conflicts similar to those described

under Alternative A resulting in minor impacts, but slightly minimized because approximately

100 fewer miles of routes in the SDNM would be open to the public. This route system

would continue to support livestock operations by providing access to livestock and livestock

developments. However, the additional 83 miles of fencing could restrict some access to

recreationists, who could cut fences or leave gates open, creating management issues for livestock

operators. Impacts would depend on the scale and frequency of vandalism by allotment. For

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 655

example, impacts would be negligible for the Beloat, Hazen, and Arnold Allotments where

no additional fencing is proposed. Impacts for the Bighorn Allotment permittee would be

minor, with an additional 14 miles of fencing to maintain, and impacts to the Conley Allotment

operator would be moderate, with 69 miles of fencing to maintain. Installation of cattleguards and

strategically located gates in heavily trafficked areas would help mitigate this impact.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

Managing 39 percent more of the Decision Area as VRM Class II as compared to Alternative

A could reduce surface disturbance from human uses but also would restrict operator flexibility

by impacting the location, extent, or type rangeland improvement projects. The impact could

range from minor changes to the project design to a moderate impact from requiring relocation

of the project.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

No lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alternative

B, resulting in no impacts.

4.15.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.15.5.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts exists for both decision areas under Alternative C.

4.15.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B, except for the allocation of

the Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trail Special Cultural Resource Management

Areas (SCRMA) that runs through much of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area (see Map 2-1c).

Additionally, the Saddle Mountain SCRMA is proposed under Alternative C, and would impact

several grazing allotments in the Saddle Mountain area, including the Clem (South) , Saddle

Mountain, and Ward Allotments. (The Carter-Herrera and Turner Allotments would also be

affected, but they are managed by the Hassayampa Field Office). These SCRMAs would have

minor impacts to these livestock operations by placing additional restrictions on the location of

livestock developments, numbers, and operations to reduce wildlife and livestock conflicts in

these areas. Increased restrictions on vehicle uses and mineral material development in washes

could help protect these areas for livestock use and decrease livestock harassment from vehicles.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

In the Lower Sonoran, the intensity of the impacts from multiuse utility corridors, energy projects

and LUAs on livestock operations would be similar to Alternative B, but would occur over less

area due to fewer acres available for these projects.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
656 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts from land tenure adjustment on livestock operations would be greater than under

Alternative A, and less than Alternative B due to 36,600 acres available for disposal under

Alternative C.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Alternative C attempts to balance resource protection with human use and influence. The

proposed combination of natural processes and "hands on" techniques would reduce the need

for intensive livestock management and mitigation efforts needed to avoid or reduce impacts to

and from livestock grazing.

Under this alternative, grazing allotments that are currently designated as perennial/ephemeral

would be allocated as perennial only, with no supplemental ephemeral grazing applications

considered when additional forage is available. This alternative would impact 14 allotments that

are currently designated as perennial/ephemeral. These allotments would instead be managed

similar to the 9 allotments in the Lower Sonoran that are currently perennial only. This alternative

would not apply to the 21 allotments that are designated ephemeral only. Those allotments would

continue to be managed in accordance with the Special Ephemeral Rule.

Alternative C further proposes to restrict the portion of the Bighorn Allotment that is in the Lower

Sonoran (outside the SDNM boundaries) to winter season of use only (Oct 1-April 30). This

would have a minor impact on the livestock operator by not permitting utilization of any summer

forage. Additionally, this alternative proposes to close the portion of the Table Top Allotment to

livestock grazing. This would result in negligible impacts to livestock or the permittee because

this portion of the allotment has been managed with the remainder of the allotment that was

closed to livestock grazing through the Presidential Proclamation.

Seasonal adjustments in grazing on perennial allotments would be considered during the permit

renewal process, and would propose approximately 65 percent use during the winter-spring

season [October 1 to April 30] and approximately 35 percent use during the summer season

[May 1 to September 30]. These management changes, and any decisions to adjust livestock

numbers or require more intensive management (pasture rotations, seasonal removals, etc.),

would likely have moderate to major impacts to operator costs. For example, increased pasture

rotations and seasonal removals could increase the number of employees needed to facilitate this

intensive management. While this would provide income for these employees in the short term,

it could eventually bankrupt some livestock operators. However, individualized consultation,

coordination, and cooperation with the affected parties during the permit renewal process

could help lessen financial impacts to the operator while also decreasing impacts of grazing on

rangeland resources.

From Mineral Management on Livestock Grazing

The intensity of the impacts from mineral development on livestock operations would be the

same as Alternative A; however this would occur over substantially less acreage in the Planning

Area (340,600).

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran, except,

not allowing for the development of new wildlife waters would eliminate any minor impacts

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 657

associated with increased roads and road density and increased conflicts between vehicles and

livestock from new waters.

In addition, allocation of four WHAs in the Lower Sonoran could have minor impacts to livestock

operations by placing additional restrictions on the location of livestock developments and

operations to reduce wildlife and livestock conflicts in these areas. Increased restrictions on

vehicle uses and mineral material development in washes could reduce impacts to vegetation and

retain forage for livestock use and decrease livestock harassment from vehicles.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

General impacts from recreation on livestock operations would be similar to Alternative B.

Alternative C proposes manageing for nearly equal access for motorized and non-motorized

uses. In comparison to Alternative B, this would entail a 45 percent increase in the Backcountry

and Passage RMZs, a 20 percent decrease in Front Country and Community Interface RMZs,

and more than 50 percent fewer ERMAs. These actions would result in a decrease of certain

intensive recreation uses and the associated minor impacts on livestock and livestock operations.

Allotments in the urban interface would continue to see increased recreational use as populations

grow resulting in minor to moderate impacts.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Managing grazing allotments within all ACEC’s as perennial only will have a major impact by

reducing the livestock operator’s ability to utilize ephemeral forage with additional permitted

livestock, which could reduce the long-term viability of some livestock operations. Managing

14,400 acres as the Coffeepot-Batamote Botanical ACEC could have a minor impact to grazing

operations by reducing grazing management flexibility through the management action to limit

all surface disturbing activities. This could restrict new range developments that could improve

livestock distribution within the allotment. Impacts from designation of the Agua Caliente Road

as a backcountry byway would be the same as Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

A decrease in the miles of open routes in the Lower Sonoran compared to Alternative A and B

would minimize conflicts between vehicles and livestock. This route system would continue to

support livestock operations by providing access to livestock and livestock developments.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

General impacts from VRM Class allocations on livestock operations would be similar to those

described under Alternative A and B. However, a substantial increase in VRM II (approximately

387,800 acres) over Alternatives A and B, as well as an additional 91,800 acres under VRM

I standards could reduce surface disturbance and increase the amount of forage available for

livestock grazing. These allocations would also necessitate additional mitigation on range

developments on more than half of the Decision Area in order to make less of a visual impact to

humans, but this would have only minor impacts on livestock.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
658 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for both Decision Areas,

except, restricting the portion of the Big Horn allotment south of I-8 and outside of the SDNM

to winter season of use only (Oct. 1 – April 30) would have a minor impact on the operator by

reducing the flexibility to utilize the area during the summer season. Closing the portion of the

Table Top allotment south of I-8 and outside of SDNM to livestock grazing will have a negligible

impact since this portion of the allotment was managed with the remainder of the allotment that

was closed to livestock grazing through the SDNM proclamation.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

Managing 132,100 acres in the Lower Sonoran as allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics could reduce surface disturbance from activities and maintain available forage in

these areas, such allocations would also have a minor impact to some livestock operations by

increasing the mitigation requirements and potential changes in type and location for range

developments in these areas.

4.15.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B, except for the allocation of

the Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trail Special Cultural Resource Management

Areas (SCRMA) that runs along the Anza-Butterfield Trail, primarily through the Conley and

Bighorn Allotments (see Map 2-1c). This SCRMA proposed under Alternative C would increase

the width of the Anza-Butterfield Interpretive Trail proposed under Alternative B. The SCRMAs

would have minor impacts to these livestock operations by placing additional restrictions on the

location of livestock developments, numbers, and operations to reduce wildlife and livestock

conflicts in these areas.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from utility corridors would be similar to Alternative A (negligible), except somewhat

reduced due to a 1⁄2 mile wide limit on the corridor size and the elimination of the TEP corridor.

Impacts from new land use authorizations and the development of energy projects would be

the same as Alternative B.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative C, grazing allotments within the SDNM south of I-8 would remain closed.

Those allotments in the Monument that are north of I-8 would be allocated as perennial only, with

no ephemeral grazing applications considered. (The Arnold Allotment, which is designated as

ephemeral only, would not be affected by this alternative, and would continue to be managed in

accordance with the Special Ephemeral Rule.)

Additionally, Alternative C proposes to fence off the 8,500 acres of Monument objects determined

to be incompatible with livestock grazing, plus an additional 36,300 acres that connect and/or

surround those 8,500 acres. Although a total of 44,800 acres is proposed to be removed from

livestock use, only about 47 miles of new fencing would be required to accomplish this. These

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 659

new fences would tie into existing fences and make use of topographic barriers, such as cliffs,

gorges, and rocky outcrops to decrease the amount of fencing needed, and thus decrease the

impacts from the fence line. This would result in fewer breaches by livestock and require about

half the maintenance of the fence proposed in Alternative B, which in turn would decrease

materials and operational costs to both the permittee and the BLM. Range improvement projects

within the exclosed areas would be addressed on a case-by-case basis, pursuant to 43 CFR

4120. Any range improvement projects within the exclosure would likely have to be removed

or modified for the benefit of wildlife and vegetation resources. Affects from the loss of water

sources inside the exclosure would be mitigated by installing other water sources outside the

exclosure for the benefit of livestock and wildlife.

Requiring changes to allotment grazing management systems could have impacts to livestock

operators that would vary depending upon the scale of the change. Management changes resulting

in adjusting livestock numbers or requiring more intensive management (pasture rotations,

seasonal removals, etc.) would affect operator costs and would likely have moderate to major

impacts. For example, the closure of portions of allotments south of I-8 has already impacted

the management and finances of those permittees affected by the Proclamation. Cumulatively,

more intense management of those areas north of I-8, including increased pasture rotations and

seasonal removals, could bankrupt some livestock operators or make future operations untenable.

However, individualized consultation, coordination, and cooperation with the effected parties

would help lessen financial impacts to the operator while also decreasing impacts of grazing on

rangeland resources and Monument objects.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

The impacts from priority wildlife species and habitat management would be similar to those

described under Alternative B for the SDNM except that 47 miles of fence line would exclose a

total of 44,800 acres, rather than the 8,500 acres proposed in Alternative B. This is significantly

less acreage and AUMs available for livestock use, which would result decrease in grazing

fences as well. In general, direct impacts from wildlife on livestock grazing would remain

negligible, and resemble those described in Alternative A. However, indirect impacts from the

fence exclosure would require an AUM reduction, more fencing, and additional water sources

for the benefit of both livestock and widlife.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

General impacts from recreation on livestock operations would be similar to Alternative B, except

that managing for a balance of uses between motorized and nonmotorized recreational uses with

more Back Country and Passage RMZs would decrease certain intensive recreation uses and the

associated impacts on livestock and livestock operations that were described in Alternative B.

Allotments in the urban interface would continue to see increased recreational use as populations

grows, resulting in minor to moderate impacts from conflicts between recreationists and livestock.

Under Alternative C, impacts from target shooting would be similar to Alternative A and B.

However, less than 1,134 acres would be open to target shooting and in limited, designated areas.

This would decrease direct and indirect impacts to livestock and livestock grazing by as much as

99.8 percent. Therefore, impacts are expected to be negligible.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
660 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the SDNM, except

designating Highway 238 and Interstate 8 as scenic byways may have a minor impact on grazing

permittees by restricting the location, extent, or type of livestock developments allowed.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

The proposed route network under Alternative C would minimize conflicts between vehicles and

livestock as compared to Alternative A and B with approximately 183 miles of routes in the

SDNM open to the public. This route system would continue to support livestock operations by

providing access to livestock and livestock developments. However, the additional 47 miles

of fencing could restrict some access to recreationists, who could cut fences or leave gates

open, creating management issues for livestock operators. Impacts would depend on the scale

and frequency of vandalism by allotment. For example, impacts would be negligible for the

Beloat, Hazen, and Arnold Allotments where no additional fencing is proposed. Impacts for the

Conley Allotment permittee would be minor, with an additional 18 additional miles of fencing to

maintain, and impacts to the Bighorn Allotment opertor would be moderate, with 27 more miles

of fencing to maintain. Installation of cattleguards and strategically located gates in heavily

trafficed areas would help mitigate this impact.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

General impacts from VRM Class allocations on livestock operations would be similar to those

described under Alternative B, but with a 48,300 acre increase in VRM II. This could reduce

surface disturbance and increase the amount of forage available for livestock grazing. Such

allocations would also necessitate additional mitigation on range developments. The impact could

range from minor changes to the project design to a moderate impact from requiring relocation

of the project.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

Managing 153,000 acres in the SDNM north of I-8 as allocated lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics could reduce surface disturbance and maintain available forage;

however this allocation would also have a minor impact to livestock operations by increasing

the mitigation requirements and potentially changes in type and location for range developments

in these areas.

4.15.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.15.6.1. Both Decision Areas

Under Alternative D, all allotments would become unavailable to livestock grazing as permits

expire. All livestock grazing would eventually be eliminated across both Decision Areas.

Under Alternative D, all livestock on BLM-administered land would be removed and allotments

would become unavailable for grazing when current permits expire. Approximately 1,780 miles

of fence line across the entire planning area could potentially be removed to enhance wildlife

habitat, visual resources, and recreational opportunities. Approximately 130 miles of fencing

in the SDNM, and 1,647 miles of fencing in the Lower Sonoran could potentially be removed.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 661

The burden of removing fences would fall on State and Federal wildlife managers. Fences along

rights-of-way, such as highways, roads, railways, and utility corridors, would remain in place.

Range improvement projects, such as wells, corrals, pipelines, troughs and water catchments

would also become the responsibility of State and Federal employees. All range improvement

projects, including but not limited to fencelines and water developments, would either be removed

or modified on a case-by-case basis, and the BLM would be required to reimburse the permittees

for the cost of the range improvement, in accordance with 43 CFR 4120.

During years of increased winter rainfall the fuel load created from the growth of annual species

(up to 2000 lbs./ acre + air dry weight) would not be subject reduction from livestock grazing,

which could result in increased frequency and/or intensity of fire in these non-fire adapted

ecosystems. This could have moderate to major impacts on all other vegetation across the

Planning Area.

This decision would eliminate any impacts to or from livestock grazing across the entire Planning

Area, including on Monument objects. Approximately 1,416,600 acres would no longer be used

for livestock grazing and approximatley 26,244 AUMs would become available for wildlife

forage and habitat. This would have major impacts on the economic viability of cattle operations

because permittees would be required to turn to other means to sustain their herds or get out of the

ranching business altogether. In turn, those towns and communities that are dependent on the

ranching industry could see moderate to major economic impacts, as well.

4.15.6.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts have been identified for the Lower Sonoran in Alternative D.

4.15.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts have been identified for the SDNM in Alternative D.

4.15.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.15.7.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts have been identified for Both Decision Areas under Alternative E.

4.15.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts of Alternative E would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran, except the allocation of the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails SCRMAs would be

developed through the SDNM, but not in the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
662 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative E incorporates elements from each of the other alternatives, and offers a prescription

for managing grazing on the Lower Sonoran Decision Area while providing long-term protection

and resource conservation. Under Alternative E, grazing allotments would be allocated as

perennial, perennial/ ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate to allotment-specific characteristics.

Impacts from these allocations would be similar to Alternative A by providing more flexibility

to appropriately manage livestock, as compared to the allocation restrictions proposed under

Alternatives B and C.

Similar to Alternative C, Alternative E proposes to restrict the portion of the Bighorn Allotment

that is in the Lower Sonoran (outside the SDNM boundaries) to winter season of use only

(Oct 1-April 30). This would have a minor impact on the livestock operator by not permitting

utilization of any summer forage. Additionally, this alternative proposes to close the portion of

the Table Top Allotment to livestock grazing. This would result in negligible impacts to livestock

or the permittee because this portion of the allotment has been managed with the remainder of the

allotment that was closed to livestock grazing through the Presidential Proclamation.

Managing perennial grazing allotments with slight reduction in the authorized grazing preference

could have a major impact by reducing the long-term viability of some livestock operations.

Allowing supplemental ephemeral authorizations could offset some of the impact to the livestock

operations by allowing additional livestock during years of ephemeral production.

Seasonal adjustments in grazing on perennial allotments would be considered during the permit

renewal process, and would propose approximately 65 percent use during the winter-spring

season [October 1 to April 30] and approximately 35 percent use during the summer season

[May 1 to September 30]. These management changes, and any decisions to adjust livestock

numbers or require more intensive management (pasture rotations, seasonal removals, etc.),

would likely have moderate to major impacts to operator costs. For example, increased pasture

rotations and seasonal removals could increase the number of employees needed to facilitate this

intensive management. While this would provide income for these employees in the short term,

it could eventually bankrupt some livestock operators. However, individualized consultation,

coordination, and cooperation with the affected parties during the permit renewal process

could help lessen financial impacts to the operator while also decreasing impacts of grazing on

rangeland resources.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors would be the same as Alternative D. Impacts from energy

projects on livestock operations in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to Alternative C due to

similarity in acres available for projects. Impacts from land use authorizations would decrease

from Alternative C, because 45,100 fewer acres would be set aside as LUA Exclusion areas.

Impacts from land tenure decisions on livestock operations in the Lower Sonoran would be

similar to Alternative A due to similar numbers of acres that would be available for disposal.

From Minerals Management on Livestock Grazing

The level of impact from mineral development on livestock operations would be the same as

Alternative C, although there is an increase of 35,800 acres available for development for a

total of 376,400 acres.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 663

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from recreation on livestock operations would be the same as those under Alternative C

due to similar RMZ acres.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Management actions for the 61,300 acre Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC, the 58,500 acre Cuerda de

Lena ACEC and the 48,500 acre Saddle Mountain ACEC would have a negligible impact on

grazing allotments. Management actions for ACECs allow livestock facilities to be developed if

they improve natural resource conditions by improving livestock distribution.

Approximately 79,100 acres would be designated as the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails

ACEC. Designation of the ACECwould have minor impacts to livestock operations by placing

some restrictions on the location of livestock developments to protect the cultural resources.

Impacts from designation of the Agua Caliente Road as a backcountry byway would be the

same as Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from travel management on livestock operations would be similar to those under

Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran, due to similar miles of open vehicle routes.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from the allocation of VRM Classes on livestock operations would be the same as those

described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

As under Alternative C, lands allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

would increase the mitigation requirements and potentially change the type and location for range

developments in these areas. Impacts under Alternative E would be the same, however, would

be somewhat less widespread as fewer acres (55,400) would be allocated as lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics compared to Alternative and D.

4.15.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative C, However, because the Conley

Allotment would be closed to livestock grazing, North Tank would not have to be fenced off. The

Anza NHT and interpretive / public use sites would likely be expanded because their impacts

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
664 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

would be negligible, since there would be no cattle in Conley. Impacts from the public use sites

proposed on the Bighorn Allotment would have the same impacts as described for Alternative C.

From Lands & Realty on Livestock Grazing

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors would be the same as those described in Alternative D.

Impacts from the development of energy projects would be the same as Alternative B. There would

be no impacts from land use authorizations as the Monument is excluded from any new projects.

From Livestock Grazing on Livestock Grazing

Alternative E incorporates elements from each of the other alternatives, and it offers a prescription

for managing grazing on the SDNM Decision Area while providing long-term protection and

resource conservation. Impacts from grazing decisions would be similar to Alternative A by

allowing a full suite of allocations to perennial, perennial-ephemeral, and ephemeral permits north

of I-8. This would provide flexibility to appropriately manage livestock compared to Alternatives

B and C. Grazing would be adjusted as needed in the permit renewal process, in accordance with

grazing regulations and in response to the grazing determinations required by the Proclamation.

Impacts from seasonal adjustments would be similar to Alternative C. Likewise; this alternative

reflects the exclosures and associated impacts described in Alternative C.

Additionally, Alternative E proposes making the entire portion of the Conley Allotment within

the SDNM boundaries unavailable to livestock grazing. The Conley Allotment had the largest

departure from Standard 3 and the most acreage found to be incompatible with current grazing

practices. Impacts from this alternative would have major impacts to the permittee of the Conley

Allotment by decreasing the preference inside the SDNM to 0 AUMs, and proportionately

decreasing remaining AUMs allocated for portions outside the Monument boundary.

Range improvement projects would experience the same impacts as described in Alternative C,

except that projects across the entire allotment would be affected. Water developments would

be removed or modified for the enhancement of wildlife and other uses. The permittee would

be reimbursed for the range improvement projects that would be removed, in accordance with

43 CFR 4120.

From Priority Wildlife on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM, except that the

Conley Allotment would be unavailable for grazing, and associated AUMs would be allocated

to wildlife.

From Recreation Management on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be similar to and have the same intensity as those described in Alternative B

for the SDNM. However, recreational target shooting would be prohibited on the Monument.

Therefore, impacts from target shooters on livestock would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be the same as those described Alternative C for the SDNM.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 665

From Travel Management on Livestock Grazing

The proposed route network would minimize conflicts between vehicles and livestock as

compared to Alternative A, B and C, with approximately 243 miles of routes in the SDNM open

to the public. This route system would continue to support livestock operations by providing

access to livestock and livestock developments.

From Visual Resources on Livestock Grazing

General impacts from VRM Class allocations on livestock operations would be similar to those

described under Alternative C, but with a 27,900 acre decrease in VRM II going to VRM III.

This could reduce surface disturbance and increase the amount of forage available for livestock

grazing. Such allocations would also necessitate additional mitigation on range developments.

The impact could range from minor changes to the project design to a moderate impact from

requiring relocation of the project.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Livestock Grazing

Managing lands with wilderness characteristics in the SDNM by allocating them as lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics would have the same impacts as Alternative C, but

with a slight decrease of 1,300 acres.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
666 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.16. IMPACTS ON MINERALS MANAGEMENT

An evaluation of the effects on mineral resources from the proposed management decisions

focuses on actions that would alter, restrict, or prohibit disturbance or damage to the ground

surface and associated resources that would be expected to occur during mineral exploration

and development activities.

The proclamation creating the SDNM closed the Monument to all forms of mineral entry, subject

to valid existing rights. A search on June 14, 2010 of the BLM’s mining claim records (LR2000)

showed that all previously existing mining claims within the SDNM have been allowed to lapse

by the claimants. Also there are no existing mineral leases or mineral materials contracts or

permits within the SDNM. Therefore there are no valid existing mineral rights within the SDNM.

There are three Title 23 Materials Site Rights-of-Way LUAs, which are realty actions, within

the Monument.

4.16.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.16.1.1. Indicators

No indicators were used during the analysis of this section.

4.16.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of minerals management are made:

● Demand for mineral commodities, construction materials, and energy resources will increase

over the long term in the U.S. and within the Planning Area.

● Increased demand for energy and minerals will stimulate exploration for potential resources,

predominately within areas of known high and moderate potential within the Planning Area.

● It is assumed there will be no major change in the legal framework under which locatable,

leasable, and salable minerals are administered.

● The BLM will ensure alternatives in this plan will not compromise valid and existing mineral

rights,.

● There will continue to be controversy surrounding mineral development associated with a

range of societal pressures. This controversy will require more BLM Federal land managers’

time and resources as they attempt to move Federal properties forward through mineral

exploration, permitting, and development.

● The BLM will provide for timely permit evaluation and processing of all mineral exploration

and development proposals, subject to personnel and administrative constraints.

4.16.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Minerals

There would be no impacts to minerals management from actions proposed under the following

program areas:

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Minerals Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 667

● Caves Resources

● Livestock Grazing

● Paleontological Resources

● Soil Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

● Wildland Fire Management

4.16.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

4.16.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.16.2.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas for all Action

Alternatives.

4.16.2.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Minerals Management

All mineral development would be required to meet air quality standards as set by law. Such

requirements can result in delays in permitting and added compliance/mitigation costs or outright

denial of mining. Mineral development proposals that cannot meet standards would not be

allowed to proceed.

From Water Resources on Minerals Management

All mineral development would be required to meet water quality standards as set by law.

Such requirements can result in delays in permitting and added compliance/mitigation costs or

outright denial of mining. Mineral development proposals that cannot meet standards would

not be allowed to proceed.

4.16.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

4.16.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under this alternative, the current situation would continue with acreages (approximate, rounded

to nearest 100) as shown in Table 4.24, “Alternative A Mineral Entry Status” (p. 668). Since

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
668 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

none of the decisions in this plan affect non-BLM surface, the BLM subsurface with non-Federal

surface acres situation will not change under the various alternatives but will continue to be

managed in accordance with existing laws, regulations, and policy.

Table 4.24. Alternative A Mineral Entry Status

Status

Total Acres (Both

Decision Areas)

Acres currently open to

minerals activities

Acres currently closed to

minerals activities

BLM subsurface with BLM

surface

1,338,300 713,300 625,000

BLM subsurface with

non-Federal surface

210,000 139,000 71,000

4.16.3.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas in Alternative B.

4.16.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Minerals Management

All mineral development would be required to identify and avoid or mitigate, through

documentation or collection, impacts to cultural resources. These requirements will add delays

and additional costs to mineral development.

From Lands & Realty on Minerals Management

As described in existing planning. The area available for mineral development under BLM

administration would be reduced by as much as 20,000 acres (3 percent of currently open lands)

through disposal of public lands by any means. This includes an existing mineral materials

operation (Arizona Pacific Materials II, LLC) and a mineral materials site used by the Maricopa

County Department of Transportation (Courthouse Pit) through a free use permit. Ten utility

corridors could interfere with or eliminate mineral exploration and development within their

boundaries.

Utility-scale renewable energy facilities in the valley areas could remove large tracts of land from

availability for mineral development, primarily of salable sand and gravel resources.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Minerals

Management

Specific management decisions for priority wildlife species and habitat resources that would affect

mineral resources development include discretionary authority to restrict leasable and salable

mineral development to areas that would result in no net loss of desert tortoise habitat and locatable

mineral development which could require mitigation or other compensation when tortoise habitat

could not be avoided. Conflicts between desert tortoise habitat and mineral development would be

widespread on the landscape due to the substantial overlap of desert tortoise habitat with locatable

mineral and decorative rock salable mineral potentials. Conservation measures associated with T

& E species, particularly within the pronghorn habitat area in the Ajo Block, which has moderate

mineral potential, could limit mineral resource development.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 669

From Recreation Management on Minerals Management

Implementation of Alternative A would retain the four SRMAs (Gila Trail, Saddle Mountain,

Ajo, and Sentinel Plain) totaling 379,400 acres. Allocation of SRMAs could restrict mineral

development when such development conflicts with recreation facilities and developments that

support the recreation purposes of the area. This limit is likely to be minor since recreation

facilities require a negligible percentage of the landscape. Conversely, active management of

recreation could be used to direct recreation use away from energy and mineral development

areas thus decreasing conflicts, this capability would likely become increasingly important as

the population grows and recreation use increases. Areas outside of these four SRMAs would

continue to be managed as an ERMA (totaling 550,800 acres) and would not have facilities,

visitation standards, or specific management decisions. The ERMA allocation would thus be

unlikely to impact mineral development in the short-term. However, recreation use would not be

regulated to any great extent, thus eliminating the opportunity to direct increasing recreation use

away from energy and mineral development areas in the long-term.

From Special Designations on Minerals Management

Designation of the Coffeepot—Botanical and Vekol Valley Grasslands ACECs(13,440 acres total)

could place limitations on leasable and salable minerals exploration and production and would

require plans of operations for all operations beyond casual use for locatable minerals.

From Travel Management on Minerals Management

Motor vehicle use would be limited to existing or designated roads and trails, except in

approximately 91,750 acres of wilderness areas and 8,900 acres of the Coffeepot ACEC that

would remain closed to motorized travel. Approximately 1,670 miles of existing routes would

remain open for motorized use and 15 miles would remain closed to motorized use. Maintaining

all existing routes open for vehicle use would maintain current vehicle access for mineral

exploration and development opportunities throughout the area.

From Vegetation Resources on Minerals Management

Impacts to mineral development related to restoration objectives for vegetation reestablishment,

and control of invasive species could result in increased expenditures by companies or individuals

needed to achieve the required standards.

From Visual Resources on Minerals Management

In general, VRM classifications could cause surface disturbance restrictions to be put in place

to maintain the specified VRM class, or impose additional rehabilitation requirements to return

an area to its VRM class after mineral development is completed. In areas of VRM I or II

classification, discretionary minerals activities could be prohibited. VRM I and II aim to retain

the visual character of viewsheds and typically require more stipulations or rehabilitation. VRM

III allows for changes to the visual character or viewshed and requires fewer stipulations or

rehabilitation to maintain the VRM class. VRM IV rarely requires stipulations or rehabilitation

to maintain the VRM class.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
670 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative A, 116,300 acres would be allocated as VRM II, 279,600 acres would be

allocated as VRM Class III and 442,500 acres would be allocated as VRM Class IV. In addition,

91,800 acres allocated to VRM I in the Lower Sonoran are within wilderness areas closed to

mineral entry. VRM classification would have little impact to energy and mineral operations,

since most acres are allocated as VRM III or IV.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Minerals Management

No lands with wilderness characteristics would be allocated as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics, therefore impacts would be nonexistent.

4.16.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

4.16.4. ALTERNATIVE B

The various land use allocations and prescriptions proposed under Alternative B, including for

wildlife, lands, recreation, cultural resources, VRM, and wilderness characteristics, will affect

the BLM mineral estate under BLM surface as shown in Table 4.25, “Alternative B Mineral

Entry Status” (p. 670). Special stipulations refer primarily to seasonal or year-round no surface

occupancy closure intended for the protection of other resources.

Table 4.25. Alternative B Mineral Entry Status

BLM subsurface with BLM

surface

Available Acres

Acres with New

Special Stipulations

Acres of New

Closures

Currently open 713,300 acres

Locatable Minerals 0 2,600

Leasable Minerals 74,700 200

Salable Minerals 61,800 13,300

4.16.4.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas in Alternative B.

4.16.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Minerals Management

Under Alternative B, a framework for pro-active management of cultural resources would be

established and include management of sites at Sundad, Butterfield West, Painted Rock and

for public visitation. Increased public visitation could increase conflicts with cultural heritage

tourism and have a minor impact on mineral development. Designation of the sites would reduce

lands available for development, but only by a small amount

From Lands & Realty on Minerals Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 671

The area available for mineral development pursuant to BLM administration would be reduced by

as much as 29,300 acres (4 percent of currently open lands) through disposal of public lands by

any means. This includes an existing mineral materials site operated by Arizona Pacific Materials

II through mineral materials sales contracts.

Impacts from multiuse utility corridors would be the same impacts as those described for the 10

utility corridors designated under Alternative A.

Potential development of utility-scale renewable energy generating plants could interfere with or

eliminate mineral exploration and development.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Minerals

Management

As in Alternative A, proposed mineral activities would be evaluated to ensure that they do not

allow a net loss in desert tortoise habitat (Categories I, II and III). Under Alternative B, the land

use authorization process for projects involving any surface disturbing activities would involve

mitigation measures, construction methods, and restoration and reclamation plans that minimize

habitat fragmentation and impacts to wildlife movement corridors. This could cause additional

expense, require special stipulations, or even eliminate discretionary minerals activities. An

existing Maricopa County mineral materials site (Narramore Pit), operating under a free use

permit, which is located within the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Resource Conservation Area will be

required to cease operations and reclaim following completion of any existing valid permit.

From Recreation Management on Minerals Management

Allocating seven SRMAs, covering 779,800 acres in the Lower Sonoran would have similar

impacts to mineral development as those described under Alternative A, except the impacts would

be more widespread due to more acres falling within SRMA boundaries under Alternative B.

Conflicts are most likely in SRMAs near to the urban interface and those planned for intensive

recreation activity, including Buckeye Hills East Trails, Ajo, and Arlington SRMAs that would be

allocated primarily for motorized recreation uses, as well as the other urban interface SRMAs

(Saddle Mountain and Buckeye Hills West) that would be allocated for mixed motorized and

nonmotorized uses. However, the increase in SRMA acres would increase the opportunity to

direct recreation use away from areas of high mineral potential and mineral development. In

addition, the SRMAs allocated under Alternative B would include management decisions that are

more specific and intended to maintain the desired recreation settings. An ERMA of 150,400

acres would be similar to the impacts described under Alternative A, but not as widespread as it

would be smaller in size.

From Special Designations on Minerals Management

Under Alternative B, the Coffee Pot ACEC restrictions would be the same to those under A.

Direct impacts from the designation of the Agua Caliente Backcountry Byway are expected to

be minimal unless viewshed management restrictions are implemented on surface disturbing

activities which could restrict or eliminate minerals activities, especially discretionary ones.

From Travel Management on Minerals Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
672 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Overall impacts from limiting motorized vehicle travel to designated routes in the Lower Sonoran

would similar to Alternative A. Travel would be restricted to the designated route system,

however, with the appropriate land use authorization, permitted users could develop new roads to

access facilities. Compared to Alternative A, there would be fewer miles open and more miles

closed (consist primarily of duplicate routes) in the Lower Sonoran. On a case-by-case basis,

users with a valid authorization would be allowed to use administrative only or closed routes

or create new routes. Motorized access to the Coffeepot ACEC would only be available on

designated routes. Under Alternative B, motorized vehicle travel would be allowed on fewer

miles of routes compared to Alternative A, while more miles of routes would be closed.

From Vegetation Resources on Minerals Management

Goals and objectives under Alternative B to maintain and restore ecological and biological

resources and soil and water resources could place additional avoidance or reclamation

requirements on mineral development. Objectives include specific restoration objectives for

vegetation reestablishment and control of invasive species.

From Visual Resources on Minerals Management

General impacts from VRM would be similar to Alternative A, although VRM allocations would

vary. Under Alternative B in the Lower Sonoran, fewer acres would be managed as VRM II

(64,800 acres) and more acres to VRM III (551,000), while fewer acres would be managed to

VRM IV (222,600 acres) than under Alternative A. Therefore, impacts would be similar to

Alternative A since most acres remain in VRM III or VRM IV; however, increasing total VRM

Class II acres could expand restrictions on mineral sites by imposing greater design and siting

requirements during development. Areas designated Class III or Class IV under Alternative B

would require fewer stipulations and mitigation requirements. Mineral sites could be subject to

increased mitigation requirements compared to Alternative A due to the larger area covered

by VRM II.

While reducing VRM IV areas could impact mining operations, the north side of the Gila Bend

Mountains and the Buckeye Hills-Stanfield area, which have somewhat higher mineral potential

than other parts of the Decision Area, would remain under VRM IV allocation. This would

allow mineral development in those areas without additional restrictions. The allocation of more

acres as VRM II in the Gila Bend Mountains could increase mitigation requirements on mineral

development; however, stipulations associated with desert tortoise habitat in the same area would

likely be adequate to maintain VRM class without requiring additional stipulations.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Minerals Management

Similar to A, as no lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated.

4.16.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 673

4.16.5. ALTERNATIVE C

The various land use allocations and prescriptions proposed under Alternative C, including for

wildlife, lands, recreation, cultural resources, VRM, and wilderness characteristics, will affect

the BLM mineral estate under BLM surface as shown in Table 4.26, “Alternative C Mineral

Entry Status” (p. 673). Special stipulations refers primarily to seasonal or year-round no surface

occupancy closures intended for the protection of other resources.

Table 4.26. Alternative C Mineral Entry Status

BLM subsurface with BLM

surface

Available Acres

Acres with New

Special Stipulations

Acres of New

Closures

Currently open 713,300 acres

Locatable Minerals 0 2,350

Leasable Minerals

417,400 (includes

61,400 of No Surface

Occupancy)

250

Salable Minerals 61,800 184,800

4.16.5.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas in Alternative C.

4.16.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Minerals Management

Specific decisions for cultural resources would place an emphasis on protecting cultural resources

in place, which could put additional stipulations and avoidance or mitigation requirements on

mineral development.

Under alternative C, two areas, Saddle Mountain and the Lower Gila Terraces & Historic Trails

encompassing 127,600 acres, would be designated as SCRMAs, which would place emphasis on

protecting sensitive cultural resources. Both areas would be closed to mineral material disposals.

Portions of the Lower Gila Terraces & Historic Trails SCRMA would be closed to leasable

minerals actions while the rest of it ,and all of the Saddle Mountain SCRMA, would remain

open but with a no surface occupancy stipulation which would effectively render impracticle

most leasable minerals activity. Both areas would remain open to locatable minerals activity but

additional requirements and stipulations would be necessary to attempt to mitigate damage to

other resources. This could cause additional delays and costs to any locatable minerals proposals.

From Lands & Realty on Minerals Management

The area available for mineral development pursuant to BLM administration would be reduced by

as much as 36,300 acres (5 percent of currently open lands) through disposal of public lands by

any means. This includes an existing mineral materials site operated by Arizona Pacific Materials

II through mineral materials sales contracts.

Nine multiuse utility corridors could interfere with or eliminate mineral exploration and

development within their boundaries.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
674 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Potential development of utility-scale renewable energy generating plants could interfere with or

eliminate mineral exploration and development.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Minerals

Management

Four WHAs would be designated under Alternative C, totaling 425,900 acres, which could place

additional stipulations and mitigation requirements on mineral development to maintain wildlife

corridors, un-fragmented wildlife habitat, and sensitive wildlife habitat.

From Special Designations on Minerals Management

Under Alternative C, the Coffeepot Batamote ACEC restrictions would be similar to those under

A except that the area is increased significantly to 63,300 acres. Impacts of the Anza NHT would

be the same as in Alternative A. Direct impacts from the designation of the Agua Caliente

Backcountry Byway are expected to be minimal unless viewshed management restrictions are

implemented on surface disturbing activities which could restrict or eliminate minerals activities,

especially discretionary ones.

From Recreation Management on Minerals Management

Impacts from implementing recreation management under Alternative C would be similar

to Alternative B, with the exception that more acres in the Lower Sonoran (approximately

640,300 acres) would be within an SRMA as opposed to an ERMA. In general, the SRMAs under

Alternative C would be aimed at a more balanced recreation management, considering both

motorized and nonmotorized settings with more back country RMZ which would be intended to

provide a more dispersed, undeveloped recreation experience. Conflicts between nonmotorized

and undeveloped recreation experience users and mineral development may be somewhat more

intense compared to Alternative B in the SRMAs because these users would tend to be looking

for a more natural experience; conversely, nonmotorized users require fewer acres and would be

more easily directed away from mineral development, thus decreasing conflicts.

From Travel Management on Minerals Management

Impacts of route closures and limits would be similar to Alternative B. Under Alternative C, in

the Lower Sonoran 334 miles of the existing route system would be closed to motorized use, more

than Alternative A and Alternative B. These and other limitations placed on route use under

Alternative C (e.g., routes limited seasonally or to administrative use) would restrict access to

certain areas potentially limiting mineral exploration and development, to the extent that mineral

exploration is accomplished via driving across the public lands. General impacts from travel

management in both Decision Areas would be similar to those described under Alternative B,

except that fewer routes would be open, which would result in a greater likelihood that additional

access would have to be created for mining sites.

From Vegetation Resources on Minerals Management

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 675

From Visual Resources on Minerals Management

General impacts from VRM would be similar to Alternatives A and B. Under Alternative C,

91,800 acres would be managed as VRM I, 387,800 acres would be managed as VRM II, 385,600

acres would be managed as VRM III; and 65,000 acres would be managed as VRM IV. The

allocation of substantially more acres to VRM II could increase the stipulation and mitigation

requirements for mineral development, particularly in areas of Saddle Mountain and Gila Bend

Mountains where salable and geothermal leasable mineral development is more likely, however,

stipulations associated with desert tortoise habitat would likely encompass any stipulations

associated with visual resources. As discussed under Alternative B, the changes in acres managed

under VRM III would have little practical effect on mineral development, similar to Alternative B.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Minerals Management

Alternative C would result in the allocation of 128,100 acres (19 percent of currently open lands)

of the Lower Sonoran Decision Area as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

Costs to explore for or develop locatable mineral resources could become prohibitive and could

reduce or eliminate development. The lands would be closed to all leasable and saleable mineral

activities.

4.16.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

4.16.6. ALTERNATIVE D

The various land use allocations and prescriptions proposed under Alternative D, including for

wildlife, lands, recreation, cultural resources, VRM, and wilderness characteristics, will affect the

BLM mineral estate under BLM surface as shown in Table 4.27, “Alternative D Mineral Entry

Status” (p. 675) below. Special stipulations refer primarily to seasonal or year-round no surface

occupancy closures intended for the protection of other resources.

Table 4.27. Alternative D Mineral Entry Status

BLM subsurface with BLM surface Available Acres

Acres with

New Special

Stipulations

Acres of New

Closures

Currently open 713,300 acres

Locatable minerals 0 381,500 acres

Leasable minerals 206,800 acres 381,500 acres

Salable minerals 0 521,400 acres

4.16.6.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas in Alternative D.

4.16.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Minerals Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
676 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

While no SCRMAs would be allocated under Alternative D, however, 267,100 acres would be

designated as ACECs which would place emphasis on protecting sensitive cultural and biological

resources. Portions of the ACECs would be closed to some or all minerals activities and the

remaining areas would be subject to varying levels of additional restrictions or mitigation above

what is now in effect, which could effectively render minerals activities impractical or impossible.

Some minerals activities currently exist in proposed ACECs and could need to be shut down and

reclaimed following termination of valid existing rights.

From Lands & Realty on Minerals Management

The area available for mineral development pursuant to BLM administration would be reduced by

as much as 34,800 acres (5 percent of currently open lands), through disposal of public lands by

any means. These lands include parcels containing three active mineral materials operations: Red

Mountain Mining, Arizona Pacific Materials II, and Treasure Chest Granite Pit.

Seven multiuse utility corridors could interfere with or eliminate mineral exploration and

development within their boundaries.

Potential development of utility-scale renewable energy generating plants could interfere with or

eliminate mineral exploration and development.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Minerals

Management

Impacts from establishing one WHA would be similar to Alternative C but with fewer acres

allocated, as many of the WHAs are now ACECsin Alternative D.

From Recreation Management on Minerals Management

Implementation of recreation management under Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B

and C in terms of the impacts on mineral development, except that fewer acres would be managed

as SRMAs (100,200 acres, the least among the Alternatives in the Lower Sonoran and more

would be managed as ERMAs (830,000 acres). In general, the SRMAs under Alternative D would

be focused on providing more nonmotorized and some motorized, dispersed recreation settings,

which could cause impacts as described in Alternative C. The increased acres in ERMAs would

eliminate the opportunity to manage and direct recreation use away from mineral developments

thus increasing the likelihood of conflict.

From Special Designations on Minerals Management

While no SCRMAs would be allocated under Alternative D, the same area would be under

ACEC designation, which would place similar emphasis on protecting sensitive cultural and

biological resources in these areas, could require additional stipulations and mitigation for mineral

development and could restrict authorization of renewable mineral sites similar to Alternative C.

Several active mineral materials operations exist in proposed ACECs and would need to be shut

down and reclaimed following expiration of the current contract or permit. These include two

sites used by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (Courthouse Pit & Narramore

Pit), Kilauea Crushers’ Estrella Pit, and the Bush Sand & Gravel site north of Ajo.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 677

From Travel Management on Minerals Management

The impacts of route closures and limits would be similar to Alternative B and C; however, the

impacts would be greater as the most miles of routes would be closed. These and other limitations

placed on route use under Alternative D (e.g., routes limited seasonally or to administrative use)

would substantially restrict access to much of the Decision Area and limit mineral exploration

more than the other alternatives, to the extent that mineral exploration is accomplished by driving

across the public lands.

From Vegetation Resources on Minerals Management

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran. From

Visual Resources on Minerals Management

From Visual Resources on Minerals Management

General impacts from VRM would be similar to Alternatives A, B, and C. In the Lower Sonoran

except for the difference in acreages which are 91,800 acres managed as VRM I, 622,400 acres as

VRM II, 192,000 acres as VRM III, and 24,000 acres as VRM IV.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Minerals Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran,

except that 276,500 acres of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics (twice as many

acres as proposed in Alternative C) would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics.

4.16.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

4.16.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

The various land use allocations and prescriptions proposed under Alternative E, including for

wildlife, lands, recreation, cultural resources, VRM, and wilderness characteristics, will affect

the BLM mineral estate under BLM surface as shown in Table 4.28, “Alternative E Mineral

Entry Status” (p. 677). Special stipulations refers primarily to seasonal or year-round no surface

occupancy closures intended for the protection of other resources.

Table 4.28. Alternative E Mineral Entry Status

BLM Subsurface with

BLM Surface

Available acres

Acres with New

Stipulations

Acres of New

Closures

Currently open 713,300 acres

Locatable minerals 0 2,350 acres

Leasable minerals

274,900 acres

(includes 15,400

acres of No Surface

Occupancy)

53,700 acres

Salable minerals 0 192,300 acres

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
678 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.16.7.1. Both Decision Areas

No impacts from any of the program areas are identified for both Decision Areas in Alternative E.

4.16.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Minerals Management

No SCRMAs would be designated under Alternative E. Those identified in other alternatives

would be designated as ACECs in this alternative. Under alternative E, 250,800 acres would be

designated as ACECs which would place emphasis on protecting sensitive cultural and biological

resources. Portions of the ACECswould be closed to some, or all, minerals activities and the

remaining areas would be subject to varying levels of additional restrictions or mitigation above

what is now in effect, which could effectively render minerals activities impractical or impossible.

Some minerals activities currently exist in proposed ACECs and could need to be shut down and

reclaimed following termination of valid existing rights.

From Lands & Realty on Minerals Management

The area of public lands available for mineral development would be reduced by as much

as 36,800 acres (5 percent of currently open lands) through disposal of public lands by any

means. These parcels include three existing mineral materials operations: Red Mountain Mining,

Treasure Chest Granite Pit, and Arizona Pacific Materials II.

Eight multiuse utility corridors could interfere with or eliminate mineral exploration and

development within their boundaries.

Potential development of utility-scale renewable energy generating plants could interfere with or

eliminate mineral exploration and development.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Minerals

Management

Impacts from allocating one 255,700 acre WHA would be similar to Alternative C but cover

more acres.

From Recreation Management on Minerals Management

Impacts from recreation management on mineral development under Alternative E would be

substantially the same as under Alternative C due to similarities in both acres and management

intent. Under Alternative E, the impacts of route closures and limits would be similar to

Alternative C due to similarities in the number of miles closed or restricted.

From Special Designations on Minerals Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 679

Similar to Alternative D, no SCRMAs would be allocated under Alternative E, although the

same area would be under ACEC designation, however, with a reduced boundary to avoid areas

with locatable mineral potential in the Gila Bend Mountains. The ACECdesignation would

place an emphasis on protecting sensitive cultural and biological resources in these areas, and

could require additional stipulations and mitigation for minerals development. In particular, as

under Alternative C, lands within 500 feet of the cliff faces with petroglyphs on the Gila River

would be closed to salable minerals. As in Alternative C, this would have little practical effect as

this restriction is currently in place through site specific decisions. Two recently active mineral

materials sites are located within proposed Special Designation areas. The Maricopa County

Department of Transportation (MCDOT) previously operated mineral materials sites through

Free Use Permits within a part of the Fred J. Weiler RCA (Narramore Pit) and within a portion

of the proposed Saddle Mountain ACEC (Courthouse Pit). Permits for both sites are currently

expired, but MCDOT has expressed an interest in operating the sites again. The site within the

RCA will not be allowed to resume operation. Within the ACEC there are no significant resource

conflicts so the location would be available for mineral materials disposal to MCDOT through a

new free-use permit provided that no new surface is disturbed.

From Travel Management on Minerals Management

The impacts of route closures and limits would be similar to Alternative C due to similarities

in the number of miles closed or restricted.

From Vegetation Resources on Minerals Management

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on Minerals Management

General impacts from VRM would be similar to all other alternatives. Impacts from the

distribution of VRM classes under Alternative E in the Lower Sonoran would fall between

Alternatives B and C with acreages as follows: 91,800 as VRM I, 71,900 as VRM II, 548,400

as VRM III, and 218,100 as VRM IV. Under Alterative E, substantially fewer acres would be

managed under VRM I and II than under Alternative D, with VRM I being limited to wilderness

areas. Nearly as many acres as under Alternative B would be managed under VRM III, and

only a small amount of public lands would be assigned to VRM IV. The increase in VRM III

would decrease the stipulation and mitigation requirements for mineral development compared

to Alternative C and D, but would be more than under Alternatives A and B. VRM II would be

used selectively under Alternative E to protect particularly sensitive visual resources in Saddle

Mountain, Coffeepot and Batamote Mountains, and parts of Gila Bend Mountains.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Minerals Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran

except that fewer acres (55,400) would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
680 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.16.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No impacts were analyzed for actions related to the SDNM, as the Monument has been withdrawn

from mineral entry.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 681

4.17. IMPACTS ON RECREATION MANAGEMENT

Impacts from alternate strategies for management of recreation and visitor services ultimately

are about trade-offs in the potential outcomes experienced by visitors. Outcomes range from

individual benefits (such as developing outdoor skills and abilities, greater self-reliance, and

improved physical fitness) to group and community benefits (such as greater appreciation of

cultural heritage, less juvenile delinquency, and enhanced lifestyle), and are produced by visitor

experiences during recreation activities. The BLM provides settings in response to market demand

for recreation experiences and the benefits such experiences generate. Trade-offs in potential

outcomes may be inferred from a) differences in opportunities and experiences anticipated to

result from alternate market strategies; b) the objectives established to achieve those market

strategies; and c) from the varying setting characters designed to provide the physical, social, and

administrative environment in which recreation opportunities are offered and outcomes produced.

Impacts to recreation resources from alternate strategies for management of other resources, such

as livestock grazing, designation of multiuse utility corridors, and wildlife habitat management,

also affect visitor outcomes by influencing the settings in which recreation occurs. Setting

character may range from the most primitive and undisturbed natural landscape where encounters

with other visitors are rare (back country) to areas of highly developed sites that include paved

access and parking, visitor centers, and other amenities, and where encounters with other visitors

are commonplace (community interface). A description of prescribed setting character is provided

in Appendix Q, Recreation Settings and Descriptions (p. 1285) and Appendix R, Benefits Based

Recreation Worksheets (p. 1295).

In the Lower Sonoran, more opportunities for beneficial outcomes would be produced through

implementation of the action Alternatives (B, C, D, and E) for the management of other resources

as well as recreation resources – particularly for benefits such as increased individual and

community awareness of cultural heritage resources, enjoyment of natural landscapes, enjoying

exploration and risk-taking, and appreciating easy access to recreation opportunities. Under

these alternatives, allocations for management of other resources would be complemented by

management of the recreation resource as a SRMA.

Implementation of management actions for recreation resource under Alternatives B, C, or E

would produce outcomes in slightly varying degrees based on relative proportions of front country

and back country settings. Sharply contrasting opportunities for beneficial outcomes would be

produced by implementation of Alternatives B, C, and E versus implementation of Alternative

D. Alternatives B, C, and E would produce more opportunities for beneficial outcomes derived

from development and interpretation of cultural heritage resources than would Alternative D,

which would produce proportionately more opportunities derived from remote, undeveloped,

back country experiences.

In the SDNM, Alternatives B, C, and E would allocate the SDNM to a Destination SRMA

managed to produce benefits for visitors derived from opportunities for heritage and cultural

tourism and remote back country settings, and would be marketed to regional and national tourism

markets. Alternative D would allocate all of the SDNM to produce experiences and outcomes

derived from undeveloped public lands. This Undeveloped SRMA would also be marketed to

regional and national tourism markets; however, emphasis on cultural heritage tourism would not

be included and setting character would ensure that access, facilities, and educational offerings

would be minimal and support primitive recreation experiences derived from remote, largely

pristine public lands throughout the SDNMDecision Area.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Recreation Management
682 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.17.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Impact analysis and conclusions are based on IDT knowledge of the Planning Area and review

of literature. Impacts on recreation resources and travel management activities are discussed

separately unless otherwise specified. Both effects are quantified where possible, and, in the

absence of quantitative data, qualitative effects are presented based on professional judgment.

4.17.1.1. Indicators

● Number of SRMAs identified and the total acreage included within SRMAs;

● Management actions within SRMAs that result in changes to the physical, social, or

administrative setting character;

● Change in the availability, or area of availability, of types of recreation opportunities,

particularly motorized and nonmotorized opportunities.

4.17.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumption regarding the future management of recreation management are made.

● Over the planning period, demand for and use of recreational opportunities will increase on

public lands • Motorized recreation would likely experience the greatest increase;

● The incidence of resource damage and conflicts among recreationists involved in mechanized,

motorized, and nonmotorized activities would increase with increasing use of public lands;

● Following completion of these RMPs, comprehensive travel management plans would be

prepared for the Decision Areas and would include public involvement, NEPA analysis, and

the designation of routes in limited areas.

4.17.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Recreation

There would be no impacts to recreation management from actions proposed under the following

program areas:

● Vegetation Resources,

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

4.17.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scales

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 683

4.17.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.17.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality on Recreation Management

Management of air resources could have a major impact on recreation opportunities, settings, use

levels, and management. Management of air resources could restrict recreation uses and activities

in localized areas and impact recreation opportunities, settings, use levels, and management. This

would result from the emission of fugitive dust from unpaved roads that affect attainment of

Maricopa County air quality standards. Mitigation, restriction, or closure to recreation entry and

travel could be used to correct fugitive dust violations, especially where public land recreation

uses are adjacent to communities and residences, resulting in moderate to major impacts to

recreation benefits and outcomes.

From Cave Resources on Recreation Management

Decisions to protect unique or significant cave and cave resources (if such resources are found)

may increase opportunities for users to visit and learn about these resources. Certain localized

areas could have specific restrictions intended to protect such resources that could restrict or

displace certain uses. Overall impacts would be negligible over the long term.

From Lands & Realty on Recreation Management

Under all alternatives, there is a potential for conflict between the purpose of individual land

use authorizations and the specific objectives of SRMAs. In the Lower Sonoran, utility-scale

development of renewable energy projects would occur on a case-by-case basis and has the

potential to displace recreational uses from up to 150,000 acres of public lands over the life of the

plan (due to approximately 15 energy projects at 10,000 acres each).

From Minerals Management on Recreation Management

Most of the Lower Sonoran (except designated wilderness areas) would remain open for locatable

and saleable mineral resource development. In ERMAs, mining could impact the existing

recreational setting and experience by changing the natural character of the landscape as a result

of surface disturbance. Recreational settings could change corresponding to the scale of mining

landscape modifications; however, site-specific mitigation measures identified during NEPA

analysis would reduce long-term impacts on the natural landscape and restore recreational settings

and related opportunities when the mining activity is completed. In SRMAs, minerals projects

would need to comply with prescribed setting prescriptions; therefore, there would be little or

no impact to recreation resources.

There would be no impacts from mineral management in the SDNM because the Monument is

withdrawn from mineral entry.

From Paleontological Resources on Recreation Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
684 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Decisions to protect unique or important paleontological and geological resources would increase

opportunities for users to visit and learn about these resources. On the other hand, localized areas

could have specific restrictions imposed that are intended to protect these resources that could

restrict or displace certain uses. Impacts to paleontological and geological resources management

are expected to be negligible over the long term.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Recreation

Management In wildlife habitat areas, surface-disturbing activities (including recreation

developments) would be limited to 40 acres or less and habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn would

be closed seasonally. Minor reductions to opportunities for beneficial outcomes would ensue.

Seasonal closures enacted due to conflicts with wildlife in wildlife movement corridors would

reduce opportunities for beneficial outcomes. Depending upon the season and area, such impacts

on recreation could be major (for example, if a seasonal closure occurred during the cool weather,

high visitation period from October to April).

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Recreation Management

Recreation visits to public lands, especially dispersed uses, would continue to entail risk from

natural and human hazards, including unmaintained vehicle routes, infrequent patrol, exposure to

criminal activity, exposure to unsafe practices by other recreation users (particularly related to

target shooting and OHV use), poisonous plants and animals, flash floods, and cliffs and mining

shafts. Some visitors may realize enhanced benefits, such as a sense of challenge or exhilaration

in exploring remote areas, from situations of relative risk; however, others with less inclination

to enjoy risky adventures would experience fewer benefits as public lands would discourage

visitation by these individuals. Impacts to public safety and access are expected to be minor,

depending on the number of incidents during the long term.

For example, under all alternatives, visitors to the Sentinel Plain area may encounter unexploded

ordnance (UXO) or other hazardous military hardware due to proximity to active U.S. Air Force

training areas. To provide for increased public awareness and safety, all entry into the area

requires a mandatory permit, viewing of a safety video, a signed hold harmless agreement, and

receipt of other user safety information. For some users, obtaining the permit could be viewed as

cumbersome and detract from the experience. For others, the impact may be that they decide to

recreate elsewhere. Impacts to public safety and access are expected to be minor, depending on

the number of incidents during the long term.

Trash, litter, and hazardous materials could impact and displace recreation visitors from an area.

Management decisions in all alternatives to mitigate such areas could help to restore recreation

settings and provide renewed public access. If mitigation is warranted, including closing areas to

entry, localized recreation opportunities could be lost. Impacts to recreation are expected to be

minor depending on the number of incidents during the long term.

From Soil Resources on Recreation Management

Decisions related to avoiding and mitigating surface-disturbing activities to protect soil and water

resources could restrict recreation uses and activities in localized areas. In the short term, major

surface disturbances to soils could moderately impact the recreational experience; however, in

the long term, impacts are expected to be negligible to minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 685

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

Outstanding opportunities and natural settings for users to experience primitive, unconfined

recreation and solitude would be maintained on 91,750 acres within the Sierra Estrella, Signal

Mountain, and Woolsey Peak designated wilderness areas in the Lower Sonoran and on 157,700

acres within the Table Top, South Maricopa Mountains, and North Maricopa Mountains

Wilderness Areas in the SDNM. In all alternatives, opportunities for nonmotorized recreational

experiences would exist while motorized vehicle recreation experiences would not be allowed.

These areas would continue to be managed under their existing wilderness plans. Impacts to

opportunities for beneficial outcomes are expected to be negligible as no changes to these Federal

designations are foreseen.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Sonoran pronghorn closure near the Painted Rock Petroglyph Site and Campground would only

have minor impacts because other public lands nearby are available for dispersed recreation

activities.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Impacts from allocating designated wilderness to VRM Class I would be negligible. These areas

are allocated to the back country setting and the degree of development for facilitated recreation

opportunities would be low to none.

From Wildland Fire Management on Recreation Management

Managing for full suppression of all fires, in accordance with applicable conservation measures,

would help maintain existing recreational settings, as would implementation of programs to

reduce unwanted ignitions and emphasize wildfire prevention. Closures of localized areas

during fire suppression activities and seasonally required special fire restrictions could limit

recreational opportunities and uses in the short term. When such restrictions or closures are

ordered, recreation opportunities are displaced or diminished, including public access, the use

of vehicles and engines, campfires, and smoking. Impacts would be minor over the long term;

however, depending on the number of acres that are affected, this intensity could change.

4.17.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.17.3.1. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Allocation of individual cultural sites to the Public Use category on a case-by-case basis would

increase, to a minor extent, the potential for increased visitation and education opportunities at

specific sites. This would increase the likelihood of achieving benefits from experiences relating

to the study or observation of cultural resources.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
686 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative A, grazing management could reduce opportunities for appreciation of natural

landscapes to a minor degree due to trailing, bovine waste, and trampled vegetation at areas of

livestock concentration, and from potential surface disturbances due to construction of new

rangeland improvements such as fences cattle guards, and gates. Large numbers of cattle present

in years of ephemeral use could potentially cause such impacts to opportunities for appreciation

of natural landscapes to be moderate in intensity.

Conversely, grazing management provides opportunities for visitors to see and learn about diverse

uses of the public lands and may enhance opportunities for appreciation of cultural heritage and

public lands management to a minor degree.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative A, recreation resources would be actively managed in four SRMAs: Saddle

Mountain, Gila Trail, Sentinel Plain Lava Flow, and Ajo. The remainder of the public lands in the

Lower Sonoran Planning Area would be encompassed within ERMAs and managed in a custodial

fashion. The four SRMAs would continue to be managed with current levels of motorized and

nonmotorized access. Competitive speed events would remain authorized, based on site-specific

conditions and concerns. Overall, with implementation of Alternative A, no change to the

baseline recreation resource would occur and the impact to recreation would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC and three wilderness areas (Woolsey Peak, Signal Mountain, and

Estrella) would continue to provide major nonmotorized recreation benefits from appreciation

of natural landscapes.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative A, the existing travel system of 1,670 miles of routes open for motorized use

in the Lower Sonoran would maintain existing motorized recreation opportunities throughout

the Decision Area. More routes would be made available for public use under Alternative A

than all other alternatives. As motorized recreational demand and uses increase, the frequency

of conflicts between motorized and nonmotorized recreational users would likely increase to

a moderate degree over the life of the RMP.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative A, approximately 78 percent of the Decision Area would be managed to Class

III or Class IV VRM objectives. These standards allow for noticeable changes to the existing

visual character of the landscape, potentially leading to visible surface disturbances and a gradual

decline in scenic and natural qualities. Impacts to Recreation, particularly experiences and benefits

from appreciation of natural landscapes, would be minor to moderate depending on the area.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Recreation Management

No lands would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A. Approximately 276,500 acres of the Decision Area identified to have wilderness

character would possibly lose all or part of that character over the life of the plan. Such loss

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 687

would have moderate impacts to recreation from loss of opportunities for appreciation of natural

landscapes.

4.17.3.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Current management guidance does not include allocations, allowable uses, and management

actions at the land-use plan level for cultural resources that interact with recreation allocations to

produce targeted visitor outcomes. Allocation of cultural sites is handled administratively on a

case-by-case basis, and only the area of the Anza NHT has been allocated as a SRMA (a portion

of the Gila Trails SRMA). Under Alternative A, recreation opportunities derived from cultural

resources would be produced on approximately 143,900 acres, or 30 percent, of the SDNM

coinciding with the Gila Trails SRMA, yielding minor production of recreation benefits such as

increased individual and community awareness of cultural heritage resources. Recreation benefits

would not be produced from cultural resources on the remaining 70 percent of the SDNM as this

area would not be managed as a SRMA and recreation resources would continue to be managed

custodially in response to conflicts with cultural resources.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Current management guidance allocates all or part of six livestock grazing allotments from public

lands of the SDNM. Five of these allotments are “perennial-ephemeral,” meaning a base herd is

authorized for year-long grazing and in seasons of particularly high forage production, additional

livestock grazing may be authorized. The sixth allotment is ephemeral grazing only. In the area

of the Gila Trails SRMA, where recreation benefits would be actively managed and produced,

livestock grazing during normal years would be expected to have negligible to minor impacts to

such benefits as enjoyment of natural landscapes, appreciation of environmental benefits, and

appreciation of cultural heritage resources. During years of above average annual precipitation,

increased livestock grazing would have moderate impacts to such recreation-derived beneficial

outcomes as the effects of grazing would be evident over a larger area, but still concentrated in

specific areas. On approximately 252,200 acres, or 52 percent, of the SDNM where recreation

activities would be managed custodially, impacts to the production of recreation benefits from

livestock grazing would be minor.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Implementation of Alternative A would carry forward current management guidance that allocates

approximately 137,100 acres, or 28 percent of the SDNM to the “Gila Trails SRMA” with goals

to provide facilities and maintenance, protect resource values, and provide visitor safety. In the

area of the Anza NHT, facilities for visitation such as improved access, day-use and overnight

activities, and education and interpretation of the natural and cultural values of the SDNM would

be provided. The goals and objectives of the SRMA, and subsequent production of recreation

benefits, would not be updated to provide active recreation management reflecting Proclamation

7397. On the remaining 70 percent of the SDNM, recreation resources would be managed

custodially in response to conflicts arising from management issues other than recreation, and

targeted benefits from recreation resources would not be actively produced. A moderate impact to

recreation resources would occur from unresolved conflicts between users.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
688 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative A, the impacts of recreational target shooting would be dispersed throughout

the Monument; however, target shooting would continue in areas that are known to be unsuitable

for this activity. Conflicts between shooters and non-shooters would also likely increase to a

moderate degree as target shooting activities occurred over larger areas of the Monument. The

lack of target shooting restrictions within the Monument would provide recreationist more

opportunity for target shooting, therefore impacts on recreation would be minor.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under current management guidance, 161,200 acres (or 33 percent of the SDNM) would remain

closed to motor vehicles and unavailable for designation of vehicle routes. This would cause a

minor impact to opportunities for attaining beneficial outcomes such as enjoying exploration and

easy access to natural landscapes.

Under Alternative A, opportunities for attaining beneficial outcomes such as enjoying exploration,

risk-taking, and easy access to natural landscapes would be reduced at a moderate to major

degree. Of 632 miles of routes available for motorized use, approximately 568 miles, or 90

percent, would remain open for such use; however, a system of designated travel routes would

not be placed into effect. This would may lead to substantial closures of routes from misuse and

over-use as impacts to resources of the SDNM become unmanageable.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Proclamation 7397 precludes management of the Monument such that major changes to the visual

character of the landscape would occur; however, moderate change where direct and indirect

impacts to the objects of the SDNM would be localized and not widespread would be acceptable.

Under Alternative A, the total of VRM classes III and IV (236,100 acres, or 49 percent) could

be managed as VRM Class III, which allows for moderate change to the landscape. Benefit

opportunities produced from active management of recreation resources, such as appreciation of

natural landscapes, would potentially be reduced to a minor degree in the area of the Gila Trail

SRMA because portions of the SRMA would be managed to VRM Class III standards. In that part

of the SRMA managed to VRM Class II standards, and over the remainder of the SDNM, benefit

opportunities derived from recreation resources would be impacted to a negligible degree, either

because the higher standards of VRM Class II and Class I would preclude substantial impacts from

management of visual resources, or because recreation resources would be managed custodially.

4.17.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.17.4.1. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative B, major opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as opportunities for

individual and community awareness and appreciation of cultural heritage resources, would be

realized in comparison to Alternative A. These beneficial outcomes would result from emphasis

on the allocation of cultural sites for public use and maximizing the community interface and

front country settings. These settings allow intense visitation and interpretive development and

allocation of sites to the public use category could lead to increased visitation and education

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 689

opportunities. Development at three cultural public use sites (Butterfield West Site, Painted Rock

Petroglyph Site, and Sundad) would produce opportunities for a variety of recreational experiences

relating to the study or observation of cultural resources and heritage tourism. Access would be

improved and sites would be stabilized and managed for future recreational opportunities.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

In comparison to Alternative A, livestock grazing would be perennial-ephemeral with fewer

animal unit months available annually. With fewer livestock seasonally, fewer impacts to

recreation experience outcomes would be anticipated. Minor opportunities for beneficial

outcomes, such as enjoyment of natural landscapes and appreciation of environmental benefits,

would be realized.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Alternative B emphasizes targeted benefits-based outcomes through allocation of the maximum

extent of SRMAs. The widest range of diverse recreation opportunities, particularly related to

motorized and intensive recreation uses, would be provided under this Alternative. Relative to

the other alternatives, fewer locations for primitive recreational experiences would be provided.

Alternative B includes many group use opportunities, a focus on developing cultural sites for

heritage tourism, and developing interpretative sites for public education and appreciation.

Under Alternative B, approximately 779,800 acres in the Lower Sonoran would be part of eight

designated SRMAs, acknowledging each area’s unique and valuable recreational settings and

opportunities. This equates to approximately 84 percent of public lands in the Lower Sonoran

targeted for recreation management.

Through the allocation of SRMAs and RMZs with focused markets and niches, uses would

be directed to appropriate areas, capable of supporting the use and would direct recreation

development and management in an efficient manner. Management prescriptions such as route

designations, visitor information and signing, visitor services development, user education,

application of Tread Lightly practices, and active restoration efforts would help to maintain

recreation settings and opportunities. Some visitors would discern more regulated and structured

recreation environments than they have previously encountered on public lands and could

perceive these circumstances negatively.

While many of the SRMAs under Alternative B emphasize trail-based and motorized activities,

about 45 percent of the public lands in the Lower Sonoran would be allocated to nonmotorized

recreation opportunities in the back country setting where motorized use would be in the passage

zone that provides motorized access to the back country. Other allocations include 34 percent in

the front country setting and 9 percent in the community interface setting.

About 12 percent of the Lower Sonoran would be classified as an ERMA, be available for

unstructured and self-directed recreation activities, and managed in a custodial fashion.

Recreational settings could change over the long term in ERMAs due to increasing use, urban

growth, and damage to natural resources, and increased vandalism.

In general, opportunities for and use levels of OHV travel, vehicle-based camping, hunting,

hiking, equestrian use, picnicking, cultural/historic study, photography, sightseeing, nature study,

wildlife observation, and miscellaneous motorized-dependent activities would be maintained or

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
690 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

increased under Alternative B. In contrast, backpacking, primitive camping, wilderness-dependent

recreation, target shooting, sky watching/astronomy, mountain bicycling, and other nonmotorized

opportunities and use levels would be the same as under Alternative A or could slightly decline

over the long term due to a decrease of appropriate settings, other land use restrictions, and more

overall human activity. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

Impacts to opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as appreciation of cultural heritage

resources, would be similar to those identified under of Alternative A because the Anza NHT

would continue to be managed coincidentally with the Lower Gila Trails SRMA. Designation of

a Back Country Byway would result in increased benefits such as viewing natural scenery and

appreciating the natural environment.

On the remainder of the Decision Area, production of beneficial outcomes (such as appreciation

of cultural heritage resources) would also be similar to Alternative A; however, beneficial

outcomes such as appreciation of naturalness, solitude, and primitive, unconfined types of

recreation would be greater as 91,750 acres of wilderness would be managed coincidentally with

SRMAs to produce these outcomes.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Moderate production of beneficial opportunities and outcomes, such as enjoying exploration,

risk-taking, and easy access to natural landscapes, would result from travel management actions

under Alternative B. Fewer miles of routes would remain open for motorized use compared to

Alternative A (1,241 miles, or 74 percent of available routes, versus 1670 miles, or 99 percent);

however, beneficial outcomes would be directly produced through management of approximately

70 percent of the Decision Area as SRMAs.

Alternative B offers a substantial and dedicated variety of both structured and unstructured

trail-based and motorized opportunities. Managing 100 percent of the Decision AreaDecision

Area as limited to designated routes would maintain opportunities for motorized recreation as in

Alternative A. On the other hand, Alternative B would reduce the public use route network by 429

miles for a total of 1,241 miles, of which 180 miles would be subject to seasonal closures due to

Sonoran pronghorn and cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl related restrictions, which would reduced

overall motorized recreation opportunities. Alternative B also emphasizes the opportunities and

identifies potential locations for additional road development focused on increased motorized

recreational access and opportunities. Accordingly, as compared to Alternative A, where less

structured management is planned, the quality of the motorized opportunities could be improved

and these uses and opportunities would more likely be sustained by effective management over

the life of the Lower Sonoran RMP.

Over the long-term, active travel management practices and route designations have the

opportunity to improve recreation resources and opportunities compared to Alternative A. This

would be due to full implementation of route designations, complete route numbering, increased

visitor information and signing, increased user education and outreach, the opportunity for new

route development to increase the diversity and quality of the motorized recreation experience,

application of Tread Lightly practices, and active restoration efforts. Designated and numbered

routes could help maintain recreation settings, lessen impacts to other recreation uses, and reduce

damage to natural resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 691

In other aspects, short-term impacts on recreation settings and opportunities from travel

management would be comparable to those described under Alternative A. While Alternative B

would continue to allow for nonmotorized, non-mechanized cross-country travel, these activities

could be restricted if repetitive use results in permanent route scars. In such localized places,

natural landscape recreation settings could be maintained by restricting cross-country travel to

designated access points, but doing so would constrain the opportunities to start from anywhere.

Otherwise, cross-country nonmotorized travel impacts would be the same as identified under

Alternative A in the Lower Sonoran Decision Area.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Beneficial opportunities and outcomes, such as appreciation of natural landscapes, would

be greater than under Alternative A because recreation and non-recreation facilities and

developments would be designed and mitigated to a higher standard of visual quality, principally

classes II and III (66 percent of the Lower Sonoran Decision Areaunder Alternative B versus 43

percent under Alternative A).

Some management actions that would be established under Alternative B could contribute to

preserving and/or restoring the scenic landscape and naturalness of the recreation settings. For

example, Alternative B would provide for restoring routes closed to motorized access or for

converting them for nonmotorized trails, protecting historic landscapes in their natural condition,

and mitigating developments visible from the Agua Caliente and Painted Rock Dam roads by

exceeding or maintaining VRM objectives. Visual impacts minimized in the short term (5 years)

and VRM objectives that are met in the long term could improve the scenic quality for recreation.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Recreation Management

Alternative B does not identify any lands to be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, so impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A. Lands managed

to protect wilderness characteristics and primitive recreation opportunities could be maintained

in back country RMZs, but their maintenance or continuation over the life of the RMP could

not be assured.

4.17.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative B, the opportunities for beneficial outcomes would be moderately greater than

identified under Alternative A. Selected sites would be allocated to public and scientific uses, and

the SDNM would be managed as a SRMA to produce benefits such as appreciation of cultural

heritage and natural resources. Facilitated visitation, interpretation, educational materials, and

marketing would be targeted to national and regional visitors seeking destinations that emphasize

such natural and cultural heritage resources.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Livestock grazing would be perennial-ephemeral, with reduced availability of animal unit months.

With fewer seasonal livestock numbers, fewer impacts to other resources such as recreation

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
692 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

would be anticipated but are not quantifiable. Under Alternative B, 8,500 acres on the SDNM is

proposed to become unavailable for livestock use through fenced exclosures. These exclosures

could impact recreation use and enjoyment. The strategic placement of gates and cattleguards

would help mitigate these impacts. In comparison to Alternative A, negligible to minor impacts to

beneficial outcomes, such as enjoyment of natural landscapes and appreciation of environmental

benefits, would be expected.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Facilitated camping, hiking, educational opportunities, and scenic driving would be designed and

marketed to national and regional visitors through allocation of a “Destination” SRMA under

Alternative B. Consequently, production of such recreation-related benefits such as appreciation

of cultural heritage resources and natural landscapes would be higher from a moderate to a major

degree, relative to Alternative A.

All target shooting would be consolidated at sites identified as naturally suitable for this activity.

Damage to Monument objects in other areas would be reduced to a moderate degree; however,

damage to natural resources at the sites identified as naturally suitable would increase in extent

and severity. Impact at such sites would be major, although limited to the footprint of the shooting

sites. The potential for conflicts between shooting groups would increase to a minor to moderate

degree as opportunities for target shooting would be limited.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative B, 157,700 acres (or 32 percent) of the SDNM would be closed to motor

vehicles. The slight difference in area closed to motor vehicles in contrast to Alternative A poses

negligible impacts to opportunities for recreation benefits.

Beneficial opportunities and outcomes derived from motorized activities, such as enjoying

exploration, risk-taking, and easy access to natural landscapes, would be moderately greater than

identified under Alternative A. Although fewer miles of routes would remain open for motorized

use (531 miles, or 83 percent of available routes, versus 632 miles, or 100 percent under A),

management of the SDNM as a SRMA would facilitate direct production of motorized beneficial

outcomes and implementation of a system of designated routes would facilitate proper travel

management. Motorized travel to trailheads, campsites, interpreted cultural sites, or general

sightseeing would be designed and managed through a system of designated travel routes to

emphasize enjoyment of natural landscapes and appreciation of cultural resources.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as appreciation of natural landscapes, would be greater

than identified under Alternative A as recreation and non-recreation facilities and developments

would be designed and mitigated to a higher standard of visual quality, principally Class II (45

percent of SDNM Decision Areaunder Alternative B versus 19 percent under Alternative A).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 693

4.17.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.17.5.1. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Under this alternative, moderate increases in opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as

opportunities for individual and community awareness and appreciation of cultural heritage

resources, would result over the Lower Sonoran generally. Within allocated cultural resource

management areas, greater opportunities for individual and community awareness and

appreciation of cultural heritage resources would result. Allocation of the “Gila River Terraces

and Southern Historic Trail Special Cultural Resource Management Area” (79,100 acres) and

“Saddle Mountain Special Cultural Resource Management Area” (48,500 acres) would increase

beneficial outcomes produced from public and scientific use of cultural resources on 14 percent

of the Decision Area Lower Sonoran coinciding with the Lower Gila Historic Trails and Saddle

Mountain SRMAs.

Moderate increases in opportunities for beneficial outcomes on the remaining 86 percent of the

Lower Sonoran would be realized as some cultural sites would be allocated to public use, rather

than only to scientific use; however, opportunities for individual and community awareness and

appreciation of cultural heritage resources would be less compared to Alternative B as allocation

to public use would not be emphasized.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Potential impacts on recreation resources from grazing are comparable to those described under

Alternative A, with minor exceptions. During ephemeral years, however large numbers of

livestock would likely interfere with some recreational opportunities for short terms. Under

Alternative C, allotments would be reclassified as perennial or ephemeral, with no supplemental

ephemeral allocations for base herds (i.e. no perennial/ephemeral allotments would be

designated). This would have negligible effects on recreation.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Alternative C would allocate 637,300 acres (69 percent) of the Lower Sonoran to 5 SRMAs. The

Gila Bend Mountains SRMA, targeted to “Undeveloped” recreation opportunities, would be

the largest relative to all other alternatives and would represent nearly half (49 percent) of the

acreage allocated to SRMAs in Alternative C.

In relation to Alternative B, recreation opportunities would shift from an emphasis on motorized

recreation to a greater emphasis on nonmotorized recreation opportunities. The settings for

facilitated motorized recreation opportunities would be less. The back country setting would be

28,100 acres (11 percent) greater than in Alternative B, and 289,900 acres (31 percent) of the

Lower Sonoran would be allocated as an ERMA.

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
694 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be enlarged from 8,900 acres to 63,300 acres, and the

Agua Caliente Road would be designated a Back Country Byway. Both designations would

provide for greater protection of natural areas and enhance opportunities for beneficial outcomes

that are derived from natural landscapes. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes in the Ajo and

Gila Bend Mountains SRMAs, such as greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics,

community awareness and appreciation of cultural and natural heritage, increased awareness and

protection of natural resources, and increased desirability as a place to live would be greater

under this alternative than Alternatives A and B.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative C, 1,141 miles (68 percent) of available routes would be open to motorized

use, in contrast to 1,241 miles (74 percent) in Alternative B and 1,670 miles (99 percent) in

Alternative A. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes such as enjoying exploration, risk-taking,

and easy access to natural landscapes, would be similar to Alternative B and moderately less

than for Alternative A.

Alternative C continues to allow opportunities for nonmotorized, non-mechanized cross-country

travel. Such travel, however, must be consistent with RMZ prescriptions and may be restricted if

repetitive use leads to permanent routes. The application of designated access management in the

Lower Sonoran Decision Area under Alternative C coupled with fewer access points could affect

recreational use by reducing the level of cross-country travel opportunities that are available under

Alternatives A and B. Limiting nonmotorized and non-mechanized access from private and State

lands onto public lands to designated access points will affect recreational use.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as appreciation of natural landscapes, would be much

greater under Alternative C than Alternatives A and B as recreation and non-recreation facilities

and developments would be designed and mitigated to a much higher standard of visual quality,

principally Class II (42 percent of Lower Sonoran, versus 13 percent in A and 7 percent in B).

From Wilderness Characteristics on Recreation Management

Alternative C would result in the allocation of 128,100 acres, or 14 percent, of the Lower Sonoran

as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics managed coincidentally with recreation

resources by SRMA’s as back country settings. Impacts to opportunities for beneficial outcomes

would be negligible.

4.17.5.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Opportunities for beneficial outcomes (such as individual and community appreciation of

cultural heritage resources) would be moderately greater in Alternative C than in Alternative

A. Allocation of the “Sonoran Desert Historic Trails Special Cultural Resource Management

Area” (16,200 acres) would increase, to a minor degree, the beneficial outcomes derived from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 695

public and scientific uses of cultural resources on the 3 percent of the SDNM that is within

this management area.

Opportunities for beneficial outcomes on the remaining 97 percent of the SDNM would be similar

to Alternatives A and B as allocation of cultural sites to public and scientific uses would be similar.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Livestock grazing would be perennial only, with no supplemental ephemeral permits authorized.

However, available animal unit months would be the same as for the existing management

situation. Consequently, opportunities for beneficial outcomes (such as viewing untrammeled

natural landscapes) in the SDNM would be similar to Alternative A and impacts to the production

of recreation benefits from livestock grazing would be minor.

Approximately 44,800 acres would be exclosed to prevent livestock use on portions of the

Monument. Fences for this exclosure could impact recreational use and enjoyment. Strategic

gates and cattleguards would help mitigate these impacts.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Facilitated camping, hiking, educational opportunities, and scenic driving would be designed

and marketed to national and regional visitors through allocation of a “Destination” SRMA.

Consequently, the production of opportunities for such recreation-related benefits as appreciation

of cultural heritage resources and natural landscapes would be moderately higher relative to

Alternative A, and similar to Alternative B.

All target shooting would be restricted to specific sites that are actively managed for this activity.

Impacts to Monument objects away from these sites would be decreased to a moderate degree

as target shooting was restricted across the Monument; however, impacts to natural resources at

the specific shooting sites would be greatest relative to the other alternatives as shooting activity

is focused and management facilities such as roads, backstops, fencing, and/or other amenities

would be constructed. Other impacts would include a less positive experience for those shooters

who prefer a dispersed, unmanaged target shooting experience.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative C, roads available for public use would be 185 miles less than Alternative A

and 140 miles less than Alternative B. This represents a moderate reduction in opportunities for

beneficial outcomes from motorized access, such as enjoying exploration, risk-taking, and easy

access to natural landscapes. Overall impacts would be similar to Alternative B.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative C, opportunities for attainment of beneficial outcomes, such as appreciation of

natural landscapes, would be greater than for implementation of Alternatives A and B because

recreation and non-recreation facilities and developments would be designed and mitigated to a

higher standard of visual quality, principally Class II (55 percent of SDNM, versus 19 percent

in A and 45 percent in B).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
696 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.17.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.17.6.1. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

This alternative would produce negligible opportunities for beneficial outcomes derived from

cultural resources as allocation of cultural sites to conservation for future use, not public use,

would be emphasized. Also, approximately 59 percent of the Lower Sonoran would be managed

as an ERMA and cultural sites allocated to public uses would be developed and interpreted to

reduce impacts to cultural resources, which may lead to minor opportunities for recreation-related

benefits.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the naturalness component of all recreational settings would be enhanced

compared to Alternatives A, B, and C because all livestock grazing allotments would be closed to

such use. Fences would eventually be removed after permits expire, leaving miles of unfenced

roads and trails open for recreational use. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as

appreciation of natural landscapes, would be enhanced to a minor degree.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Alternative D would allocate the least acres to SRMAs (100,200 acres, or 11 percent of the Lower

Sonoran). The Buckeye Hills and Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMAs would be allocated as a

Community SRMA and Destination SRMA, respectively; however, recreation resources over

the remainder of the Lower Sonoran would be managed custodially in an ERMA. Opportunities

for beneficial outcomes, such as community awareness and appreciation of cultural and natural

heritage, awareness and protection of natural resources and landscapes, ability for visitors to find

areas providing wanted recreation experiences, and sense of community dependency on public

lands, would be decreased to a moderate degree relative to Alternatives B and C. The difference

in opportunities for these types of beneficial outcomes between Alternative D and Alternative A

would be negligible.

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, 263,700 acres (28 percent) of the Lower Sonoran would be allocated as

ACEC to protect unique vegetation, natural landscapes, endangered wildlife, and sensitive

cultural sites. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that are derived from appreciation of such

resources would be enhanced to a moderate degree relative to Alternatives A, B, and C.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the least mileage of routes would be open for motorized use (799 miles, or

47 percent of available routes). Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive from motorized

activities, such as enjoying exploration by vehicle and easy access to natural landscapes, would

be moderately less than in Alternatives B and C, and less to a major degree in comparison to

Alternative A. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive from nonmotorized activities,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 697

such as touring by hiking, bicycling, and / or horseback, would be enhanced to a minor degree in

relation to Alternatives B and C, and to a moderate degree relative to Alternative A.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the major portion of the Lower Sonoran would be managed to the objectives

of VRM Class II (622,400 acres, or 67 percent). Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive

from appreciation of landscape views and undisturbed nature would be moderately greater in

comparison to Alternative C, and greater to a major degree in relation to Alternatives A and B.

4.17.6.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMA would not be designated and

allocation of cultural sites for public use would not be emphasized. Opportunities for beneficial

outcomes (such as individual and community appreciation of cultural heritage resources) would

be moderately less than Alternative C (where the Sonoran Desert Historic Trails SCRMA would

be designated), less to a major degree relative to Alternative B (where allocation of cultural sites

to public uses would be emphasized), and similar to Alternative A (where the Sonoran Desert

Historic Trails SCRMA would not be allocated and allocation of cultural sites to public uses

would not be emphasized).

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the naturalness component of all recreational settings would be enhanced

compared to Alternatives A, B, and C because all livestock grazing allotments would be closed

to such use. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as appreciation of natural landscapes,

would be enhanced to a minor degree.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, the recreation resources of the SDNM would be managed through an

“Undeveloped” SRMA. Developed visitor facilities would not be provided as emphasis would

be placed on undeveloped, dispersed recreation opportunities and activities. Opportunities

for beneficial outcomes such as appreciation of natural landscapes, solitude, and primitive,

unconfined recreation would be greatest relative to Alternatives A, B, and C. Opportunities for

beneficial outcomes that are derived from developed and interpreted sites, such as appreciation

of cultural heritage resources and easy access to natural areas through motorized travel, would

be the least offered in comparison to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Resource damage and visitor conflicts on the SDNM would be minimized relative to Alternatives

A, B, and C as target shooting would not be allowed on the SDNM. The impact to resources of

the SDNM would be moderate as increased damage to Monument objects would not occur.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
698 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative D, 310,700 acres (or 64 percent) of the SDNM would be closed to motor

vehicles. The impact to opportunities for beneficial outcomes such as enjoying exploration by

vehicle and easy access to natural landscapes would be moderately less than in Alternatives A,

B, and C.

Under Alternative D, the least mileage of routes would be open for motorized use (261 miles, or

41 percent of available routes). Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive from motorized

activities, such as enjoying exploration by vehicle and easy access to natural landscapes, would

be moderately less than in Alternatives B and C, and less to a major degree in comparison to

Alternative A. Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive from nonmotorized activities,

such as touring by hiking, bicycling, or horseback, would be enhanced to a minor degree in

relation to Alternatives B and C, and to a moderate degree relative to Alternative A.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative D, all of the SDNM would be managed to the objectives of VRM Classes I and

II. The major portion of the SDNM would be managed to the objectives of VRM Class I (457,900

acres, or 94 percent). Opportunities for beneficial outcomes that derive from appreciation of

landscape views and undisturbed nature would be highest in comparison to Alternatives A,

B, and C.

4.17.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.17.7.1. Lower Sonoran

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Under Alternative E, impacts on production of opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as

individual and community appreciation of cultural heritage resources, would be enhanced to a

minor degree relative to Alternatives A and D, as more cultural sites would be allocated to public

use. Production of opportunities for beneficial outcomes, such as individual and community

appreciation of cultural heritage resources, would be similar to Alternative B (as allocation of

cultural sites to public use would be emphasized); and less than Alternative C (as the Sonoran

Desert Historic Trails and Saddle Mountain SCRMAs would not be allocated).

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Potential impacts on recreation resources from grazing administration would be similar to

Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Alternative E would allocate 646,500 acres (70 percent) of the Lower Sonoran to 6 SRMAs.

Impacts to the production of beneficial outcomes would be similar to Alternatives B and C, and

would be greater relative to Alternatives A and D.

From Special Designations on Recreation Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 699

Similar to Alternative D.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternative C.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternative B.

4.17.7.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternatives B and C.

From Livestock Grazing on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternative B.

From Recreation Management on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternative C. Impacts from target shooting would be similar to Alternative D.

From Travel Management on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternatives A, B, and C.

Impacts from SDNM Route Designations would be similar to Alternative C.

From Visual Resources on Recreation Management

Similar to Alternative C.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
700 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.18. IMPACTS ON TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

Travel management focuses on the BLM’s route system of roads; primitive roads and trails;

and the associated signs, maps and management presence, including maintenance and law

enforcement. Issues that affect management of the route system include: legal public access to

BLM-managed publiclands, compliance with the route designations, effects of the route-area

footprint, and direct and indirect effects of using routes, serving allowable uses in a sustainable

manner, and managing traffic and resource conditions near routes. Routes will be specifically

designated through this plan for SDNM, and effects on the resources and objects are discussed

in this section. Lower Sonoran routes will be designated in subsequent planning, but the area

designations will be established in this plan. Lower Sonoran routes have been reviewed by the

BLM, and conceptual route models have been constructed to create estimates of how many miles

are likely to remain open.The models also identify areas of special concern for analysis in this

plan. The effects of Lower Sonoran resource allocations and decisions on the travel system

is discussed in this section.

A systematic data-gathering process, referred to as a route evaluation process, was employed to

create the initial route system alternatives for both SDNM and Lower Sonoran Decision Areas.

Effective recreation management, including the use of vehicles, requires engineering, education,

enforcement, and evaluation and monitoring. The four designation criteria outlined in 43 CFR

8342.1 was the basis for considering the designation of all routes at the time of evaluation and

was carried forth through the evaluation tree questions asked for each route. Additional criteria,

including the management philosophy for each alternative, was also applied to aid in developing

route systems for each alternative.

The authorized officer shall designate public lands as either open, limited, or closed to off-road

vehicles. All designations shall be based on the protection of the resources of the public lands, the

promotion of the safety of all the users of public lands, and the minimization of conflicts among

various uses of the public lands; and in accordance with the following criteria:

● Areas and trails shall be located to minimize damage to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, or

other resources of the public lands, and to prevent impairment of wilderness suitability.

● Areas and trails shall be located to minimize harassment of wildlife or significant disruption

of wildlife habitats. Special attention will be given to protect endangered or threatened

species and their habitats.

● Areas and trails shall be located to minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and

other existing or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring public lands, and to

ensure the compatibility of such uses with existing conditions in populated areas, taking into

account noise and other factors.

● Areas and trails shall not be located in officially designated wilderness areas or primitive areas.

Areas and trails shall be located in natural areas only if the authorized officer determines that

off-road vehicle use in such locations will not adversely affect their natural, esthetic, scenic,

or other values for which such areas are established. (43 CFR 8342.1)

Each program has goals and objectives ranging from broad to very specific. The route

designations are one tool to help achieve the goals. RMP action alternatives generally range

from more use in Alternative B, to more restrictive and conservation oriented in Alternative D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Travel Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 701

The associated route network derived for each alternative attempts to mirror the intent of these

alternatives while addressing specific issues such as priority species and land health standards.

The BLM analyzed each route (road, primitive road and trail) individually on its own merit and

within the context of a greater, regional context. Please refer to Appendix S, Route Evaluation

Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311) for a detailed discussion of the analytical procedure.

An ID team comprised of awildlife biologist, archeologist, geologist, lands specialist, law

enforcement officer, and recreation planner was convened to analyze the various proposed route

networks. A representative of AGFD was also present at these meetings. Data was presented in

the form of detailed printed maps comprised of accurate, up-to-date physical resource data. A

computer-generated GIS map was available to display “live” electronic data, including the best

available information and latest photogrammetry, to the ID team. Discussions were documented

utilizing a software and database package. The software package uses an evaluation-tree process

to gather information and guide the review team to create route system alternatives.

Table 4.29, “Equivalency of the Statutory Authority Related to Route Evaluation

Questions” (p. 701) shows the statutory authority compared to the questions asked during the

route evaluation process.

Table 4.29. Equivalency of the Statutory Authority Related to Route Evaluation Questions

Authority (Section/Criteria) Question from Route Evaluation Tree Question Letter

in Tree

FLPMA (PL 94-579)

Title V, Sec 501 (a) The Secretary, with

respect to public lands ... are authorized to

grant, issue or renew rights-of-way over,

upon, or through such lands.

Is the route an officially recognized right-of-way

or an officially recognized county or state route?

A

Title VII, Sec 701 (a) Nothing in this

Act or in any amendment made by this

Act shall be construed as terminating any

valid lease, permit, patent, right-of-way,

or authorization existing on the date of

approval of this Act.

Does the route provide commercial, private

property, or administrative access?

C

43 CFR 8342.1

(a) Areas and trails shall be located to

minimize damage to soil, watershed,

vegetation, air, or other resources of the

public lands, and to prevent impairment of

wilderness suitability.

Can the commercial, private-property and public

uses of this route be adequately met by another

route(s) that minimizes impacts to sensitive

resources identified above or that minimizes

cumulative effects on various other resources?

X, Y, Z, AA, BB,

CC, DD, EE, FF,

GG, HH, II, JJ,

KK, LL

Might the continued use of this route impact

state or Federal special status species or their

habitat or cultural or any other specially protected

resources or objects identified by agency

planning documents, plan amendments, or any

other special area designations (e.g. National

Monuments)

B, F, G

(b) Areas and trails shall be located

to minimize harassment of wildlife or

significant disruption of wildlife habitats.

Special attention will be given to protect

endangered or threatened species and their

habitats.

Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources

be avoided, minimized or mitigated?

D, E, H, I, J, K

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Travel Management
702 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Authority (Section/Criteria) Question from Route Evaluation Tree Question Letter

in Tree

(c) Areas and trails shall be located to

minimize conflicts between off-road

vehicle use and other existing or proposed

recreational uses of the same or neighboring

public lands, and to ensure the compatibility

of such uses with existing conditions in

populated areas, taking into account noise

and other factors.

Does this route contribute to recreational

opportunities, route network connectivity, public

safety, or other public access opportunities

enumerated in agency organic laws?

L, M, N, O, P, Q,

R, S, T, U, V, W

Might the continued use of this route impact

state or Federal special status species or their

habitat or cultural or any other specially protected

resources or objects identified by agency

planning documents, plan amendments, or any

other special area designations (e.g. National

Monuments)

B, F, G

(d) Areas and trails shall not be located

in officially designated wilderness areas

or primitive areas. Areas and trails shall

be located in natural areas only if the

authorized officer determines that off-road

vehicle use in such locations will not

adversely affect their natural, esthetic,

scenic, or other values for which such areas

are established.

Can the impacts to the above sensitive resources

be avoided, minimized or mitigated?

D, E, H, I, J, K

Designation criteria (a), above, considers impacts to soil, watershed, vegetation, air, and “other

resources.” The BLM's analysis of each route/region carefully considers each of these factors and

records them in a database.The process also involves creating a report for each numbered route

detailing the factors, conditions, and methods for possible mitigation if necessary. The question in

the evaluation tree process seeks to draw out answers from staff regarding not only information

on designation criteria (a), but also cumulative effects. The staff is free to identify issues not

specifically called out in criteria (a), as well.

One example of the type of analysis conducted during interdisciplinary reviews involves routes

that are in areas where soil types do not support vehicle traffic. After identification of the route

and the poor soils, which tend to be silty, these routes could be considered for seasonal closure

or mitigation, possibly via soil treatment, to minimize impacts on soil and air resources as

required in subpart (a). Routes in more stable soils would have less impact to vegetation or air

quality and would not require engineering or specific limits. Analysis like this is considered on

a route-by-route basis, as well as on a landscape or network basis. An example of the analysis

for soils and air quality on an areawide basis would be the PM10 nonattainment area that affects

approximately 3,500 acres at the north end of the SDNM. Not only were individual routes

identified when they were inside the boundary, an area-wide approach to managing routes inside

the area was considered and discussed in the area overview. This type of broad, yet specific

analysis was intended to meet the statutory requirements placed on the BLM.

Designation criteria (b) above considers impacts to wildlife habitats, with emphasis to protection

of T & E species. The BLM's analysis of each route/region details the type of species/habitat that

a proposed or existing route may traverse. Mitigating factors for a road proposed as “open” may

include, but not limited to, seasonal closure or re-route. Habitat fragmentation is an important

analytical feature in the context of route/region analysis. One example of how this criteria was

applied would include sand washes south of I-8. The range of alternatives includes two different

seasonal closures in Alternatives C and E and complete closure in Alternative D. This would

provide protection to important habitats during hot weather when wildlife is most vulnerable.

Designation Criteria (c) above considers conflicts between motorized users and other recreational

pursuits. The BLM attempts to document and consider all of the known recreational uses

of a given route/region. An interdisciplinary area overview discussion occurs prior to the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Travel Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 703

route-by-route evaluations in an attempt to identify the area’s issues and potential for conflicts.

The existing condition versus the proposed recreation experiences are also considered during

this overview discussion. An example of how the BLM creates recreation zones to minimize

conflict includes motorized use being designated for a certain region through the benefits based

management approach, while equestrian use would be emphasized in a different area. This

analysis would tie into the various recreational benefits for which the BLM manages.

Designation Criteria (d) above considers congressional/departmental designations. Officially

designated wilderness areas, by law, are off limits to motorized and mechanized use. Furthermore,

staff has analyzed the effects of allowing motorized use in lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics or ACECs. In these areas, motorized use is de-emphasized while pedestrian,

equestrian, and nonmotorized pursuits are emphasized. Route evaluation criteria for natural areas,

generally understood by the BLM to include allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, includes closing most or all of the vehicle routes within these areas. Alternatives

considered might include a few open routes to allow passage through the area, but management

prescriptions would prevent adversely affecting the area. One example is the sand wash routes

on the north side of the Sand Tank Mountains. They would be closed when lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics are allocated in Alternative D.

A summary of the approach to creating the SDNM route designation proposals, including route

modeling for Lower Sonoran, is as follows:

Alternative A (No Action): Leave the route system in its current state except where inventoried

routes must be closed to comply with law. Emphasize education and enforcement to maintain

resource conditions. Restore habitat and the human environment as necessary, expecting that this

approach may be more expensive and difficult than other management regimes over the long term.

Alternative B: Leave most routes in their current state but emphasize loop trails where doing so

would disperse recreationists while eliminating off-route travel, thereby minimizing effects to

resources. No allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics are present in this

alternative. Close routes where no uses can be identified.

Alternative C: Attempt to find a balance between routes that are closed and open using resource

allocations. Developing and hardening select high-use recreation sites would mitigate the loss of

dispersed recreation opportunities and protect resources. Many undeveloped sites and primitive

roads would remain open to support experiences historically found on public lands.

Alternative D: Emphasize engineering of recreation and public use sites to maximize resource

protection. Reduce dispersed vehicle use and peripheral activities to reduce route density and

protect resources. This management approach emphasizes engineering and education to manage

the route system. Improvement and hardening of recreation sites where visitors would be

concentrated would make sites more easily accessible by two-wheel drive vehicles. Management

costs would be increased in developed areas and decreased in dispersed areas.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative): This alternative takes the best of all the action

alternatives to create a balanced route system that serves recreation, administrative and permitted

uses. This alternative looks much like Alternative C in its attempt to balance visitation of the

Monument with protection of the settings and objects. The main differences are a shorter seasonal

closure on washes south of I-8, approximately 10 percent fewer primitive roads open than

Alternative C, and the restriction of the area to licensed drivers only. This system of routes is

guided by the resource allocations in the preferred alternative.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Travel Management
704 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Only routes in the SDNM will be designated within this RMP. The route evaluation process,

shown in Appendix S, Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311), identifies

specific resources, objects, and concerns. By seeking out potential mitigations during this process,

the four designation criteria are being addressed. Specifics of how the designation criteria are met

are outlined in each resource area’s impact analysis. A second analysis has been completed to

assess the route system’s effect on Monument objects. The methodology involved in identifying

areas within the SDNM is based on unique assemblages of Monument objects, significant public

use or interest, and areas with management challenges. A rationale was developed to assess

the intensity and duration of impacts to Monument objects. Standard operating procedures

were considered for their effect on managing the uses associated with designated routes. This

additional step helped staff finalize route systems for each plan alternative that considers the

various resource allocations in the alternatives.

4.18.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.18.1.1. Indicators

Indicators of impacts on travel management can be determined qualitatively or quantitatively.

The indicators below explain the nature of the impacts and units of measure to compare among

alternatives.

Air Quality: Possible closures due to opacity limits exceedance (opacity limit is 20 percent). The

indicator is how many miles of routes are open inside PM10 boundaries that would be subject

to closure when opacity limits are exceeded.

Caves Resources: Managing for safety around caves could require reducing the number of routes

adjacent to caves to reduce the possibility of incidents and conserve resources. The indicator is

the number of truncated routes within 0.1 miles of a cave site.

Cultural and Heritage Resources: Managing routes to prevent damage to cultural resources

could necessitate rerouting, mitigation, or the treatment or closure of routes. Management could

affect the creation of new routes. The indicator is the number of routes expected to be closed

due to managing for cultural resources. A second indicator is the number of new routes (in

miles) not constructed or that require mitigation.

Lands & Realty: Routes may be truncated, disconnected, or closed as a result of authorizing

powerlines, pipelines, solar power plants, highways, or other actions. The indicator is the miles of

open routes within utility corridors that could be closed or limited.

Livestock Grazing: New roads or primitive roads may be required to serve new grazing

improvements. The RFD scenarios for grazing vary by alternative and indicate how many new

improvements may be constructed. The indicator is how many miles of road or primitive road

that could be constructed to serve new improvements.

Minerals Management: Routes to new mines and gravel pits may be truncated or disconnected

as a result of developing new sites. The RFD scenarios for minerals development vary by

alternative and indicate how many new mines/pits may be opened. The indicator of how this affect

travel management is the number of miles of routes expected to be rerouted, mitigated, or closed.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 705

Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management: Managing for wildlife habitat and

movement corridors could cause routes to be closed, limited, or mitigated. New routes may be

limited in their placement and the number of new routes restricted. Routes affecting the habitat of

Sonoran pronghorn antelope, Sonoran desert tortoise, acuna Cactus, cactus ferruginous pygmy

owl, lesser long-nosed bat could be closed, limited or mitigated. The indicator is the number of

miles of routes closed, limited, or mitigated as a result of managing for special status species. An

additional indicatoris the number of new routes limited in physical placement or prohibited as a

result of corridors or habitat areas.

Hazardous Materials & Public Safety: Areas may be limited by permit or closed temporarily

to remediate hazards. Effects on the travel system would be based on specific decisions that

limit use. The indicator is the number of miles of routes in permit areas where use would be

monitored or otherwise restricted.

Recreation Management: Decisions about recreation settings such as back country and front

country will direct route designations. Routes may be opened, closed, limited, or proposed to

meet the recreation setting decisions. The indicator is the number of new miles proposed in

SRMAs. An additional indicator is the number of miles opened, closed, or limited by shifts in

recreation setting allocations.

Special Designations: The stated purposes for designated wilderness areas, ACECs, national

trails, and Back Country Byways will have an effect on the route designations. Changes are

expected to the route system as special designation areas are allocated or change in size.

Wilderness areas are closed to vehicles and mechanized travel by law. The indicator is the number

of miles of routes open, closed, or limited as a result of decisions for special designation areas.

Travel Management: The management approach and assumptions for each alternative will

guide the route designations in the SDNM and set the stage for future route designations in the

Lower Sonoran Decision Area. Legal access points and enforceability would be altered by the

management philosophy and resource allocations in each alternative. The indicator is the number

of miles of routes open, closed, or limited in SDNM.

Vegetation Resources: Managing for vegetation, especially in washes, could require routes to

be closed or limited by season or to administrative use. The indicator is the number of miles of

routes closed, limited, or mitigated due to vegetation concerns.

Visual Resources: The creation of new roads, primitive roads, or trails may require mitigation to

lessen their visibility. The indicator is the number of miles of new routes subject to increased

costs as a result of decisions for VRM.

Soil Resources: Managing for soil retention and productivity could result in closure or limitation

of some routes. Managing for watershed protection could result in closure or limitation by time of

year, travel mode, or administrative use for some routes. The indicator is the number of miles of

routes where erosion results in closure, limitation, mitigation, or closure. The indicator is the

number of miles of routes closed, limited, or mitigated to protect watershed quality.

Wilderness Characteristics: Routes may be closed or limited to administrative use inside areas

allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. The indicator is the number of

miles closed for protection of wilderness characteristics. This indicator also can be calculated

as a percentage of total route miles.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
706 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.18.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding travel management are made:

● Use levels will not decrease. Use type may shift, but use will increase over time, likely

keeping pace with population growth in the state.

● Developing higher standard roads will favor general recreation and deter OHV use because

where passenger-car use increases off-highway vehicle users may feel out of place, causing

them to seek other locations to ride.

● Improving the condition of access roads will concentrate uses, especially when combined

with a reduction of primitive roads.

● Limiting access to the SDNM to licensed drivers would reduce resource impacts by barring

less mature visitors from using vehicles there. The assumption is that irresponsible use, rather

than specific vehicle types, is the major cause for impacts.

● Limiting SDNM access to licensed drivers and banning OHVs would create the highest level

of protection for the SDNM while still allowing vehicular access to remote settings. This is

because of the relatively low off-highway performance of most street-licensed vehicles and

the maturity of the licensed drivers combined.

● Legal access from Interstate 8 can be secured.

● Limiting access to the SDNM to points where entry signs are present would improve

compliance with rules.

● Barriers to wildlife movement develop when intensity of use reaches a threshold. Density of

routes is less important than high use levels of routes and areas.

● Infrequent human visitation of wildlife waters does not deter wildlife from using them.

● Wilderness visitation is expected to increase at the same rate as population increase.

● Improvement of Vekol Valley Road south of I-8, which would include large culverts, could

also improve wash conditions and wildlife movement by reducing mortality and making

vehicle driving in washes more difficult.

4.18.1.3. Program Areas with No Impacts on Travel Management

There would be no impacts to travel management from actions proposed under the following

program areas:

● Paleontological resources

● Water resources

● Wild horse and burro management

● Wildland fire management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 707

4.18.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

When referring to the intensity of an action, the terms negligible, minor, moderate, and major are

used. There is a common definition of the way these terms are used in Chapter 4, Environmental

Consequences (p. 371), yet some additional detail on these terms is given below:

Negligible: Actions that cause an insignificant change to accessing desired locations or

experiencing Monument objects and sites would be considered negligible. Protection of

Monument objects would affect only a few routes, and effects to access would be unnoticeable

to most people.

Minor: Actions that affect the travel system in only one area, such as a specific route closure or

affecting between 2 percent and 10 percent of total routes, would be considered minor. A specific

travel mode or experience may be affected heavily in one area, but not in the entire Planning Area.

Protection of Monument objects would affect a few routes in a specific location, and access would

not be eliminated to an area of 1,000 to 2,999 acres.

Moderate: Actions that are widespread, affect routes for a specific geographic area of less than

33 percent of the Planning Area or specific issue, or affect 10 percent to 24 percent of the routes

would be considered moderate. Protection of a specific Monument object would affect routes at

only few locations but could affect access to a significantly larger area. Access may be eliminated

to a geographic area of 3,000-10,000 acres or more.

Major: . Direct effects would affect 25 percent or more of the routes, experiences, or destinations

over more than 33 percent of the Planning Area. Protection of a specific Monument object would

affect an area of 10,000 acres or more or 200 miles of routes.

4.18.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

No unique impacts are described for alternatives common to both Decision Areas.

4.18.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.18.3.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are described for both Decision Areas under Alternative A.

4.18.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Travel Management

While Alternative A does not provide specific air quality decisions, existing air quality rules and

regulations apply. Under this alternative, 270 miles of the existing 1,688 miles of routes are inside

the Buckeye Hills (East), Rainbow Valley, and Ajo PM10 nonattainment areas. The most heavily

used area, known as the Buckeye Hills (East), contains primitive roads as well as motorized

and nonmotorized trails within a short distance of residential areas. There are no immediate

effects, yet future restrictions could be implemented to curb PM10 and fugitive dust emissions,

possibly limiting or closing access on these routes. Such closures would be expected to have a

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
708 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

moderate effect on motorized travel. Nonmotorized access likely would be allowed inside PM10

nonattainment areas where the trail conditions or use levels allow passing the soil stability and

visible emissions requirements of Maricopa County and would have a negligible to minor effect.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

No decisions currently exist. Current rules and regulations that protect cultural resources include

vehicle driving limitations where existing roads and trails are available for use. When designating

routes in areas with known resources, routes could be rerouted or closed to minimize effects to

resources. Specific management actions, including modifying, limiting, or closing routes to motor

vehicles and mechanized vehicles would have a negligible to minor effect on travel because some

limitations could occur. Nonmotorized travel modes would be allowed in a cross-country manner

if deemed to not affect the resources for which the route was closed. Such management actions

would have a negligible effect on travel by nonmotorized means.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

The continued issuance of LUAs could either reduce connectivity of existing routes or improve

connectivity where new roads are established on non-exclusive use LUAs. Because the number

and scale of new LUAs is not known until the time of application, no assessment of their impacts

can be made.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

The construction of new range facilities could add roads to the existing system. Such new

developments are estimated to be up to 1 mile per year, a 0.05 percent increase of overall LSFO

mileage yearly, as identified in the RFD scenarios for grazing. This would have a negligible effect

on the route system overall, but impacts may increase to moderate on localized recreation route

networks if new routes are prohibited near range improvements.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

The addition of new gravel pits or saleable minerals mine sites could reduce existing route

connectivity or mileage, where placement of the mine cuts off access or eliminates existing public

access points. However, because new development likely will not total more than one or two new

pits per year, eliminating no more than 1 mile of existing primitive road and one access point to

public land per mine, the impacts of new development are expected to be minor. Establishment

of three to five new locatable mineral mines a year would have similar effects, as mine access

needs and footprints would be similar.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 709

No decisions currently exist. Continuing the “No net loss” policy for desert tortoise habitat would

have a moderate effect on future route development regardless of use type. A spring seasonal

closure for Sonoran Pronghorn (from March15 to July 15) to all public entry would cause the

route system inside the closure area to be unavailable during this time, producing a moderate

effect on all travel within this area. Managing for Sonoran pronghorn would continue the seasonal

closure for breeding in Ajo, which closes 181 miles out of 425 miles of routes in the Ajo area to

all public use, would produce a moderate effect on travel. An estimated 40 percent of the routes

would be off-limits during this time. Increasing visitation in adjacent areas would be likely,

producing a moderate effect on the condition and experiences found on those routes due to an

increase in visitor contacts and loss of vegetation along open routes.

Currently there are no decisions to reintroduce Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the

Endangered Species act on BLM-managed lands outside the Ajo area, thus there would be no

impacts.

From Public Safety and Hazardous Materials on Travel Management

Lands conveyed from the BGR, including the Sentinel Plains SRMA, require a a free access

permit to be obtained from BLM or Air Force locations in Gila Bend, Phoenix, or Yuma. This

permit requirement has the effect of deterring some visitors from using this area. Managing the

existing routes in the Sentinel Plains area as a permit area has a negligible effect on travel due

to the low number of visitors using the area.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

Designating routes within the existing Saddle Mountain, Gila Trails, Sentinel Plain Lava Flow,

and Ajo SRMAs would affect approximately 700 miles of routes out of 1,675 miles of routes.

Currently, no activity level plan has designated routes or recreation sites. Site-specific planning is

required to determine the number and mileage of open and closed routes, therefore no assessment

of the impact to various travel modes can be made at this time.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Travel on all Lower Sonoran lands would be limited to the existing 1,688 miles of existing roads

and trails and to previously disturbed areas, which would have a negligible effect on travel.

Where erodible soils exist, roads could be modified by adding earthen drainage structures, road

base material, or instituting a total closure. No determination on the location of improvements or

closures would be made until resource degradation becomes apparent. This could have a moderate

effect on the route system, either upgrading or eliminating access to large areas in erodible soils.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Maintaining the Coffeepot ACEC would continue to close 14 miles of routes to public use,

producing a minor effect on travel in the Ajo area. A gas pipeline maintenance road would remain

open to administrative use. No Back Country Byways are currently allocated. There would be

no change in route status as a result of designated wilderness management because routes were

closed by the previously implemented wilderness management plans.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
710 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Continuing the current OHV area allocation of “existing roads and trails” on 808,100 acres

would result in a moderate effect because an increase in new routes over the lifetime of the

plan could be expected. This expectation is based on staff observations of route proliferation.

Unauthorized route creation is not allowed, yet it occurs. Continuing the OHV area allocation of

limited to designated routes (21,400 acres), would require routes to be designated within these

areas, having a minor effect on travel by restricting use to only the designated open routes. There

would be no time commitment on when the routes would be designated. Continuing the OHV

closed allocation on 100,600 acres in designated wilderness and the camping closure area around

Painted Rock campground would continue to ban motorized and mechanized vehicles from these

areas, producing a moderate effect on the travel system and the reduced connectivity of routes and

areas for motor and mechanized vehicle travel.

Law enforcement’s ability to reduce travel off designated roads and trails would be hampered due

to continued vagueness on the ground about what constitutes an existing route. Issuing a map that

delineates existing roads and trails would have a negligible effect on the travel system. In areas

with a denser route network, the establishment of new, unauthorized routes could confuse the

public and result in the continued use of newly created routes, which could produce a moderate

effect on travel due to the possibility of area closures for resource protection.

A lack of legal access points would continue the occasional loss of access across lands not in

the BLM’s jurisdiction, having a moderate to a major effect. As lands adjacent to public lands

develop, longstanding access points could be eliminated or changed, excluding public access.

Continued maintenance deferral on roads and trails also could cause minor changes in use patterns

as routes conditions become impassable. This could cause route proliferation where visitors create

new routes to access or re-establish previously accessible locations or areas.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Vehicle travel would be limited to existing roads and trails in the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt area,

which would affect few routes. There is a low number of routes inside the green belt, therefore

this limitation would have a minor effect on the travel system.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Currently, VRM Class III allocations cover most of the area where vehicle routes exist, and no

ground disturbance, including route maintenance, is planned. Therefore there would no effect on

the travel system from VRM. Indirect effects of managing under Class III is the ease of authorizing

land uses that could interrupt the travel system, causing truncation or disconnection of routes.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under this

alternative.

4.18.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 711

Five miles of existing primitive roads are inside the PM10 nonattainment area. While the current

plan provides no decisions, existing air quality rules and regulations do apply. There are no

immediate effects; future restrictions could be implemented to curb PM10 and fugitive dust.

Closing all 5 miles of primitive roads would have a minor effect on the travel system due to the

relatively short length of each primitive road segment.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

The continued planning and development of the Anza NHT RMZ could restrict motor vehicle

access on approximately 88 miles of roads and primitive roads inside the RMZ. Current rules and

regulations direct the protection of cultural resources, including vehicle driving limitations where

only “existing roads and trails” are available for use. These 88 miles of road constitute 14 percent

of the total existing routes in the SDNM. Closure of routes would have a negligible to moderate

effect to travel in the RMZ, depending upon each visitor’s desired travel mode.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Any lands and realty actions would have a minor effect due to the limited number of LUAs

permitted in SDNM.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

With the elimination of grazing south of I-8, some routes to range improvement projects could be

closed. Most other routes south of I-8 remain open, so impacts from any of the road closures is

negligible.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Continuing ADOT’s permits to mine and store gravel at two sites south of I-8 requires maintaining

access from I-8 at two unimproved exits from the eastbound lane between the Butterfield Trail

exit and the Freeman Road exit. Gates providing access to the sites would need to remain in place.

Continued public use of these gates might constitute a safety hazard because they could require

evasive action for highway travelers to avoid vehicles entering or exiting from the breakdown

lane. The loss of public access at these gates would have a moderate effect on access to SDNM

south of I-8. Public access has been allowed historically, and the gates could be locked at any time.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

No decisions currently exist. Continuing a “No net loss” policy for desert tortoise habitat would

have a moderate effect on future route development regardless of use type. At the time of route

designation, management for cactus ferruginous pygmy owl could result in seasonal restrictions

on primitive roads in 63 miles of sand washes in the SDNM. This is anticipated to have a minor

to moderate effect on travel. Managing for bighorn sheep habitat and movement would have a

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
712 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

moderate effect on the development of new routes for any use due to the need to avoid creating

movement barriers.

Currently there are no decisions to reintroduce Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the

Endangered Species Act, thus there would be no impacts.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

The Area A permit requirement has a negligible effect on the route system because the permit

is easy to obtain (it is available in multiple locations) and only affects a visitor’s ability to use

the area around Sand Tank Mountains and Javelina Mountain.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The designation of the SDNM, combined with the Gila Trails SRMA would have the effect of

emphasizing the Anza NHT, which could result in designating a majority of the trail’s length

on BLM-managed lands as a nonmotorized route. Motorized use would be curtailed except

for Butterfield Pass, which would continue to be available for both motor vehicle use and

nonmotorized vehicle use. This would have a minor impact on travel management.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Continuing to allow travel on existing routes and in previously disturbed areas would result in

the loss of soil on even lightly used routes. The continued loss of soil would require impromptu

stabilization, reconstruction, or closure of routes and areas. Soil loss, a factor in not achieving

land health standards, likely would result in a small number of route closures, having a minor

effect on the travel system.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Managing the Anza NHT would have a minor effect on the network by placing restrictions on

motor vehicle use as the management plan for the trail is implemented. All sections of the Anza

NHT east of Gap Well would remain available for vehicle use.

Continuing to manage the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC would continue the closure of 5 miles

of primitive roads, having a minor effect on travel since the area affected is relatively small in

context of the Monument.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

Continuing the current OHV designation of “existing roads and trails” as required by the

Monument proclamation could result in an increase in new routes being established over the

lifetime of the plan, even though proliferation is prohibited. Currently, 632 miles of existing

roads, primitive roads and trails exists. Continuing the temporary closure around the Anza NHT

would eliminate impacts from driving off of existing roads in the immediate area, but over time, it

is expected that use levels of would increase in other areas of the Monument. Additional use in

other areas of the Monument could affect Monument objects, raising the intensity of use assuming

use level does not decrease overall in SDNM. Continuation of this designation would have a

negligible effect on travel since most people would continue to use the area with few restrictions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 713

Law enforcement success in reducing driving off of existing roads and trails would be hampered

due to continued vagueness on the ground about what constitutes an existing route. Issuing a map

showing the existing roads and trails would likely be sufficient to enforce the rule in areas where

route densities are low and the navigation is simple enough to determine a location. Illegal

activities, such as smuggling, that create new roads would further confuse the public and would

lead to use on these unauthorized roads. In areas with more dense routes, the establishment of

new routes could confuse the public attempting to find the existing roads and could result in the

continued use of newly created routes. Some people would simply use any road not posted with a

closed sign, regardless of a map, in turn raising the difficulty for the BLM to maintain sufficient

signs. Currently, and average of four route markers per mile is required to sign a low-density route

network. Each new road intersection would require at one to two new signs to direct visitors to

stay on the existing route while a newly created route is reclaimed over a several year timeframe.

There are no requirements for vehicle drivers, including those of OHVs, to be licensed or

otherwise trained, except in Area A where the BLM has carried forward a requirement from the

USAF requiring licensed vehicles and drivers inside this relinquished area. This has had the effect

of damaging an area adjacent to the Anza NHT through cross-country driving, which resulted in

issuance of a temporary closure order for 88 miles of primitive roads in June of 2008.

A lack of acquired legal access points would continue the occasional loss of access across lands

not in the BLM’s jurisdiction. As lands adjacent to public lands develop, long standing access

points could be eliminated, or changed to local resident access only by excluding public access.

The continued deferral of roads and trails maintenance would cause changes in use patterns as

route conditions change to the degree that routes are impassable. This could have the effect

of unauthorized route proliferation where new routes are established for access to previously

accessible locations or areas. The closure of unauthorized routes would have no effect on the

legal existing travel network, but could moderately affect public perception of the available routes

due to an increase in ‘route closed’ signs, thus having the indirect minor effect of diminished law

enforcement success in maintaining compliance in high use areas.

Although routes would not be designated under the No-Action Alternative, 15 miles of primitive

roads and roads would remain closed in the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC and in washes inside

the Area A boundary, where driving vehicles in the washes is prohibited. 617 miles of road,

primitive roads and trails would remain open, totaling 98 percent of the routes in SDNM.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

The designation of upland routes would be emphasized while allowing necessary use of access

routes in washes. Primitive roads in washes comprise 63 miles of the 971 miles of intermittent

flow washes in SDNM. Allowing these routes to remain open at their current width would have

no effect on the use of the route system since there would be no loss of access.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics in Alternative

A.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
714 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.18.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.18.4.1. Both Decision Areas

A decision to allow reintroduction of Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the Endangered

Species Act would have a negligible effect on the travel system since survey routes may need to

use designated routes, adding a minor amount of traffic to some primitive roads.

4.18.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Implementing a decision to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

the state implementation plan (SIP) and state law on air quality will have the effect of raising

the cost or need for management on Lower Sonoran areas inside the PM10 boundary (247,700

acres) and additionally in areas annexed by cities or towns, referred to as Area A, which would be

affected by a state law requiring them to manage for dust (ARS Title 500). Areas in municipal

jurisdictions within Area A such as Buckeye Hills East and Rainbow Valley, are required under

state law to halt all vehicle driving off of paved or stabilized surfaces on high pollution advisory

day. These closures would have a minor effect on travel since the closures occur mostly on

weekdays. If entire areas were closed as a result of poor compliance with the temporary high

pollution advisory days, then the impact would be moderate to major since entire areas would be

off limits for vehicle driving and vehicle staging for all uses.

Route designations could reflect reduced open miles of routes in areas with higher silt content,

or in areas where stabilization or hardening would be cost prohibitive under available funding.

These closures could have a minor to moderate affect on travel in these areas since motorized

travel would be eliminated or greatly reduced and restricted.

Nonmotorized travel would be largely unaffected unless staging areas develop causing a need

to close and rehabilitate or develop unpaved parking lots. Unstabilized trails might be closed

permanently, or at least temporarily, until soils naturally stabilize and to implement plan to

address dust. If this occurs, nonmotorized travel requiring staging areas would be moderately

affected in a similar manner as motorized travel.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

A decision to close all caves to public entry unless specifically authorized would direct the route

designation to end existing routes at least 0.1 miles before a cave to protect the cave and human

safety from damage, thus increasing the distance that cave seekers would need to walk. Four

caves are known which would lead to 0.4 miles of primitive roads being closed. This would have

a negligible effect on the route system since the closed mileage could be about .03 percent of

reasonable foreseeable route network.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

A decision to allocate three historic sites, the Anza NHT, Painted Rock Petroglyph site and

Sundad to public use would have a minor effect of leaving roads, primitive roads or trails open

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 715

to access areas which would be interpreted. Routes on the historic sites would be closed where

doing so would protect the site’s values. At least 1 site would have the route ended 0.1miles

before the site to avoid parking on the site.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

The allocation of 10 multiuse corridors could have the minor effect of potentially reducing

connectivity when designating routes. Adding linear authorizations such as transportation

infrastructure and large area sites such as utility-scale renewable energy sites and paved access

roads could have the cumulative effect of reducing the connectivity of the travel network

regionally. Since the addition of sites would be incremental, connectivity would likely be reduced

slowly, over decades. Such access would be difficult to reestablish and would likely be foregone.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

The reduction of AUMs could have a net zero effect on the creation of new range facilities and

their associated primitive roads. Since the development of new facilities is approved on a case

by case basis with reduced AUMs, the effect would be expected to be minor, as described in

Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative A except that additional acreage would be closed to

mineral entry in Alternative B, which would reduce the number of places where mines could be

located and have an effect of maintaining connectivity of the route system.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Designating wildlife movement corridors (332,300 acres) would have a minor to moderate effect

by limiting where new routes could be constructed. This alternative would have the least effect

on transportation and access concerns within the LSFO compared to any of the other action

alternatives.

Routes would not be constructed on ridge lines used by bighorn sheep, or in or along washes,

especially where cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls are known to exist. Route path selection options

would be reduced, requiring additional planning or increased expense to achieve satisfactory

recreation outcomes. A seasonal closure (March 15-July 15), south of Ajo, would eliminate

travel opportunities by any travel mode on 181 miles of roads and primitive roads during this

period. Approximately 10 percent of the roads and primitive roads could be closed permanently

to disperse and minimize the effects of concentration of camping to Pronghorn. Up to 5 miles of

new primitive roads inside movement corridors are expected to be needed within the Arlington

and Painted Rocks SRMAs.

Up to 30 percent of primitive roads could be closed to minimize effects to priority species such as

Sonoran pronghorn, Sonoran desert tortoise and bighorn sheep. This level of closure would have a

moderate effect on the route system since main connecting routes would be closed. Primitive roads

in sand washes could be closed, reducing the overall impact of vegetation loss due to crushing or

strata changes. Seasonally near Ajo, Sikort Chuapo Wash and Cuerda de Lena Wash could be

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
716 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

closed from February 1 to September 15 for cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl breeding, nesting and

dispersal. The final decision to close routes will be made during follow-on route designations.

Currently, no restrictions exist for driving in sand washes that are part of existing primitive roads.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

Eight SRMAs would have the effect of designating the most miles as open for roads, primitive

roads or trails of any of the action alternatives. Alternative B of Section 4.1.6, “Reasonably

Foreseeable Development ScenarioS” (p. 376) for travel management, would leave the most

miles of routes open (1,241 miles). Approximately 49 new miles of routes, or 2.9 percent of the

Decision Area, could be created to improve vehicle circulation on loop routes in the Arlington,

Painted Rocks Mountains, Ajo and Buckeye Hills SRMAs. Approximately 351 miles (21 percent

of the Decision Area) of routes would be closed or limited to administrative use only. Alternative

B would allow access by vehicle to most of the places that are currently available and would

add new routes that allow loop trail riding by OHV recreationists. Direct effects on the travel

system would come from improving circulation and connectivity in front country experience

SRMAs and implementing small reductions in the number vehicle routes in SRMAs managed

for back country experiences, which are primarily nonmotorized. This adjustment of vehicle

access would be expected to have minor effects on both motorized and nonmotorized travelers

by shifting where vehicles could be driven.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Managing for Land Health Standards on a designated route network would have a moderate effect

of requiring all open routes to be reviewed and repaired, if necessary, to limit erosion and limit

sedimentation of nearby washes. All open roads, primitive roads and trails, 1,688 miles total,

would need to be reviewed. It is expected that 25 to 50 percent of the primitive roads would

need water control features, such as drain dips, installed at a cost of up to $5,000 per mile and

would need to be maintained at least every 10 years at a cost possibly less than $5,000 per mile.

Currently, no maintenance is conducted on primitive roads under Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Coffeepot ACEC could close up to 14 miles of primitive roads to public use, while allowing

administrative use on a gas pipeline maintenance road and an existing range improvement.

Allocating 21 miles of Agua Caliente road as a Backcountry Byway, a county road, would receive

increased signs and special management through mapping and information kiosks. Visitation

might increase due to the allocation. The lowest estimate for usage increase would be that it

would increase at the same rate that Maricopa county population increases since the market for the

byway is expected to be Phoenix metro area and visitors to Phoenix. County maintenance would

continue with no noticeable change in maintenance. This allocation would have a negligible effect

on the travel system. This allocation does not exist under the No-Action Alternative.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 717

The Anza NHT’s continued designation would have the effect of designating access roads to

interpretive sites along the trail. An estimated three sites would need up to 10 miles of existing

primitive roads designated for access.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

A management decision to allocate OHV areas as limited to designated routes (828,400 acres)

would have the effect of requiring route designations to be completed and limiting all vehicles

and bicycles to the designated route system. Maintaining the existing designated wilderness areas

and camping closure as OHV closed areas (101,800 acres) would continue the ban on driving

motorized and mechanized vehicles in these areas. Allocating 40 acres in the Ajo area as an open

area where cross-country travel would be permitted would allow an existing primitive road used

for motocross experiences to remain and would reduce management needs in this area.

The management philosophy used in this alternative would provide for the most vehicle access

to many popular locations along with access to very remote locations that receive little use.

Allowing for dispersal of recreationists would help avoid overuse. This alternative’s conceptual

route network mileage seeks to respond to recreation settings defined Alternative B and all other

resource allocations management actions. About 1316 miles of road, primitive roads and trails

could be designated and be open to all vehicles which includes up to 141 miles of seasonally

closed primitive roads, some of which would be in washes, but a majority would be in the

Sonoran pronghorn seasonal closure area south of Ajo. Vehicle access would be designated

on most existing routes and could add up to 49 miles of new primitive roads or trails in the

Arlington, Ajo, Painted Rocks and Buckeye Hills SRMAs. Nonmotorized trails could total

around 22 miles, four of which are existing in the Estrella Mountains wilderness. The balance

would likely be converted from motorized trails in community interface areas in the Buckeye

Hills RMZ. Motorized route connectivity would be emphasized in the Arlington, Painted Rocks

and Buckeye Hills SRMAs. Under Alternative A management, Buckeye Hills East area is the

highest use area for OHVs including off-highway motorcycles where approximately 20 miles

of single-track trails currently exist.

Implementing OHV area allocations of “limited to designated routes” could result in an increase

in new routes over the first 5 years of the plan even though route proliferation is not allowed

(even with the caveat that until such time route designations are completed, travel is restricted to

existing roads and trails). Over the long term, vehicle management would be tenable under the

designated routes only OHV area allocation. Law enforcement success in reducing route use off

of existing roads and trails should be increased. Issuing a map showing the existing roads and

trails combined with route marking signs would be sufficient to enforce the designated routes in

all areas. Congested route areas would be manageable where the BLM presence occurs regularly

and new routes are rehabilitated quickly. Seeking legal access on designated routes across

non-BLM jurisdictions would eliminate the loss of public access. Where non-BLM land is a

chokepoint for access and access cannot be acquired, routes may be closed, resulting in the loss of

public access. The actions of creating a travel system, map and signs and improved enforcement

would have a minor effect on the route system by limiting visitors to the designated system while

making vehicle travel more sustainable due to increased management leading to continued access

for all visitors and the minimization of effects on natural and cultural resources.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
718 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Same as Alternative A except that fewer primitive roads in washes would likely be designated

for use in Alternative B to increase protection. This would have a minor effect on travel since

most upland primitive roads would remain available for use.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

A decision to minimize visual impacts would have a minor effect of raising the construction cost

of new roads, primitive roads or trails in Class VRM II areas. Cost increases could be 20 percent

to move from VRM Class III to Class II based on current technologies such as restoration of

natural colors of rock and soil. Up to 49 miles of new trails, primitive roads or roads could be

constructed which would be subject to increased costs. Alternative A management sets VRM

Class III over large portions of the field office, thus there would be a lower requirement for

visual mitigation under Alternative A.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics in this

alternative.

4.18.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Implementing a decision to comply with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),

the state implementation plan (SIP) and State law on air quality will have the effect of raising

engineering and management costs on five miles of routes and barren areas inside the PM10

boundary (3,452 acres) and in areas annexed by cities or towns, referred to as Area A, which

would be affected by a State law requiring them to manage for dust (ARS Title 500). Stabilization

costs of up to $10,000 per mile per year, totaling $50,000, would be required on any route within

this area not meeting Maricopa county dust rules. The decision to comply with air quality rules

would the effect of raising costs to manage dust and could lead to route closure if compliance

cannot be achieved which would be a minor effect to the route system regionally. Locally, the

effect would be moderate due to the loss of access near a residential area.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

The Anza NHT would be designated for both motor vehicle and nonmotorized use within SDNM.

Only a 2.75-mile segment west of Gap Well would be designated as nonmotorized use only. The

eastern 13.5 miles would be combined motor/non-motor use. Big Horn Station, south of I-8,

would be accessed by a maintenance intensity level 3 road (conceived to be up to eight miles

long) . This would have a moderate effect on access to the area by making visitation of the site

and areas south, slightly more difficult, yet safer, by requiring the use of the Freeman road exit

and driving four miles west on a moderately improved dirt road. The highway gate currently in

place would be locked and remain locked for administrative use only.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 719

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

The development of minor linear and non-linear LUAs on and along existing roads or primitive

roads would have a minor to moderate effect, on a short-term basis by causing an interruption of

public use during construction and site rehabilitation.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

The elimination of grazing south of I-8 would cause all routes, with exception of one primitive

road to a well site just south of I-8, to be unnecessary for grazing operations. The continuation of

grazing north of I-8 would require the continued use of approximately 130 miles of designated

roads and primitive roads to range improvements. All of these routes would be open to public use,

thus there would be no effect to public travel as compared with the No-Action Alternative for the

area north of I-8 where these same routes would also be available for use.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Approximately 33 miles of primitive roads in sand washes south of I-8 would be open to

vehicle driving. A decision to limit average route density to 3 miles per square mile in wildlife

movement corridors would be attained through route designation. The average route density

in this alternative would be 1.2 miles of roads, primitive roads or trails per square mile. The

closures, in part caused by the management of priority species, represent 15 percent of the total

existing routes, having a moderate effect on the travel system. A decision limiting driving speeds

to 45 mph on new roads would require additional engineering, design and enforcement, having a

minor effect on the use of the travel system.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The creation of camp areas north of SR 238 would require road improvements on the roads to the

Butterfield and Estrella recreation areas, which skirt the North Maricopa Mountains, to protect

desert soils, improve access by passenger car and improve air quality. High-visitation these areas

will require road engineering and improvement to maintain the capacity of the road which will

lead to increased funding needs and management attention.

Within the Sonoran Desert SRMA, 32.6 miles (5 percent of the Decision Area) of routes would be

designated as roads, requiring additional improvement, construction and disturbance along the

road. Approximately 569.9 miles (89 percent) of routes would be designated as primitive roads

where maintenance would only be performed to protect soil and water resources from degradation

and maintain the desired low level of access. Of this, 494.4 miles would be open to all vehicles

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
720 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

and 3.9 miles would be limited to vehicles 50 feet long and less. The 3.9 miles of primitive

road would only be open to licensed vehicles and drivers possessing a BGR access permit.

Approximately 69.5 miles of primitive roads would be closed to all uses and rehabilitated; 37

miles of trails would be designated for nonmotorized uses, of which 34.3 would be in designated

wilderness and thus only available to horse and hiking use; 1 mile of trail would be closed and

rehabilitated on the far eastern end of the Anza NHT, which could avoid private land trespass and

uncontrolled access; and the remaining 2.7 miles would be outside of wilderness along the Anza

trail corridor on the western side of the SDNM and managed as nonmotorized use only. All of

these adjustments to the route system would have a minor effect as compared to the No-Action

Alternative due to most routes being managed for the current uses and beginning management

that would support the achievement of recreation objectives.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Approximately 57 miles of 147 total miles of routes in Gila Bend, Denure or Carrizo soil types

would be closed, creating a moderate impact on travel. The proposed closed primitive roads are

primarily located west of Mobile and near Vekol Wash. Impacts to visitors and the route system

in this alternative would be minimized by allowing for dispersal users on more miles of routes

than Alternative C or D, which would reduce the number of vehicle trips on erodible soils. SOPs,

including the creation of earthen drainage structures on designated primitive roads with erodible

soils, would be implemented. This would limit the effects of these primitive road closures and

prevent the need for more closures, thus keeping the impacts to a moderate effect.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

Allocating 328,700 acres as limited to designated routes OHV allocation would have the effect

of requiring route designations and would lead to restriction of vehicles to the designated route

system. Allocating 157,700 acres to OHV closed would ban motorized and mechanized vehicle

driving in designated wilderness areas. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, OHV closed

areas, approximately 161,200 acres in Alternative A, would be reduced by 3,500 acres by

discontinuing the Vekol Valley ACEC and changing this area to limited to designated routes. The

OHV allocations would have a moderate effect on the travel system and its use since current

restrictions of limited to existing roads and trails can be vague and offers visitors the most latitude

in choosing their route of travel and limited to designated routes would be very definitive and

penalties would be higher for non-compliance.

The decision to designate routes in SDNM would have a major effect on how visitors access and

use the Monument resources. Implementation of the route system including the use of maps and

signs stating “use designated routes only” would raise awareness to the use of vehicles and

bicycles and improve compliance. Reopening a temporary closure area north of SR 238 would

make approximately 11 percent more area accessible to recreationists. Defining the routes in the

current temporary closure area could make future closure of the area unnecessary leading to

improved recreation opportunities, vegetation and soil conditions.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 721

Manageability and legal uses of the route system would be improved over Alternative A. The

average number of routes open per square mile would be reduced by 50 percent from Alternative

A. Average route density, a general indicator of land health, would be reduced from 0.7 to 0.4

route miles per square mile, a 43 percent change from Alternative A. This would lead to reduced

management costs and improved success in maintaining natural and cultural resource condition

through better compliance and regular maintenance. Miles of routes open for vehicle use in route

proliferation concern areas would be reduced from 231 miles in Alternative A to 125 miles

under Alternative B, which would lead to more vegetative cover and stabilized soils and in

turn minimize damage to soils, vegetation and wildlife. Alternative B’s approach to managing

recreation impacts by dispersing travelers and minimizing repetitive disturbance of wildlife

allows the most route mileage for vehicle access.

In addition:

● A requirement for all drivers in the SDNM area to be licensed by the State of Arizona would

have a moderate effect on the route system by potentially reducing cross-country driving in

popular areas such as Gap Well, which are in creosote-bursage flats. This would improve

the manageability of the proposed route system by reducing the need for enforcement and

engineering.

● Safety would see minor improvements over Alternative A by the closure of two of five

primitive roads identified with public safety concerns due to poor route condition.

● A decision to acquire legal access on all Monument access points would have a moderate

effect on access. The number of access points would be reduced by the route designations for

this alternative from 110 under Alternative A, the No-Action Alternative, to 89 in Alternative

B, a 19.1 percent decrease.

● As compared with Alternative A, in which only 15 miles of primitive roads, or 1 percent of

the routes in the SDNM, are closed, this alternative would have a minor effect on travel since

11 percent of the routes would be closed.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

A decision to emphasize the designation of routes in upland areas rather than washes would

affect 63 miles of roads, primitive roads and trails which were inventoried as being in washes.

Approximately 0.6 miles of road, representing 100 percent of the roads in washes, would remain

open, while 47 percent of the primitive roads and 0.8 miles (100 percent) of trails in washes would

be closed under this alternative to minimize effects on vegetation occurring in washes. This would

have a moderate effect on travel since the area where primitive roads occur most in washes is near

the Sand Tank Mountains and few upland primitive roads exist to redirect traffic from the wash

primitive roads. It should be noted that the reason for route closures in washes may not be solely

based on one Monument object or resource, but rather several occurring in the same location.

A decision to rehabilitate impacts from disturbances within 5 years would raise the cost and

complexity, and likely the success rate, of projects, having a minor effect on the route system

since projects would likely not be foregone, just made more difficult. Specific projects like

building the proposed road near Big Horn Station, rehabilitation of closed or unauthorized routes

would require fencing and seeding with native seed and vegetation. Drip irrigation systems

may need to be temporarily installed. Currently, there is no time requirement to rehabilitate

areas resulting in long lasting visual impacts.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
722 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

The decision to protect mountain vistas would have a minor effect on the newly proposed Big

Horn Station access road by requiring the road be placed in an inconspicuous location as viewed

from I-8. This would likely raise the cost of construction and reclamation. Furthermore, fugitive

dust from driving the proposed level 3 road would need to be managed through dust suppressants

or low dust surfacing to maintain unobstructed vistas. Cost to apply dust suppression could be

$10,000 to $20,000 per year. Under the No-Action Alternative, no dust suppression is conducted

and could result in the need to close routes.

Managing for Land Health Standards on a designated route network would have a moderate

effect by requiring all open routes to be repaired to limit erosion and soil movement. All open

roads, primitive roads and trails would need to be reviewed. It is expected that 25 to 50 percent

of the primitive roads would need water control features, such as drain dips, installed at a cost

of up to $5,000 per mile.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative B.

4.18.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.18.5.1. Both Decision Areas

A decision to reintroduce Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act

would have the same effect as Alternative B.

4.18.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative B except fewer primitive roads in the Painted Rocks

Mountains area would likely be designated as open for reasons other than access to caves. All

roads would still end 0.1 miles before known caves.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

Same as Alternative B, except primitive roads and trails would be designated as open to minimize

effects on resources near routes. The allocation of the Gila River Terraces/Sonoran Desert

Historic Trails and Saddle Mountain SCRMAs could have the effect of closing about 7 percent

of the routes (119 miles) within the boundaries of these areas. Approximately 26 percent of the

routes could be closed inside SCRMAs for a combination of reasons including efforts to minimize

effects such as such as data loss as a result of driving through sites and damage to sites from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 723

campsites in which casual collection may occur. A loop road around Saddle Mountain could be

made partially nonmotorized to reduce the proximity of visitors using vehicles near cultural

sites, an indirect impact where close proximity to a rock art site allows more visitors to degrade

or vandalize the site. A primitive road to a campsite on the north face of Saddle Mountain

would be converted to a nonmotorized trail to increase the distance from known cultural sites

thus minimizing the indirect effects to cultural resources. Under the No-Action Alternative, no

closures would be implemented unless a route was discovered to be affecting a cultural resource.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

The allocation of nine multi-use corridors could have a minor to moderate effect by potentially

reducing route connectivity for recreational use. Under the No-Action Alternative, existing roads

and trails are not considered an asset and can be closed during authorization of LUAs.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Similar to Alternative A except fewer expected developments would cut connecting routes or

eliminate access to fewer areas. This would result in less negative impact to the route system.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Designating approximately 332,300 acres as wildlife movement corridors would have a moderate

effect by limiting where new routes could be constructed and where doing so would have a

negative effect on wildlife movement. Approximately 53 miles additional miles of primitive

roads and trails could be closed compared to Alternative A, having the effect of reducing route

connectivity in areas outside of SRMAs. Routes would not be constructed on ridges lines used

by bighorn sheep or in well vegetated washes, especially where cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls

are known to exist, specifically in the Ajo area. Limiting the location of new routes could raise

construction costs and reduce trail location possibilities. New primitive roads and trails, totaling

2 miles, may not be constructed or result in fewer miles being constructed. Such routes would

facilitate trail riding on primitive roads or trails. Fewer new primitive road or trail miles would be

constructed field office-wide to minimize effects within movement corridors, leading to fewer

loop route opportunities for vehicle-based recreation.

Within Sonoran pronghorn seasonal closure area, up to 39 percent (approximately 72 miles) of the

routes could be closed. The approach of containing recreationists to few roads and areas would

decrease the available mileage for driving, more than Alternatives A or B. Under the No-Action

Alternative, the only restriction on the use of all the existing routes would be the seasonal entry

closure (March-July).

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
724 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The allocation of six SRMAs, compared to four under the No-Action Alternative, would have a

minor effect on the travel system. Motorized-vehicle use would not be directed to the Arlington

or Painted Rocks Mountain areas as in Alternative B. There would be no vehicular-recreation

focus SRMAs to aid in managing for increasing OHV use. Recreation sites in ERMAs would be

established by popularity of use, possibly including new unauthorized routes adjacent to popular

camp areas in a similar manner as the No-Action Alternative. New routes to facilitate loop trails

for both motorized and nonmotorized would still be considered in front county recreation settings,

yet only half as many miles, 24, would likely be needed to facilitate improving traffic circulation

away from main roads. A shift in urban interface and front country setting acres to back country

and passage zone for a net increase in back country recreation setting acres of 37,500 would

reduce the amount of area where new recreation road, primitive roads and motorized trails could

be constructed. This zoning does not exist under the No-Action Alternative and all routes are

available for use, regardless of desired visitor experiences identified under no action.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

A small amount of mileage of primitive roads could be closed to minimize effects to loamy

soils. Route closure, and thus reduction of impacts such as erosion and destabilization leading to

vegetation loss, would occur mainly in the Buckeye Hills and Rainbow Valley areas north of the

SDNM. Conversion of primitive roads to narrower and less dust producing trails for nonmotorized

use would likely occur, especially near residential housing. Most single-track trails used by

motorcycles today would be converted to hiking and equestrian use or closed in the East RMZ of

the Buckeye Hills SRMA. This action would lead to moderate impacts to the travel system for

motorcycle riders. Currently under the No-Action Alternative, no routes are closed and visitors

are simply required to stay on existing roads and trails.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

The Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC could close 14 miles of primitive roads to public use while

allowing public use on a gas-pipeline maintenance road. Under the No-Action Alternative, all

14 miles of routes would be closed. Agua Caliente road Back County Byway impacts would be

the same as Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Travel

Management A management decision to allocate approximately 828,360 acres of OHV areas as

limited to designated routes would have the effect of requiring route designations to be completed

and limiting all vehicles and bicycles to the designated route system. Maintaining approximately

101,800 acres of existing designated wilderness areas and camping closures as OHV closed

areas would continue the ban on driving motorized and mechanized vehicles in these areas.

An 40-acre area north of Ajo where motocross experiences are currently obtained, would be

managed as a designated route under Alternative C instead of an existing route, as it currently

is under Alternative A. This change would be expected to have a minor effect on management

of the route system due to the increased management responsibility associated with keeping the

existing 2-mile track in the current alignment and reducing its effects on other resources. New

layouts or simple realignments would require a travel management plan change. Under the

No-Action Alternative, vehicle travel would be allowed on all existing roads and trail and there

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 725

would be no change to this motocross experience route. More route miles would be subject to

the prescriptions of an enlarged Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC. It would be expected to have a

minor effect on the route system due to a prohibition on creating new routes and the closure

of some spur routes to campsites.

Alternative C’s management approach seeks to balance use with protection and thus would avoid

overuse by planning for more concentration of uses that Alternative A or B. The conceptual route

network mileage (RFD scenario) follows recreation settings defined in Alternative C and all other

resource allocations management actions where more area is allocated to back country than

under Alternative B. Vehicle access would be designated as open on most existing routes in front

country and could add up to 25 miles of new primitive roads or trails in SRMAs or areas where a

new route would benefit public access or replace lost access as a result of private land blockage.

The back country area increases by 75,900 acres over Alternative B. This would have a moderate

effect on the route system since areas would more delineated for nonmotorized recreation and

routes could be closed in areas to achieve desired recreation settings like back country.

On allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics, most routes would be closed

within the boundary, having a moderate impact on the travel system. Between Yellow Medicine

Butte and Face Mountain, only a main through route would remain to connect Agua Caliente

Road with areas south of the railroad near the Gila Bend Mountains. Approximately 33 to 50

percent of the routes within these areas field office-wide could be closed to vehicle use. The

emphasis in closure would be on routes that are not needed for through access, such as vehicle

camping spur or redundant or looping primitive roads and trails. Lands managed to protect

wilderness character were not allocated under the No-Action Alternative, thus there would be no

effects as described here under that alternative.

A decision to acquire legal access on the designated route system would curtail the loss of public

access where designated routes cross land not under BLM management, assuming all access points

could be successfully negotiated for access. Reduced mileage as compared to Alternative B, as

shown in the RFD scenario for travel in the Lower Sonoran, would reduce the number of access

agreements or easements needed to secure legal access. Reducing the number of access points

would reduce cost and the BLM workload but increase the importance of acquiring the access on

fewer routes. The decision to manage a route system would have a major effect on value of a

travel system and lead to increased maintenance of roads and trails, which is expected to decrease

OHV drivers’ propensity to create unauthorized routes around areas with poor route conditions.

Issuance of an approved travel management map would have the same effect as Alternative B and

is expected to raise the effectiveness of on-the-ground navigation by the public and improve law

enforcement success in reducing off-route use and the associated resource damage.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be expected to be the same as under Alternative B except that fewer routes

in washes would be designated for motor vehicle use. Primitive roads in washes in the Gila

Bend and Painted Rock mountains, many coinciding with lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics allocated under Alternative C, would total approximately 50 miles and could be

closed. An additional 26 miles throughout the Decision Area could be closed. jA total of 114

miles of primitive roads, or 7 percent of the total routes in Lower Sonoran, inventoried in washes.

BLM regulations require vegetation to be maintained in washes, a total of approximately 76 miles

of routes could be closed.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
726 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the similar to Alternative B except that more acres would be allocated to VRM

Class II. Up to 25 miles of new primitive roads or roads could be constructed within SRMAs,

which would be subject to increased costs to comply with VRM Class II. Under the No-Action

Alternative, in which most of the Decision Area is designated VRM Class III, the extra expenses

would not be incurred, and visual impacts could be long lasting.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

The allocation of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics could have the effect

of closing up to 28 miles, or 34 percent, of the routes inside the Decision Area to motorized

vehicles, having a moderate effect due to a loss of connectivity of the route system. About 7

miles, or 15 percent, of existing trails currently open to only ATVs or motorcycles could be

converted to nonmotorized trail as direct result of allocating lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Building new roads, primitive roads, and motorized trails would be avoided,

which would have the effect of maintaining the area generally in its current state or slightly less

roaded. Wilderness characteristic areas total 128,100 acres under Alternative C. In the No-Action

Alternative, no lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics are allocated, thus the impacts

discussed here would not be present.

4.18.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative B with exception that 2 miles of 4.9 miles of primitive

roads would be open to access camping areas south of the gas pipeline road.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

A shift from motorized use to non-motorize use on the Anza NHT would limit the potential of

cultural resources being trampled by vehicles along 17.1 miles of the trail. Butterfield Pass would

be accessible by motor vehicle from the east to the existing information kiosk (3.9 miles) and

from the west to a point near Happy Camp (1.1 miles). The middle portion, 1.6 miles in Area 2,

would be accessible only by nonmotorized means or by motorized vehicle for administrative or

permitted purposes.

Approximately 10.5 miles of the trail east and west of the mountain pass area would be limited to

nonmotorized travel modes. This would be expected to have a minor effect on travel because

most of the vehicle trips would occur on the Butterfield Pass area where similar the experiences

are available in the No-Action Alternative.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 727

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Managing for priority species would have moderate effect on the travel system affecting 63.4

miles in washes, approximately 10 percent of the Monument’s inventoried routes. Approximately

17 miles, or 27 percent, of primitive roads in sand washes south of I-8 would be limited to

seasonal use where public driving would be disallowed from February 1 to September 15. This

closure would protect cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl breeding areas, as well as thermal cover

areas during hot weather. Approximately 34 miles of primitive roads in washes, or 55 percent of

the total in the Decision Area, would be closed to all uses and would not be managed as an asset;

5 miles, or 8 percent, of the primitive roads in washes would be left open year round for vehicular

traffic; and 11 percent would remain available for administrative uses. Between I-8 and the north

side of the Sand Tank Mountains, when seasonal restrictions are in effect, access would be limited

to hiking or equestrian modes because no other roads or primitive roads are present in the vicinity.

This would be expected to have a major effect on the travel system and most people’s ability to

access this area. Administrative use by law enforcement or AGFD would be foregone on these

same washes, having a major effect on the use of the system south of I-8 for these uses.

The allocation of 334,800 acres, or 69 percent of the Monument, to wildlife movement corridors

would affect the ability to construct new roads or primitive roads in these areas by prohibiting

or limiting the placement to minimize effects to movement. Because no new routes are planned

under Alternative C, the effects would be negligible.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The creation of camp areas north of SR 238 would have the same impacts as Alternative B with

the exception that fewer dispersed camping primitive roads would be available. This would

require additional route and area monitoring and periodic maintenance or rehabilitation due to

increased visitation to available camp areas.

Within the Sonoran Desert SRMA, 24.6 miles of routes would be designated as roads with

similar effects as Alternative B, and 569.9 miles, or 89 percent, of routes would be designated

as primitive roads where maintenance would be performed to protect soil and water resources

from degradation and maintain the desired level of access. Of these 569.9 miles, 358.1 miles

would be open to all vehicles; 3.9 miles of primitive roads would be open to vehicles 50 inches

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
728 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

wide or less, and the area south of Javelina Mountain would be closed to vehicles to provide for

wildlife and primitive recreation. Though it represents a 100 percent closure of the primitive

roads limited to ATV width, these closures under Alternative B would have a minor effect on the

travel system as a whole.

Approximately 358.1 miles of primitive roads would be designated open for to all vehicles

under Alternative C, which is a major (43 percent) reduction from Alternative A. Trail asset

designation would be the same as Alternative B. Compared with the No-Action Alternative, route

designations under Alternative Cwould represent a moderate change due to the marking of routes

and a noticeable loss of vehicular access to remote areas.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Approximately 203 miles, or 42 percent, of roads and primitive roads in poor soils, out of the

350 miles total, would remain open, creating a moderate impact on travel since many popular

areas would still be accessible by at least one route. Management of the route system would likely

be more effective in poor soil areas, commonly associated with creosote-bursage vegetation

community areas, by closing 53 percent of the routes. These areas were also identified by staff as

“route proliferation concern areas,” specifically north of SR 238 and along Vekol Valley Road.

These routes would remain open under the No-Action Alternative. The management approach to

restrict use to fewer routes than Alternatives A or B seeks to create a balance with human uses

and natural resources leading to sustainability and Monument object protection. The percentage

of the Decision Area affected by the route footprint in poor soil areas would be reduced from

0.16 percent under Alternative A to 0.11 percent under Alternative C. Impacts to route system

sustainability would be further minimized by implementing mitigation measures such as creating

earthen drainage structures on erodible soil sections of remaining open routes.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Designation of the Anza NHT would have similar effects to Alternative B with the exception

of shifting approximately 10 of 17 miles of the trail in the SDNM to nonmotorized use. The

popular portion of the trail, including Desert Station, Happy Camp, and Butterfield Pass, would

be designated as a primitive road where vehicles are only permitted by SRP. Most use would

become nonmotorized, a moderate change in use from the No-Action Alternative where vehicles

are allowed on all portions of the Butterfield/Anza trail.

From Transportation and Travel Management on Travel Management

Allocating 328,700 acres as OHV limited to designated routes and 157,700 acres to OHV closed

would have the same effect as Alternative B.

Designating routes would have similar effects as Alternative B with respect to making travel

management sustainable. Routes would not be designated under the No-Action Alternative.

Designation of 24.6 miles of roads is the same as Alternatives B, and C and would have the same

effects. Designation of trails is the same as Alternative B and would have the same effects.

Designation of primitive roads would represent a major change from Alternative A, where 322.1

miles (57 percent) of the existing primitive roads would be closed. Additionally, 35.3 miles (6

percent) would be closed to public use with limited administrative access allowed. The closure of

60 percent of the primitive roads to the public would lead to concentration of visitors on fewer

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 729

roads and primitive roads. This would lead to a transfer of recreation opportunities from vehicles

to dispersed nonmotorized opportunities. In this alternative, the fewest miles of primitive roads

would be available for public use or BLM administration of authorized activities. Some activities

may require cross country vehicle access which would need to be approved on a case-by-case

basis and might require rehabilitation.

A driver’s licensing requirement would have the same effect as described in Alternative B.

Law enforcement success in reducing driving off of existing roads and trails would be greatly

improved and simplified by this alternative’s reduced open mileage. Map and sign plan

implementation would have the same effects as Alternative B. The implementation of 17.1 miles

of administrative use only primitive roads, a large increase from Alternative B, where none exist,

would increase the need for monitoring gates and inaccessible areas behind them. Expenses for

managing the route system would be less than the other action alternatives over the long term due

to fewer route miles to maintain and fewer signs to maintain. Expenses for implementation of

the travel system would be increased over Alternatives A, B or C due to the need to effectively

reclaim primitive roads and parking areas.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative A except that fewer routes would remain open for vehicle

use. Conserving vegetation in washes would have the effect of closing 34 miles of primitive roads

in washes and limiting 16.5 miles of washes south of I-8 to seasonal vehicle use (February 1-

September 15), which would have a moderate effect on travel.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the similar as Alternative B except that the new Big Horn Station access road

would not be constructed and none of the issues surrounding the construction would be an issue

south of I-8. This new route would not be constructed under the No-Action Alternative.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

Approximately 35.3 miles, or 78 percent, of the primitive roads inside the boundary would be

closed and rehabilitated in the Sand Tank Mountains area; 9.2 miles, or 21 percent, of primitive

roads would remain open; and 0.7 miles of primitive road in a wash would be closed seasonally

(February 1 to September 15). This route system minimizes conflict with the sights and sounds

of vehicles and improves solitude and unconfined recreation. No lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics are allocated under the No-Action Alternative; thus none of the mileage

reductions described would occur as compared to Alternative A or B.

4.18.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.18.6.1. Both Decision Areas

A decision to reintroduce Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act

would have the same effect as Alternative B.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
730 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.18.6.1.1. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B with exception that approximately 137 of 270 miles,

or 51 percent, of the routes inside PM10 areas could be closed due to PM10 dust issues or other

management issues. This total of 137 miles represents 8 percent of the total routes in the Decision

Area. Closing these routes would be expected to haveminor effects on access.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B except that fewer primitive roads would remain open

in Sentinel Plain, partly to mitigate the hazard associated with this resource. Reducing vehicular

access routes that go to cave resources would be expected to decrease visitation and consequently

the opportunity to become trapped or injured.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative C except that SCRMAs identified in Alternative C would

be managed as ACECs in this alternative. Therefore, effects to the route system will be discussed

in the special designations section.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Same as Alternative A except that fewer open routes would increase the importance of preventing

the loss of access to designated routes.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel Management

WHAs identified in Alternative C would be managed as ACECs in this alternative. Eight

movement corridors would remain and the effects would be the same as in Alternatives B and C.

Designating wildlife movement corridors would have the same effect as Alternatives B and C

because they would be the same corridors. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, WHAs

would place restrictions on new route creation and management that does not currently exist.

Routes would not be constructed on ridges lines used by bighorn sheep or in well vegetated

washes, especially where cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls are known to exist like in the Ajo area.

Approximately 163 miles (89 percent) of the primitive roads in washes could be closed. Limiting

the location of new routes could raise construction costs and reduce trail location possibilities. A

total of 2 miles of new primitive roads and trails might not be constructed. Such routes would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 731

facilitate trail riding on loop trails. Fewer new primitive road or trail miles would be constructed

in the Decision Area, which would minimize effects within movement corridors.

Within Sonoran pronghorn seasonal closure area, up to 122 of 175 miles of the routes, or 70

percent of the total routes, could be closed. The approach of containing recreationists to few

roads and areas would minimize effects to pronghorn by increasing unroaded habitat areas under

this alternative.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The allocation of four SRMAs would have a moderate effect on the travel system due to a lack

of direction to create loop trail systems and maintain the routes for specific identified uses.

Motorized vehicle use would only be encouraged in the Buckeye Hills SRMA, West RMZ, and

the bulk of recreation vehicle traffic would be directed to areas not developed to handle increasing

use. The route system may become overused and require temporary or permanent closure as a

result to stop route proliferation and minimize resource degradation. Recreation sites in ERMAs

would continue as in the No-Action Alternatives, exhibiting denuded areas and, possibly, new

unauthorized routes adjacent to popular camp areas, which would require additional rehabilitation

on a yearly basis. New routes would be considered on a case by case basis, but generally would

not be planned to improve recreation opportunities. A reduction of urban interface and front

country acreage from Alternatives A, B, and C and in increase in back country and passage zone

acres would reduce the amount of area where specific recreation management such as OHV and

mountain bike loop trail systems would take place. The absence of the Ajo SRMA, replaced by an

ACEC, would have the effect of avoiding recreation development thus the route system would

be minimized under this management approach. This high level of back country allocation

combined with other allocations would have a major effect since the route system would reduced

in mileage by 40 to 50 percent across the field office area and new routes to connect loops would

not be developed as in Alternatives B and C.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Approximately 137 miles, or 51 percent, of primitive roads could be closed to minimize affects

to soils mainly in the Buckeye Hills and Rainbow Valley areas north of the SDNM. Compared

with the No-Action Alternative, in which no routes would be closed in these areas, the proposed

closure under Alternative D would have a moderate impact to the travel system.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Five ACECs totaling 263,700 acres could have the effect of closing 279 miles, or 61 percent,

of the existing 454 miles of routes inside the ACECs. Approximately 37 miles, or 8 percent,

could be designated for seasonal use. Effects on the route system would likely be major due to

losses in connectivity of routes where breaking routes to deter traffic would benefit the resources

of the ACEC. The Agua Caliente Road Back County Byway would not be present under this

alternative; therefore the effects would be the same as the No-Action Alternative, where there

is no backcountry byway.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
732 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Travel Management on Travel Management

A management decision to allocate 551,900 acres of OHV areas as “limited to designated routes”

would have the effect of requiring route designations to be completed and limiting all vehicles

and bicycles to the designated route system. With the exception of 21,400 acres, the No-Action

Alternative would not require route designation. Maintaining the existing designated wilderness

areas and camping closure as OHV closed areas (378,300 acres) would continue the ban on

driving motorized and mechanized vehicles in these areas. An existing primitive road used for

motocross experiences in Ajo (2 miles) would be closed and rehabilitated having a negligible

effect on the route system overall, yet represents a 100 percent closure to the mileage available for

such experiences since it would be foregone. Recreation opportunity would be altered.

The effects of creating travel management areas would have the same effect as Alternatives B

and C. No such areas exist under the No-Action Alternative.

This alternative’s philosophy would direct a “concentration of use” of recreationists, thus reducing

use in areas outside of hardened recreation sites and minimizing the effects to resources. This style

of management is popular in city parks and other high use settings. This alternative’s conceptual

route network mileage seeks to respond to recreation settings defined in this alternative. Vehicle

access would be designated on approximately 50 percent of the existing routes and would not add

new miles of new primitive roads or trails. In SRMAs or areas where a new route would benefit

public access or replace lost access, a no-net-gain route replacement would be considered. This 50

percent reduction over Alternative A route mileage would have a major effect on visitors’ ability

to disperse. Effects to visiting popular sites or areas are expected to be minor, even with large

areas inaccessible by vehicle since redundant routes would be targeted for closure. This would

have an additional effect of reducing route driving choices, which directly relates to recreation

experiences, thus having a major effect on OHV users seeking less traveled routes.

Allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics throughout the field office area

would be only accessible on main through routes or by nonmotorized cross-country modes.

Between Yellow Medicine Butte and Face Mountain, it is conceived that no routes would connect

Agua Caliente Road with areas south of the railroad near the Gila Bend Mountains having a major

effect on access to this large area due to not being able to drive off of main roads or higher use

primitive roads. Under the No-Action Alternatives, all routes inside this area would be closed

or limited to administrative use, mostly accessing wildlife waters. OHV closed designations

coinciding with wilderness characteristic areas would have the effect of closing all routes inside

these areas and also deterring the creation of new motor vehicle routes for public use.

Vegetation and rehabilitation requirements would remain the same as Alternative B, which would

have a moderate effect on the route system since routes closed through route designation would

need to be rehabilitated and the loss of route choices would be very noticeable to area users. Some

primitive roads and trails in high rock content soils may take 10 years or more to recover even

with active reclamation techniques. Achieving a timeframe of 5 years would require additional

resources such as drip irrigation, specialized barriers, and hand cultivation.

A decision to acquire legal access on the designated route system would curtail the loss of public

access where designated routes cross land not under BLM management. Reduced mileage

as compared to Alternatives A, B and C, as shown in the RFD scenario for travel in Lower

Sonoran, would reduce the number of access agreements or easements needed to secure legal

access. Reducing the number of access points would reduce cost and the BLM workload, but also

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 733

increase the importance of acquiring the access on fewer routes. If the route system is reduced

by 50 percent from Alternative A condition, the number of access points to acquire access on

could be approximately half that of the current condition, thus having the effect of increasing the

importance of acquiring the remaining access points. Reducing the number of access points to the

BLM route system by up to 50 percent would have a major effect on the network by making access

points further apart and disallowed in some areas altogether. Furthermore, construction of only 1

mile of new route would be allowed, probably to service new range improvements would reduce

the possibility of creating bypass routes around private or other jurisdiction lands for access.

Issuance of an approved travel management map would have the same effect as Alternative B,

and is expected to raise the effectiveness of on-the-ground navigation by the public and improve

law enforcement success in reducing off-route use and the associated resource damage. No

comparable map exists under the No-Action Alternative management.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as described for Alternative B except that fewer routes

in washes would be designated for motor vehicle use. A decision to emphasize the designation

of routes in upland areas rather than washes would affect 183 miles of primitive roads, which

were inventoried as being in washes. Approximately 163 miles of primitive roads could be closed

under this alternative. Approximately 4 miles of primitive road in washes could be designated

as limited to administrative use in the northern part of the Gila Bend Mountains, which would

reduce public travel through washes to wildlife waters and range improvements, thus reducing the

frequency of disturbance to wildlife.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B except that more acres would be allocated to VRM

Class II, which raises the requirement for mitigation of ground disturbance. No new roads or

primitive roads would be constructed, leading to less connectivity of the route system.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

Approximately 270 miles of existing routes traverse areas that would be allocated as lands

managed to protect wilderness characteristics, a allocation that could close up to 40 percent, or 51

miles, of the routes inside these areas to motorized vehicles. About 12 percent of the routes inside

these areas, or 33 miles of primitive roads, could be limited to seasonal use (April 1 – September

15), thus having a minor effect regionally, but a moderate effect locally. Approximately 56

percent (151 miles) of the primitive roads could remain open as cherry stemmed routes and would

consist of through routes mainly with no campsite spur roads. Public access by vehicle to wildlife

waters would be maintained except near Face Mountain where access would be administrative.

The building of new roads and primitive roads and motorized trails would be prohibited by

the decision to allocate the OHV area designation as closed coincident with lands managed to

protect wilderness characteristics.

4.18.6.1.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Quality on Travel Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
734 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts are anticipated to be minor, with 3.4 miles of primitive road being closed to all uses

inside the PM10 area.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

A shift from motorized use to non-motorize use on the Anza NHT would reduce affect 17.1 miles

of the trail. The 17.1 miles would be designated as a primitive road limited to nonmotorized use.

Butterfield Pass would be inaccessible to the public by motor vehicle. Administrative motor

vehicle use from Gap Well to approximately Desert Station would be permitted. Areas to the

east and west of Butterfield Pass totaling 10.5 miles would be managed for nonmotorized use.

Driving vehicles on the Anza NHT would prohibited. Compared to the No-Action Alternative, the

decision to restrict the trail to nonmotorized use represents a 100 percent closure to motor vehicles

on the Butterfield/Anza trail and would have a moderate impact on visitors wishing to drive on

the historic trail with vehicles, specifically at Butterfield Pass. For visitors seeking nonmotorized

opportunities, this represents a moderate effect due to achieving desired recreation experiences.

Overall, the loss of vehicle access to this trail corridor represents a closure of 3 percent of the total

vehicle accessible routes in SDNM which would be a minor effect to the travel system overall.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel Management

Managing for priority species would have moderate effect on the travel system by affecting 64

miles, or 10 percent, of the Monument’s inventoried routes. Approximately 59 miles, representing

92 percent of the primitive roads in washes, would be closed to all uses and would not be

managed as an asset. Approximately 1 mile, or 1 percent, of the primitive roads in washes would

be left open year round for vehicular traffic. Between I-8 and the south border of the SDNM near

the Sand Tank Mountains and White Hills, decisions to maximize habitat in washes would limit

access to hiking or horseback because no other open roads or primitive roads would be present

in the area. Closing these primitive roads in washes would be expected to have a moderate

effect on travel in the SDNM.

The allocation of large areas, 334,800 acres consisting 69 percent of the Monument, for wildlife

movement corridors would affect the ability to construct new roads or primitive roads in these

areas, although no new routes are currently proposed in this alternative.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 735

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

The allocation of large back country RMZs would have a major effect on the route system.

Combined with allocations for natural resources, the greatest total of routes would be closed

under this alternative. As compared to the No-Action Alternative, where none of these allocations

occur and few routes are closed, route closures would increase by about 56 percent in the back

country areas, which total 82 percent of the Monument. Passage zones totaling 2 percent of the

Monument would provide some relief by allowing selected routes to remain open.

The allocation of front country zones and the potential creation of camp areas north of SR 238

would have the same impacts as Alternative B, with the fewest dispersed camping primitive roads

available. This would require the highest route and area monitoring and periodic maintenance or

rehabilitation due to high visitation to available camp areas.

Within the Sonoran Desert SRMA, 25 miles of routes would be designated as roads with similar

effects as Alternative B. Approximately 219 miles, or 39 percent, of routes would be designated

as primitive roads where maintenance would only be performed to protect soil and water

resources from degradation and maintain the desired level of access, and 35 miles of primitive

roads would be limited to administrative use only. Trail asset designation would be the same as

under Alternative B.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Approximately 149 miles (43 percent) of routes of the 350 miles located in poor soils would

remain open, creating a moderate impact on vehicular travel. Most popular areas would still be

accessible by at least one route. Route choices to most locations would be limited to a single route

and would likely increase the maintenance needs on the remaining open routes. Hardening of the

road base would likely be required for roads and primitive roads receiving 50 to 100 average daily

traffic counts or more. None of these routes would be closed under the No-Action Alternative, yet

the requirement to stabilize them would remain.

Effects to travel would be major as compared to the No-Action Alternative by closing 60 percent

of the routes, or 144 of 231 miles, in areas identified by staff as “route proliferation concern

areas,” specifically north of SR 238 and along Vekol Valley Road. The management approach

to greatly restrict use to the fewest routes feasible seeks to minimize the human footprint to

hardened, managed areas. This approach requires balancing the development of anticipated

high-use recreation sites with the possibility for creating new wildlife avoidance zones and

movement barriers. Having the fewest available routes in poor soils could improve Monument

objects and resources that rely on soil condition, thereby allowing the soil to become productive

where vehicle routes were previously. The amount of area affected by the route footprint in poor

soil areas would be reduced from 0.16 percent in Alternative A to 0.10 percent in this alternative.

Impacts would further be minimized by implementing standard mitigation measures such as

creating earthen drainage structures on erodible sections of open routes.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
736 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Designation of the Anza NHT would have similar effects to Alternative B, with the exception

of shifting the entire 17 miles the trail in SDNM to nonmotorized use. The popular portion of

the trail including Desert Station, Happy Camp and Butterfield Pass would be designated as

a primitive road where vehicles would be allowed. Mitigations would need to be applied to

prevent the impacts from OHV use that caused a temporary closure in this area. As compared

to the No-Action Alternative, where vehicle use would be allowed on all portions of the trail,

this alternative has a major effect on travel by motor vehicle by eliminating it on the trail and

only allowing nonmotorized traffic on the trail. Access to popular areas along the trail by motor

vehicle would remain available.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

Allocating 175,700 acres as limited to designated routes and allocating 310,700 acres to OHV

closed area would have a major effect on the travel system, by closing areas greater than 10,000

acres to vehicular use. Conversely, large areas for nonmotorized access are dramatically increased

in size, having a major effect on this travel mode as well. As compared to the No-Action

Alternative, where 161,200 acres are closed, this alternative closes much more area to vehicular

access.

Designating routes would have similar effects as Alternative B, with respect to making travel

management sustainable and reducing vehicle and bicycle driving opportunity. Designation of

24.7 miles of roads would be the same as under Alternatives B and C and would have the same

effects. Designation of trails is the same as Alternative B and would have the same effects.

Designation of primitive roads would represent a major change from Alternative A, in which 303

miles (54 percent) of the existing primitive roads would be closed. Additionally, 35 miles (6

percent) would be closed to public use with limited administrative access allowed. The closure

of 60 percent of the primitive roads to the public would lead to concentration of visitors on

fewer roads and primitive roads. In turn, this would lead to a transfer of recreation opportunities

between visitors relying of vehicles and those seeking dispersed nonmotorized opportunities.

In this alternative, the fewest miles of primitive roads would be available for public use and

administration of authorized activities. Some activities may require cross country vehicle access

which would need to be approved on a case-by-case basis and might require rehabilitation.

A licensing requirement for all drivers on SDNM coupled with a ban on OHVs under 1,800 lbs.

would have a moderate effect on the travel system. One cause of the moderate effect would

come as a result of fewer vehicles with knobby tread tires adding wear and tear on roads and

primitive roads causing the need for additional maintenance. Access to remote areas would

remain available, but only with full-size, licensed vehicles. Conversely, more mature drivers,

demonstrated by a minimum age of 16 years and able to pass the State vehicle licensing test,

combined with smooth tire vehicles used in a relatively low speed manner, would reduce

maintenance needs on many roads and primitive roads and areas adjacent to them. Off-highway

vehicle users riding dual sport motorcycles with the State OHV decal would be particularly

affected since they legally use paved highways, similar to full size vehicles, prior to accessing

primitive roads, but would be barred from using any road or primitive road on the SDNM.

However, the effects of cross country use by full size vehicles would remain unchanged wherever

it occurs. There is no data available to suggest if full size vehicle traffic would increase to replace

lost access formerly gained by using OHVs.

Law enforcement success in reducing driving off of existing roads and trails would be greatly

improved and simplified by this alternative’s reduced open mileage. Map and sign plan

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 737

implementation would have the same effects as Alternatives B and C. The implementation of

35 miles of administrative use only primitive roads, a 100 percent increase from Alternative C,

would increase the need for monitoring gates and the inaccessible areas behind them. Expenses

for managing the route system would be less than the other action alternatives over the long term

due to fewer route miles to maintain and fewer signs to maintain. Expenses for implementation of

the travel system would be increased over Alternatives A, B or C, due to the need to effectively

reclaim primitive roads and parking areas.

Access points to SDNM would number 44, a 60 percent reduction from Alternative A. Acquiring

legal access to a greatly reduced mileage system could reduce acquisition costs and staff work

load. Similar to Alternatives B and C, with limited access points, each point becomes much

more critical to secure.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Same as Alternative A, except the fewest routes would remain open for vehicle use. Conserving

vegetation in washes would have the effect of closing 59 miles, of 63 miles total, of primitive

roads in washes. No seasonal limits would be enacted. This would have a moderate effect on the

travel system, mostly south of I-8.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

Approximately 125 miles (91 percent) of the primitive roads inside the boundary would be closed

and rehabilitated in the Sand Tank Mountains area. Approximately 2 miles, representing 100

percent of the trails outside wilderness, would be closed, 2 miles (2 percent) of primitive roads

would remain open, and 7 miles of primitive road would be available only for administrative use.

Allocation of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics creates the maximum amount of

solitude and unconfined recreation of all the alternatives through the closure of existing primitive

roads and trails, having a major effect by greatly restricting vehicular access to areas around the

Sand Tank Mountains, Javelina Mountain, and Margie’s Peak.

4.18.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.18.7.1. Both Decision Areas

A decision to reintroduce Sonoran pronghorn under Section 10J of the Endangered Species Act

would have the same effect as Alternative B.

4.18.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Air Quality on Travel Management

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
738 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Effects would be the same as Alternative C except that 1 percent more routes would be expected

to remain open for motor vehicle use as a result of implementing a combination of decisions from

other resource areas intended to mitigate for environmental effects.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative D, in which Gila River Terraces and Saddle Mountain

would be managed as ACECs.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

Effects would be from the creation of new range improvements and associated routes needed

to serve the activity.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Same as Alternative B. Effects would be from the creation of new mines and the conversion of

existing roads or primitive roads into haul roads not suitable for recreation or the truncation of

recreation routes without rerouting.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative D with a notable exception due to the addition of SRMAs

adjacent to WHAs. The combination of wildlife movement areas, wildlife habitat areas and

SRMAs would affect the creation of new routes in the Arlington and Ajo SRMAs such that

the locations would be limited to areas outside WHAs and would need to consider the indirect

effects to the WHA for habitat fragmentation and movement of wildlife. Such restrictions would

likely limit new routes to only one or two per area and also in a way that the route would not

run the length of the movement corridor, which would reduce the value to a recreational trail

system such that it would likely be a moderate to major impact to achieving the potential of

the recreation objectives. Neither movement areas nor wildlife habitat areas exist under the

No-Action Alternative.

Similar to Alternative B, the OHV designation of 40 acres near Ajo, AZ as “open” would likely

not effect desert tortoise habitat, since high motorized use occurs in this area.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 739

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

Allocation of six SRMAs would have effects similar to Alternative C with the exception that

the addition of the Arlington SRMA. New primitive roads or trails could be constructed in

the Arlington, Buckeye Hills, and Ajo SRMAs totaling up to 35 miles. Within SRMAs,

approximately 72 percent of the existing routes would remain open as roads or primitive roads, 19

percent could be closed and rehabilitated, 4 percent could be designated as motorized trails, and

19 miles (2 percent) could be converted from primitive roads to nonmotorized trails, specifically

in the Saddle Mountain area where the “loop road” around the prominent Saddle Mountain could

become nonmotorized to implement back country setting on around the mountain. North of Ajo,

up to 2 miles of primitive roads could be constructed to improve primitive road connectivity.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to B for routes inside Coffeepot and Cuerda de Lena ACECs and similar

to Alternative C in Gila River and Saddle Mountain. The creation of new motorized routes

would be disallowed in all the ACECs unless a route is needed to minimize damage or stop

degradation of the purposes for the ACEC.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

A management decision to allocate 788,160 acres of OHV areas as limited to designated routes

would have the similar effects as Alternatives B, C, and D by limiting all vehicles and bicycles to

the designated route system. Maintaining 142,000 acres of designated wilderness and allocated

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics as OHV closed would continue the ban on

driving motorized and mechanized vehicles in these areas. Allocating 40 acres in the Ajo area as

an open area where cross-country travel would have the same effects as Alternative B. This open

travel designation of 40 acres in Ajo would minimize the BLM’s involvement on a daily basis

and change the management approach from policing to that of maintenance and rehabilitation to

recover areas impacted by heavy OHV use. The area is small, so effects to the travel system are

expected to be minor. The importance of effectively managing the intense vehicle use in the Ajo

area is addressed by implementing this open area. Managing this use in this existing location has

the potential to prevent natural and cultural resource damage in the surrounding areas.

The effects of creating travel management areas would have the same effect as Alternatives B,

C and D.

Implementing SRMAs, thus allowing for a “dispersal of use” of recreationists on a variety of

route types would have the similar effects as Alternatives C and D. This alternative’s conceptual

route network mileage seeks to respond to recreation settings which are a combination of

Alternatives C and D recreation allocations. Vehicle access would be generally allowed on about

78 percent of existing and new routes, similar to Alternative C. SRMA allocations would direct

the construction of up to 35 miles of new primitive roads or trails. Such routes would benefit

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
740 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

public access or replace lost access as a result of private land blockage. This would have a minor

effect on visitors’ ability to disperse in back country areas where access would be reduced.

Effects to visiting popular sites or areas are expected to be minor. Effects to motorized use in the

Buckeye Hills East RMZ would be major where approximately 56 percent of the primitive roads

and trails could be closed to use or converted to nonmotorized use.

Issuance of an approved travel management map would have the same effect as Alternative B.

The creation of seven travel management areas would have no effect on the outcome of route

designations, yet creates a Planning Area for route designation and way to group regional issues.

Effects of securing public access would be similar to all alternatives, but most similar to

Alternative C, where comparable route mileages and comparable number of accesses to seek

access for are expected. Effects to the travel system would be long term, making the trail system

robust and sustainable.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the similar to Alternative C except that no washes would be seasonally closed.

Primitive roads in washes would be designated either as open or closed to simplify management

and make the route system more understandable.

From Visual Resources on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B except that fewer primitive roads are likely to be

constructed (due to factors other than VRM). Up to 35 miles of new primitive roads likely would

be needed to complete loop routes inside mostly VRM Class III areas where mitigations to visual

resources would likely not be required, having no effect or negligible effects on the travel system.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

Wilderness characteristics in the Batamote Mountains and Saddle Mountain would have a minor

effect on the travel system. There are no routes inside the Saddle Mountain area. The Batamote

Mountains have one route connecting the gas pipeline road to BGR Area B, plus some primitive

short-spur roads of 1/8 mile leading to campsites. About half of these would remain open. This is

anticipated to have a negligible effect on the travel system. Only 16 miles of primitive roads would

be located within these two areas, of which 8 miles would remain open. As compared with the

No-Action Alternative, in which no areas would be allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics, Alternative E would have negligible effect on accessing areas on existing routes

by vehicle. Closure of new routes to OHV travel would prevent new primitive roads or vehicle

trails from being created, having the effect of limiting the route system to what would be

designated from the available existing routes. Effects are expected to be negligible because most

people would not notice a loss of access near lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics.

4.18.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Air Resources on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 741

Management of air quality would have the effect of closing 3/5 of the 5 miles of routes inside

the PM10 nonattainment boundary. The primitive roads that would be affected are typically

used for target shooting, camping, and parking for hunting,. Other primitive roads in the area

would remain available for use, and this management prescription would have a minor effect on

access and the travel system.

From Cave Resources on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument. Butterfield

Pass would be accessible to motor vehicles.

From Lands & Realty on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Livestock Grazing on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Minerals Management on Travel Management

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Travel

Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative C with the exception of a seasonal closure of primitive

roads in washes enacted from April 1 to September 15. Effects on managing the priority species

would be minor and short term due to the availability of motorized access by at least one route to

most popular places in SDNM. Seasonal closure periods in washes would also be during the lower

visitation times of the year making the effects to visitors including hunters, having a minor effect.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on Travel Management

Effects would be similar to Alternative C. Primitive roads would be available to serve designated

campsites and the number would remain fixed. This would minimize the maintenance and

rehabilitation needs along the designated routes and thus minimize effects to resources. This

management approach would require additional route and area monitoring and periodic

maintenance or rehabilitation due to increased visitation to available camp areas.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
742 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Within the Sonoran Desert SRMA, 28.9 miles of routes would be designated as roads with similar

effects as Alternative B. A new road would be constructed to connect the Freeman Road exit

with Big Horn Station to the west. Approximately 330 miles of routes would be designated as

primitive roads where minimal maintenance would be performed primarily be done to protect soil

and water resources from degradation and secondarily to maintain the desired level of access.

Approximately 32 miles of primitive roads in washes would be closed seasonally from April 1 to

September 15. Trail asset designation would be the same as Alternative B.

From Special Designations on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Travel Management on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

Effects of the proposed route designations would be the similar to Alternative C. The management

philosophy would be the same as Alternative C: seeking to find a balance between protection and

enjoyment of the Monument and has the same implications for management.

Primitive road closures comprise the main difference in route designations between Alternatives

C and E. Alternative E proposes to close 43.4 miles more, mostly to places that would be difficult

to manage or where mitigating the impacts would be difficult.

The decision to construct a new road in Alternative B from the Freeman Road exit to Big Horn

Station south of I-8 would have the same impacts as described under Alternative B. This would

have a major effect on travel by eliminating the need to exit I-8 at fence gates and further reduce

the need to create deceleration lanes on the south side of I-8 for safe entry/exit. Such lanes may be

required on the north side of I-8 to access the South Maricopa Wilderness. Alternative E opens

the southernmost segment of Vekol Valley Road, which is closed in the No-Action Alternative

and would be limited to administrative use in Alternative C. Access south of I-8 near the SR-84

interchange near an old gravel pit and accessing the north end of Table Top Wilderness is closed,

eliminating the need to regularly monitor this area and reducing the number of access agreements

necessary to cross private land. A primitive road is closed for the same reason north of Vekol

Ranch on the eastern edge of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness. One primitive road west

of Mobile and north of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness has been closed for redundancy

and to reduce maintenance needs in this area.

The effects of a licensing requirement for using vehicles on SDNM would be the same as

Alternative B.

The number of access points would be 76, a 34 percent reduction from Alternative A. This would

have the effect of reducing the number of areas for affecting Monument objects and reduce the

need for entry signs, maintenance, and enforcement over the No-Action Alternative.

From Vegetation Resources on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as under Alternative A except fewer routes would remain open for

vehicle use. Effects would be between Alternatives C and D. Conserving vegetation in washes

would have the effect of closing 46 miles of primitive roads in washes and limiting 13.4 miles

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 743

of washes south of I-8 to seasonal vehicle use (April 1-September 15), which would have a

moderate effect on travel.

From Visual Resources Management on Travel Management

Effects would be the same as Alternative B, including a 4.2 mile access road south of I-8 from

Freeman Road exit to Big Horn Station, which would be constructed.

From Soil Resources on Travel Management

Approximately 221 miles (64 percent) of 350 miles located in poor soils areas would remain open,

creating a moderate impact on travel. Effects are similar to Alternative C. Many popular areas

would still be accessible by at least one route and more contact with other visitors may occur.

This would have a minor effect on the travel system since some visitors may choose to congregate

in areas of their preference increasing traffic and thus the maintenance needs on associated routes.

Impacts to soils would be minimized from the current condition (Alternative A) by closing 44

percent of the routes, or 100 of 231 miles, in areas identified by staff as “route proliferation

concern areas,” specifically north of SR-238 and along Vekol Valley Road. The management

approach would be as described in Alternative C, which attempts to find a balance between

dispersal and concentration of visitors. The amount of area affected by the route system footprint

in poor soil areas would be reduced from 0.16 percent in Alternative A to 0.13 percent of the total

poor soils area in Alternative E. Impacts to resources would further be minimized by implementing

standard mitigation measures such as creating earthen drainage structures on erodible sections of

open routes, all of which would have a minor effect on the management of the route system.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Travel Management

Realigning the boundaries using primitive roads to define the areas would have minor effects

to the route system, especially when compared with Alternatives C or D. With boundaries of

the lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics available for travel and open at least

seasonally in washes, effects to the travel system would be minor. Seasonal restrictions would

increase the effects to the travel system, but they are not a result of wilderness characteristics.

Rather, they are a result of managing for diverse wildlife populations

4.19. IMPACTS ON SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS

Existing special designations in the Lower Sonoran reviewed in this section include wilderness

areas, the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, and the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC. Existing special

designations reviewed within the SDNM include wilderness areas, the portion of the Juan

Bautista de Anza NHT within the Monument, and the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC. Proposed

alternatives introduce several new special designations, including three new ACECs and two

National Scenic Byways and a Backcountry Byway throughout the various action alternatives.

Current management of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT is consistent with a management plan

developed by the NPS and completed in cooperation with the BLM and other agencies and

organizations. The National Scenic and Historic Trail Policy Act and the BLM National Scenic

and Historic Trails Strategy (2006) provide additional guidance.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Special Designations
744 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The focus of the analysis that follows is on the resource values for which special designations

were established. These values include biological, water and soil, cultural, and visual resources

and wilderness characteristics. Resource management disciplines that would potentially impact

these values include those pertaining to the specific values themselves (i.e. biological, water and

soil, cultural, and visual resources and wilderness characteristics) and grazing, recreation, travel

management, lands and realty, and mineral resources.

4.19.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.19.1.1. Indicators

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Opportunities for the maintenance, enhancement or diminishment of resources of relevance and

importance identified for management in the ACEC.

National Byways

For National Scenic Byways, the prime indicators are the vividness, intactness and unity of the

landscape elements. For Back Country Byways, the recreation niche is an “off-the-beaten-path”

motorized adventure on a Type III dirt road through remote landscape settings, providing solitude

and scenery in natural saguaro cactus desert landscapes, and the quality of the routes’ ghost town,

wildlife, and interpretive/educational opportunities.

National Historic Trails

● Damage to the arrangement or structure of features

● Artifacts missing or rearranged

● Site or historic trail elements re-arranged

● Ground surface disturbed

● Subsurface cultural and historic deposits disturbed and/ or re-arranged

● Damage to physical environment of historic trail and/or associated cultural site

● Damage to historic sense of a particular period of time or feeling of historic trail or associated

site’s context

● Changes to the historic setting, to the level that historic trail and associated site values are

diminished.

Wilderness Areas

● The extent, location, distribution, and quality of naturalness and natural conditions in the

wilderness. Naturalness is affected by surface disturbing activities and associated human uses

and developments.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 745

● The extent, location, distribution, and quality of opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation within wilderness areas. Opportunities for primitive, unconfined

recreation are affected by the presence of motorized activities and the availability, or

non-availability, of landscapes free of surface disturbing activities and the sights and sounds

of human uses and their developments.

4.19.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding the future management of special designations are made:

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

● Uses and activities occurring outside special designation allocations could influence ACECs,

though such influences would generally be indirect.

● Uses and activities occurring outside ACEC’s allocations could influence ACECs, though

such influences would generally be indirect.

● All guidelines for the maintenance of the ACEC characteristics, as identified in this document

would be followed, to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel.

National Byways

● Uses and activities occurring outside special designation allocations could influence Byway’s,

though such influences would generally be indirect.

● All guidelines for the maintenance of the Byway’s characteristics, as identified in this

document would be followed, to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel.

National Historic Trails

● Historic trails and associated sites are considered cultural resources also.

● On the SDNM, the official Juan Bautista de Anza NHT corridor, the Butterfield Overland

Stage Route, and the Mormon Battalion Trail are all named Objects of the Monument and

all overlay one another physically.

● The historic setting of the Anza NHT on all Federal Protection Components will have

management prescriptions applied to a minimum of three miles from the NHT to the visual

horizon, whichever is less.

● The recreational setting of the Anza NHT on all Federal Protection Components will have

management prescriptions applied to a minimum of five miles from National Register eligible

properties to the visual horizon, whichever is less, when management concerns warrant.

● Before the BLM may authorize any project with potential to affect cultural resources, law

and regulation require that the agency conduct site-specific inventory, evaluate potentially

impacted sites for National Register of Historic Places eligibility, and stipulate measures to

reduce effects, as necessary. Impacts may be reduced by avoidance or mitigation measures,

such as data collection or project redesign.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
746 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Ground/surface disturbing activities can vary in nature and include mechanical/vehicular,

livestock/wildlife, and human -caused. Ground disturbing activities from mechanical/vehicular

means are assumed to have the potential to impact cultural resources by damaging features,

crushing/compacting subterranean features, rearranging features, pushing soils to remove or

excavate original surface, and disturbing the contextual arrangement of features and artifacts.

Ground disturbing activities from wildlife/livestock can occur when an animal burrows or

wallows in soft soils and damages features. Other animal activities can disturb original

subsurface cultural soil horizons, crush/compact surface artifacts, and rearrange the context

of artifacts and features. Human ground disturbance can occur from fire contamination,

trampling, digging, vandalism, and unauthorized collection.

● Most of the Planning Area has not been inventoried for cultural resources, and there is no

predictive modeling or sensitivity mapping available to estimate or quantify resource density.

There is potential for cultural resources on most of the Planning Area, but the presence and

significance of resources and impacts cannot be quantified. Most of the length of the Anza

NHT has not been inventoried for associated cultural resources.

● There is qualitative information that indicates areas where there is a higher probability that

cultural resources would be present, relative to the whole Planning Area. These include

river corridors, spring locations, historic trails, and high quality arable land in proximity to

rivers. Highly disturbed or recently developed areas would be less likely to include intact

cultural resources.

● Measures that withdraw land or restrict surface development to protect resources can

provide direct and indirect protection of historic trail and associated cultural resources from

disturbance and from incompatible and unauthorized activities.

● Natural processes, such as erosion or weathering, will degrade the integrity of many types

of historic trail and cultural resources over time. Human visitation, recreation, OHV use,

livestock grazing, fire and non-fire vegetation treatments, and other activities can increase the

rate of deterioration through natural processes. While the effect of a few incidents may be

negligible, the effect of repeated actions or visits over time could intensify impacts.

● Vandalism or unauthorized collecting can destroy historic trails and associated cultural

resources in a single incident. Exposure or access to areas where these resources are present

can increase the risk of vandalism or unauthorized collection of artifacts.

● Site monitoring, non-project-related inventories, interpretive development, site stabilization

and other proactive management activities would continue.

● Uses and activities occurring outside NHT allocations could influence NHT, though such

influences would generally be indirect.

● All guidelines for the maintenance of the NHT’s characteristics, as identified in this document

would be followed, to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel.

Wilderness Areas:

● Development of a proactive management framework, including goals, objectives and actions

for ecological and biological, water and soil, cultural, and visual resources would generally

benefit wilderness areas by maintaining or improving naturalness. Otherwise, all management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 747

of these resources would be compatible with the existing wilderness plans under all the

alternatives.

● Uses and activities occurring outside wilderness areas could influence wilderness areas,

though such influences would generally be indirect.

● All guidelines for the maintenance of the wilderness area’s characteristics, as identified in this

document would be followed, to the extent allowed by existing budget and available personnel.

4.19.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375) for the Intensity of Impacts.

4.19.1.4. Program Areas with no Impacts on Special Designations

There would be no impacts to special designations from actions proposed under the following

program areas:

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

● Air Quality Resources

● Cave Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

● Wildland Fire Management

National Byways

● Air Quality Resources

● Cave Resources

● Cultural and Heritage Resources

● Minerals Management

● Paleontological Resources

● Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management

● Public Safety and Hazardous Materials

● Soils Management

● Vegetation Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
748 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Water Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

National Historic Trails

● Cave Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

Wilderness Areas:

● Air Quality Resources

● Cave Resources

● Minerals Management

● Paleontological Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

4.19.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.19.2.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.2.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

There are no unique impacts on ACECs in both decision areas.

4.19.2.1.2. National Byways

From Wildland Fire Management on National Byways

Recognized visual values would be potentially diminished, degraded or lost all together over the

long term by certain actions and outcomes associated with fire and fuels management. Such

impacts, however, do not vary substantially by alternative. Fires remove the vegetation, which

impacts the scenery, naturalness and ecosystem integrity of an area. Overall impacts range from

minor to major.

4.19.2.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Public Safety and Hazardous Materials Management on National Historic Trails

Hazardous material clean-ups may directly affect NHT resources at a minor to moderate level due

to ground disturbing activities for the short term. Impacts are expected to range from minor to

moderate.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 749

From Soil Resources on National Historic Trails

Minimizing surface disturbance may protect the integrity of the NHT and associated landscapes

and resources directly and indirectly over the long term at a minor level.

Measures taken to control soil erosion may affect the NHT and associated landscapes directly and

indirectly over the long term at a minor level in localized areas.

From Vegetation Resources on National Historic Trails

Vegetation restoration and manipulation may directly or indirectly benefit the NHT and its

associated resources at a minor level in localized areas for the long term.

Active vegetation management strategies may directly or indirectly affect the NHT at a minor

level in localized areas for the short term due to the use of heavy equipment which disturbs or

damages surface and subsurface features on sites.

Passive vegetation restoration projects may have a direct or indirect protective effect on cultural

resources for the long term by helping to arrest erosion processes through the establishment of the

natural stabilizing effects of plant roots. Impacts would be minor.

Anza NHT resources located on the lands on which the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt had been

designated enjoy additional protections due to the closure to mineral entry and other restrictions

of this designation directly or indirectly at a minor level for the long term by either reducing

or eliminating the ground disturbance from minerals prospecting, extraction, and associated

vehicle damage.

From Water Resources on National Historic Trails

Minimizing groundwater development and exploration in sensitive areas could protect the trail

indirectly at a minor level over the long term.

From Wildland Fire Management on National Historic Trails

Wildland fires and fire suppression activities may directly impact NHT sites and segments directly

at minor, moderate, or major levels for short term and intensive duration.

Use of minimum impact suppression tactics in wilderness and along National Trails may have the

effect of reducing impacts to NHT sites and segments from heavy equipment use. Since NHT sites

and segments can be avoided during fuels reduction activities, a minor level of indirect impact may

be anticipated from the use of equipment and possible chemical application, in localized areas.

4.19.2.1.4. Wilderness Areas

From Lands and Realty Management on Wilderness Areas

Acquiring nonFederal mineral estate within wilderness areas would increase the potential for

protecting naturalness, opportunities for solitude, and opportunities for primitive unconfined

recreation in those areas. Impacts would be minor to major.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
750 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Soil Resources on Wilderness Areas

Generally, development of a proactive management framework, including goals, objectives and

actions for water would moderately benefit special designations by maintaining or improving

natural and ecological conditions. Thus, management of these resources would be compatible

with all wilderness areas. Maintaining and improving soil cover and productivity could promote

to minor degree retention of natural conditions and plants by preventing erosion of soils. Scenic

resources would be retained to the extent that native plant communities are protected from direct

mortality or indirectly harmed by establishment of invasive plants within the greater plant

community. Associated watershed and soil actions would also promote retention of natural

conditions due to decreased erosion, maintenance of plant cover, a decrease in invasive species,

and localized gain in plant and ecological community diversity.

From Public Safety and Hazardous Materials Management on Wilderness Areas

Hazardous materials and solid waste issues occur on occasion within the Decision Areas.

Containment and cleanup of these materials often involves the use of vehicles and equipment in

surface disturbing activities. Wilderness areas could be impacted by the damage from vehicle

movements and removal of contaminated soils. With appropriate restoration and mitigation, these

impacts would typically be temporary and natural, scenic and ecological resource conditions

could be restored; however, some impacts could cause long-term degradation of naturalness.

Overall, these impacts would be considered negligible overall as hazardous materials and solid

waste issues are usually uncommon in remote and unroaded areas.

Dispersed, indiscriminant, extremely intense, or continual recreational target shooting generates

public safety and hazardous materials impacts wherever such activities crop up. Often, shooting

is done without an effective backdrop or safety fan, endangering other users, damaging or killing

vegetation, destroying or pock-marking rocks and denuding hillsides. Sharp metals, glass, and

debris left behind can injure or trip visitors. Brass, targets, spent shells, Freon, paint and gas

cans, glass, mirrors, windows, construction debris, clay targets, appliances, batteries, computers,

target holders, scrap metal and the like are habitually left in the wake of target shooting activity.

Hazardous materials spill from paint, Freon, or gas cans. Shot up vehicles leak all manner of

hazardous fluids and proliferate hazardous materials residue. Appliances leak Freon and other

refrigerants. Computers, screens, and televisions, all popular targets, result in a considerable

residue of lead, toxic metals and other materials.

From Water Resources on Wilderness Areas

Development of a proactive management framework, including goals, objectives and actions for

water would generally and moderately generally benefit special designations by maintaining or

improving current resource conditions. As a consequence, management of these resources would

be compatible with wilderness areas under all the alternatives.

From Wildland Fire Management on Wilderness Areas

Recognized resource values would be potentially diminished, degraded or lost all together over

the long term by certain actions and outcomes associated with fire and fuels management.

Such impacts, however, do not vary substantially by alternative. Fires remove the vegetation,

which impacts the scenery, naturalness and ecosystem integrity of an area. Associated soil

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 751

erosion following a fire may damage or destroy surface resources, harm artifacts, or alter natural

appearing historical or scenic landscapes. Fire suppression activities impact wilderness areas due

to the evidence of heavy earth-moving equipment and vehicles used to cut fire lines. Fire line

scars can last for decades, even with reclamation. Use of fire retardants can stain rocks and soils

for years, up to a decade. Additionally, fire suppression activities could result in diminished

naturalness and opportunities for solitude over the short term in localized areas. Fires kill and

remove native vegetation, allowing disturbed landscapes to be easily invaded by opportunistic

non-native invasive plants and fire-tolerant weeds like buffelgrass. This is a potentially severe and

permanent impact if Sonoran Desert fires convert fire-intolerant native desert habitats currently

represented by saguaros, creosote, paloverde, cactus, scrubs and native grasses non-native fire

tolerant grasslands. In summary, all the actions described can degrade or diminish naturalness,

vegetation, habitat, scenery, ecological integrity and cultural resources over the long term and are

considered major both in scope, scale and severity. On the other hand, effective fire suppression

quickly employed by ground and air based fire fighting organizations can suppress fires in special

designation areas, limiting potential disturbances. Quick suppression actions will minimize or

eliminate the potential adverse and major long-term effects of fire, including consequences on

naturalness, scenery and ecosystems associated with large scale mechanized fire suppression,

and the severe long-term potential for minor to major non-native ecosystem conversion. Overall

impacts would range from minor to major.

4.19.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are identified under for the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.2.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

4.19.2.3.2. National Byways

No allocations.

4.19.2.3.3. National Historic Trails

No unique impacts.

4.19.2.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

A small portion of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would overlap four miles along the southern

boundary of the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area. The sights and sounds of visitor

use through the corridor, and associated infrastructure installed for visitor safety, interpretation,

resource protection and visitor enjoyment could have minor impacts on naturalness, solitude and

primitive recreation. These impacts would be transitory, but long term, and occasionally influence

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
752 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

the outermost southeastern part (2,560 acres or 4 percent of wilderness acreage) of the wilderness

area. Impacts are expected to be minor.

4.19.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Under Alternative A, special designations in the Decision Area would include six wilderness

areas: the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, the Coffeepot ACEC, and the Vekol Valley Grassland

ACEC. Whereas the Action Alternatives respond to issues and concerns that arose during the

planning process, the No-Action Alternative is based on existing RMPs (see Map 2-16a).

4.19.3.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.3.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

4.19.3.1.2. National Byways

No national byways are designated under alternative A.

4.19.3.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality on National Historic Trails

Improvements to air quality may directly impact the settings of the Anza Trail and its associated

historic landscapes with a potential for development for public interpretation at minor level, long

term. Slowed speeds of vehicle traffic on dirt roads would reduce dust in the air, which could

also reduce dust resettling on features, artifacts, and interpretive panels. Impacts are expected to

be minor.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

Research that is proposed under Alternative A (which may include excavation activities on

cultural sites) may impact National Trails directly or indirectly, at a moderate level, for short term

duration by the application of ground disturbing activities such as excavation.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of major utilities in corridors may impact

Anza NHT resources directly by affecting the trail attributes through ground disturbance and

indirectly by affecting the settings and changing vehicle access patterns at a minor to major level

of intensity for the short and / or long term.

The authorization of LUAs to construct, operate, and maintain roads, utilities, and other types

of uses including but not limited to utility-scale renewable energy facilities may directly impact

Anza NHT resources through associated ground disturbance and / or indirectly by changing

vehicle access patterns at a minor to major level of intensity for the short or long term.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 753

Land tenure adjustments including disposal or acquisition may affect directly Anza NHT

resources either by removing historic sites and trail segments from the protections of Federal

ownership or by bringing them into the protection of Federal ownership. Other types of land

decisions or authorizations or allocations may affect Anza NHT resources indirectly by affecting

the settings and integrity due mostly to changes in vehicle and public uses.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Livestock grazing as well as development, operation, and maintenance of range improvements

may impact NHT resources directly and indirectly at a minor to moderate level of intensity both in

the short term and long term. Livestock may tend to gather in certain areas where water, soft soil,

or shade is available. Anza NHT resources may be affected directly by intense trampling of the

surface soils at a minor to moderate level of intensity in localized areas for the short or long term;

or indirectly by denuding the vegetation and allowing erosion to accelerate along trail segments.

4.19.3.1.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative A would not allocate any cultural resources to scientific, public,

traditional, future, or discharged uses in wilderness areas. Management of cultural and heritage

resources in wilderness areas would continue on a case-by-case basis as directed by policy. Future

site development for public interpretive and educational purposes, excavation for scientific study,

or other similar activities would have none to negligible short- and long-term effects on the

naturalness of designated wilderness; however, these effects are not measurable in the absence

of such allocations.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative A would leave the existing lands and realty programs in place

but no impacts are anticipated. Moreover, no effects are expected from land disposals because

parcels identified for disposal are not adjacent to wilderness areas. Impacts from lands and

realty management are further and fully detailed in the Maricopa Wilderness Management Plan,

Environmental Assessment and Decision Record (BLM, 1995) and Woolsey Peak Wilderness

and Signal Mountain Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, Finding of Not

Significant Impact, and Decision Record (BLM, 2003).

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

No WHAs would be allocated to protect core areas of wildlife habitat. The management of public

uses, including recreation, specifically to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat, would continue to

be managed on a case-by-case basis. Construction of facilities in wildlife movement corridors and

sensitive habitats, not improving habitat connectivity, and not minimizing physical barriers to

movement on public lands adjacent to designated wilderness areas would impact wilderness areas

by detracting from naturalness and opportunities to observe healthy wildlife populations.

Wildlife waters would continue to be developed and maintained on a case-by-case basis.

Construction activities would detract from naturalness, causing short-term impacts to wilderness

values. The presence of new permanent structures located in areas of wilderness would pose

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
754 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

long-term detractions to naturalness; however, to the extent natural populations of native wildlife

are maintained, naturalness would be enhanced. Impacts would therefore be negligible.

The use of native plants in restoration projects would not be required, and no area-wide program

of surface disturbance restoration and protective measures to minimize the spread of noxious and

other weed species would be implemented, which would result in long-term detractions from

naturalness and ecosystem integrity. Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of

native wildlife would be conducted in collaboration with AGFD and/or the U.S.FWS. Long-term

contributions to naturalness in areas of wilderness would result if populations of native wildlife

were maintained at natural levels.

Competitive and speed events authorized by SRPs on public lands adjacent to wilderness areas

would be prohibited in Category I desert tortoise habitat and discouraged in Category II habitat.

Long-term contributions to naturalness would result from maintenance of tortoise habitat.

Management of water and soil resources aimed to maintain vegetative cover and soil stability

would benefit naturalness in all alternatives.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative A would leave existing recreation management programs in

place. Future recreation standards and management prescriptions established for visitation,

facility development, and other recreation-related considerations would be instructed to protect

wilderness values. Per se, long-term loss, impairment or diminishment of wilderness values due

to recreation management would be negligible and impact only localized areas.

Existing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) management classes implemented under

Alternative A would protect wilderness values. Almost all wilderness area acreage is to be found

within semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive ROS classes. Semi-primitive nonmotorized

and primitive areas do not have motorized access and tend to support protection and maintenance

of wilderness values. SRPs would continue to be authorized; however wilderness management

prescriptions mandated by the in the Maricopa Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental

Assessment and Decision Record (BLM, 1995) and Woolsey Peak Wilderness and Signal

Mountain Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and Decision Record

(BLM, 2003) would be satisfied. Accordingly, no impacts were identified and therefore, impacts

would be negligible.

From Soil Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative A, there would be no development of a comprehensive and proactive watershed

and soils management framework, including goals, objectives and actions for watersheds and

soils that would benefit wilderness areas by protecting or improving natural and ecological

conditions. Failure to maintain and improve soil cover and productivity could promote up to a

moderate degree of loss or impairment of natural conditions and plants by tolerating or increasing

soil erosion. Plant communities and ecological integrity could be absent to the extent that native

plant communities would be subject to direct mortality or indirectly harmed by establishment of

fire-tolerant invasive plants. Failure to implement watershed and soil actions required to promote

retention of natural conditions would contribute to increased erosion, decline in plant cover, an

increase in invasive species, and localized to landscape-level losses in the wilderness area’s plant

and ecological communities and related diversity.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 755

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

Impacts from special designations under Alternative A would be negligible.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

All motorized travel routes would remain available for use without consideration of potential

impacts on wilderness areas and their associated indicators. Motorized routes with a predilection

to contribute to or facilitate vehicle trespass or resource-based impacts (plant theft, wood

cutting, fires, campsite clearing, target shooting, OHV staging, or parking) on the periphery of

wilderness areas would remain open. In some cases these roads and primitive roads and their

adjoining travel corridors may contribute to localized travel-based recreation impacts. Impacts

could reach the minor to moderate intensity level on the wilderness values of naturalness, solitude

and primitive recreation. The BLM would address these impacts on a case by case basis using

wilderness management plans and current regulations. Potential impacts would be moderate in

the Lower Sonoran. The three wilderness areas within the SDNM would have supplementary

management oversight offered by the Monument’s protective prescriptions, thus impacts overall

would be minor.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Major resource impacts could accumulate from the No Action alternative on both Decision Areas

due to a lack of emphasis on vegetation resources. The use of native plants in restoration projects

would not be required, and no area-wide program of surface disturbance restoration and protective

measures to minimize the spread of noxious and other weed species would be implemented. This

could result in long-term injury from the wilderness value of naturalness, including the potential

of ecosystem conversion from the Sonoran Desert to a non-native fire-adopted grasslands.

Woodcutting, wood collection, could continue within and next to wilderness areas. Impacts

would range from minor to moderate.

4.19.3.2. Lower Sonoran

4.19.3.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Currently under Alternative A the Coffeepot ACEC encompasses approximately 8,900 acres of

public lands. This ACEC was designated for the protection of the endangered Acuna cactus.

Currently there are scatted populations of this cactus within the boundaries of the ACEC and

management is focused on this single species. The area does contain an active gas pipeline and

numerous routes that could affect the existence of the species. The ACEC is also within close

proximity to the town of Ajo and recreation and mining uses do occur within the ACEC which

could lead to further habitat fragmentation for the cactus. Impacts would be expected to be

moderate under current conditions.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
756 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Maintenance of the existing 1-mile wide utility corridor through the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC

for the existing El Paso Natural gas pipeline would continue to affect the botanical resource

values of the ACEC under Alternative A While the current pipeline occurs underground in valley

areas of the ACEC and would minimally affect botanical resource values under Alternative A,

additional development of the 1-mile wide utility corridor (above ground or underground) could

locally affect botanical resource values where the utility corridor bisects the ACEC. The lack of

an RMP decision to avoid placing new LUAs in special designations could result in localized

impacts to botanical resource values of the ACEC, including the Acuña cactus.

Under Alternative A, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC could be impacted by lack of RMP-level

decisions regarding utility-scale renewable energy development. Impacts would be expected to

range from minor to major.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, perennial/ephemeral grazing in the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC could

have localized impacts on botanical resources, but these would be minimized through grazing

management prescriptions. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC could be impacted by lack of RMP-level

decisions regarding mineral material disposal, and development of saleable minerals. Mining

activities would be required to be mitigated as to not disturb individual plants and avoid known

populations for the cactus reducing habitat fragmentation and allowing persistence of the species

on a small scale. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

Continuing to manage the Category I desert tortoise habitat within the ACEC would

enhance botanical resource values. Continued implementation of conservation measures for

cactus-ferruginous pygmy-owl would provide protection for the endangered lesser long-nosed

bat and botanical resources within the ACEC.

Some protection would be afforded by preventing OHV use in certain closure areas and

prohibiting new land uses in desert tortoise habitat. Impacts from cultural would be moderate

under current conditions.

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, dispersed vehicle-based camping and the use of dead and down wood

for campfires could cause localized impacts to vegetation in the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC.

Unauthorized motorized vehicle use, recreation target shooting, unrestricted nonmotorized and

mechanized cross-country travel, and a lack of decisions regarding emerging recreation uses may

affect botanical resource, wildlife, and special status species in localized areas within the ACEC.

The majority of the ACEC would be allocated as part of the Ajo SRMA, with 8,500 acres in a

semi-primitive motorized setting and 400 acres in a roaded-natural setting. These recreation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 757

opportunity settings may allow for recreational development and activities that can impact the

resource values of the ACEC.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Maintain or restore upland, channel, and riparian components of watersheds that help stabilize or

improve watershed conditions. Major indicators of watershed health include maintaining total

cover levels (vegetation and litter) consistent with desired future conditions, riparian areas in

properly function condition, and erosion and sedimentation rates appropriate to the ecological

site. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would continue to encompass approximately

8,900 for the protection of botanical resources with importance tied to the occurrence of the

diverse plant community, particularly the Acuña cactus. Management prescriptions would include

the implementation of grazing management practices that would ensure perpetuation of botanical

diversity within the area, mitigation of mining practices that impact unique botanical habitat, and

closure of routes for motorized vehicle access. Impacts would b expected to be negligible.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Although the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC is closed to OHV use, the routes have not been

designated as closed and motorized use would be allowed on existing routes within the ACEC.

Under Alternative A, decisions on motorized-vehicle use generally would leave the current OHV

class designations and route system in place and route designations would be deferred to a later

implementation-planning and decision-making process. The route network under Alternative A

would predominantly be located in the valley areas of the ACEC. Negligible impacts would be

expected.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The harvesting of vegetation (including wood harvesting) would potentially affect resource values

in the ACEC. Continuing to emphasize passive restoration by natural processes would potentially

benefit the resource values of the ACEC in localized areas.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Although the visual resource inventory completed as part of this RMP process characterized the

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC and surrounding Sauceda Mountains area as Class II, the ACEC

would continue to be managed under VRM Class III standards under Alternative A. This would

allow for uses that cause evident changes to scenic quality, which could impact the botanical

resource values of the ACEC, particularly if they were to occur in areas of unique vegetation.

Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to major.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Water management policy under Alternative A would continue to protect the botanical resources

of the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC by limiting groundwater development within the ACEC. A

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
758 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

lack of other decisions regarding water prospecting under Alternative A could lead to localized

impacts such as increased erosion, over-utilization of water resources, and degradation of

ecological functions that could lead to modifications and degradation of botanical resources.

Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to major.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No areas would be allocated as lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics. Impacts

are expected to negligible.

4.19.3.2.2. National Byways

No allocations.

4.19.3.2.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Mineral exploration and development may directly affect Anza NHT resources at a minor to

major level with short term to long term duration through the application of ground disturbing

activities. Indirect impacts may also affect NHT resources at a minor to major level by changes in

the vehicle route system and changes in drainage, leading to additional erosion in and around the

mineral exploration and development.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts proposed under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran from Priority Wildlife Species and

Habitat Resources would have a negligible impact on NHTs.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Increased vehicle-based recreation may lead to an increase of off-road vehicle use which may

affect NHT resources directly at a minor to major level by driving over trail and associated

historic site features and mashing associated artifacts in localized areas.

Camping in a dispersed manner may affect the integrity and historic settings of NHT resources

directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, vegetation damage, and possible exposure to the threat

of unauthorized collection of artifacts. Impacts could be minor to moderate.

NHT resources allocated to public use (high potential historic route segments and sites) may

be affected at a minor to moderate level in localized areas due to increased agency presence,

interpretive media, and educational values available on site. The construction, operation, and

maintenance of new recreational developments may have an indirect effect on NHT resources for

the long term in localized areas at a level of minor to moderate intensity due to the use of heavy,

surface disturbing equipment used to install and maintain these facilities. Increased visitation

brought about by recreational developments with amenities may affect NHT resources directly

and indirectly at a minor level in localized areas due to increased trampling.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 759

SRP vehicle events and large group events may impact NHT resources indirectly by creating new

access route patterns, excess dust, creating ruts and berms that lead to erosion, and attracting

large numbers of vehicles and visitors which may lead to increased vandalism and unauthorized

collection. All of the impacts from SRP’s are minor to moderate in level and vary from short

term to long term in localized areas.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza NHT designation with its Comprehensive Management Plan

(NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly the NHT segments and sites associated

with it for the long term due to its status as a nationally important resource. As visitation

increases, trail resources may be impacted directly and indirectly by disturbance due to vehicle

use, trampling by visitors, and unauthorized collection of artifacts. As interpretive media is

developed for the high potential sites and segments of the trail, visitation will increase which may

impact the trail resources directly by vehicle damage to NHT features. Impacts are expected to

continue at minor to moderate levels.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

The use, operation, and maintenance of existing routes may directly impact NHT resources in a

minor to major level for the long term by cutting, filling, and other ground disturbing activities

associated with the use and care of routes. The use, operation, and maintenance of existing

routes may indirectly impact cultural resources in a minor to moderate level for the long term

by allowing access into sensitive NHT and site areas or altering drainage patterns leading to

inundation or erosion.

The development of new routes may directly impact NHT resources in a minor to major level for

the long term by the use of ground disturbing activities. The development of new routes may

directly or indirectly affect NHT resources by removing vehicle use from sensitive areas for the

long term at a minor to moderate level of intensity.

Designation of a few routes to a nonmotorized level of use may have a direct and indirect

protective effect on NHT resources for the long term by prohibiting motor vehicle use, thereby

reducing or eliminating the number of visitors in a localized area.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Decisions regarding management of visual resources may indirectly affect the settings of the

Anza and its associated sites in localized areas for the long term at a minor to major level. Under

this alternative, a mixture of management allocations is employed for different areas of the

Lower Sonoran. The allocation of VRM Class IV (71 percent of the trail area) would allow

visual intrusions and associated ground disturbing activities associated with a variety of uses to

dominate the landscape at a level which would damage or destroy National Trail resources as

well as historic landscape integrity at a moderate to major level of intensity in localized areas

for the long and short term.

The allocation of VRM Class III (25 percent of the trail area) would impact the integrity of

NHT resources and historic landscape settings by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape

and associated ground disturbing activities associated with a variety of land uses at a level which

would deteriorate the integrity of trail segments and settings.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
760 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated in Alterative A for

the Lower Sonoran Decision Area.

4.19.3.2.4. Wilderness Areas

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative A would leave existing livestock grazing regimes in place, and

could have minor and localized impacts on naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude

and primitive, unconfined recreation. Taken as a whole however, current-grazing regimes would

not detract from nor greatly alter current wilderness conditions in the Lower Sonoran over the

life of the plan.

Localized impacts could occur with potential minor effects. The basis for this: (1) livestock

use adjustments with increased or fewer animals; (2) changes to grazing management systems;

(3) potentially large ephemeral turnouts causing short-term impacts on naturalness and loss of

solitude and primitive recreation opportunities; and (4) construction or abandonment of rangeland

developments. Such actions would degrade or enhance naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive, unconfined recreation. Impacts from grazing are further detailed in the Woolsey

Peak Wilderness and Signal Mountain Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment,

Finding of Not Significant Impact, and Decision Record (BLM, 2003).

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative A, public lands adjacent to the Signal Mountain, Woolsey Peak and Sierra

Estrella Wilderness Areas would retain existing VRM classes, which include VRM Class IV in

the Lower Sonoran. Such VRM class allocations would allow for landscape altering activities

that could be visible from adjacent wilderness areas, resulting in potentially minor to moderate

long term visual detractions from naturalness and opportunities for solitude. Wilderness areas

themselves are classified as VRM Class I, with the objective of preserving the existing character

of the landscape. While this would not preclude many forms of management activity, the level of

change to the characteristic landscape should remain low and must not attract attention. Impacts

to naturalness and opportunities for solitude would thus be negligible to minor.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

No areas would be allocated as lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A. Two areas with wilderness characteristics are adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and

Signal Mountain wildernesses. Not allocating these areas as lands manged to protect wilderness

characteristics would result in minor harm to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and

primitive, unconfined recreation within adjacent wilderness areas. In the Lower Sonoran Decision

Area, impairment occur from land use authorizations, construction of facilities, recreation uses,

mining and other uses on lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics.

Future site development for public interpretive and educational purposes, excavation for scientific

study, or other similar activities would have negligible to no short or long-term effects on the

naturalness of designated wilderness areas. Management of cultural and heritage resources in

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 761

wilderness areas would continue on a case-by-case basis as directed and guided by approved

wilderness management plans and policy.

4.19.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.3.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Currently there are 3,500-acres of public lands within the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC. This

ACEC was designated to protect a grassland system. Currently the Vekol Valley ACEC lies within

the SDNM; however, it was designated before the conception of the SDNM. The ACEC has an

existing decision of the previous RMP, to “close the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC to OHV use,”

and remains in effect. Impacts would be expected to be minor under current conditions.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, the Vekol valley ACEC could be impacted by lack of RMP-level decisions

regarding LUA developments. Impacts would be expected to range from minor to major.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

In accordance with the Monument proclamation, livestock grazing in the Vekol Valley ACEC

would continue until existing permits expire, at which time the allotments would be permanently

closed to grazing. This would eliminate any long-term impacts from grazing. In the short term,

grassland conditions in the ACEC would continue to be impacted by grazing until the allotments

are closed; however, intensive management of grazing in the form of adequate rest periods would

ensure that the health and vigor of the tobosa grassland would be maintained and the amphibian

habitat protected. Livestock grazing would also be controlled via the existing pasture fence.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The withdrawal of the SDNM from all mineral entry in the Monument has a protective effect on

the ACEC at a negligible to minor level due to the elimination of surface disturbing activities

associated with mineral exploration, development, and extraction.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

The continued implementation of existing Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat management

decisions under Alternative A would generally be protective of the resource values of the ACEC.

It would be unlikely that developing wildlife waters on a case-by-case basis under Alternative A

would affect the resource values for which the ACEC was designated.

Other existing wildlife management decisions related to desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and

cactus-ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat would not apply to the resource values of the ACEC as

habitat for these species does not occur within the ACEC. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to moderate under current conditions.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
762 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Vekol Valley ACEC area would not be located within a SRMA as the ACEC is not recognized

for its recreation value and recreation use of this area is discouraged due to problems with illegal

immigration activities in this area.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The management of watersheds, soils under Alternative A would protect localized areas of the

Vekol Valley ACEC from potential impacts related to OHV use in the area. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Repairing and maintaining the existing watershed dike system and associated watershed fence in

upper Vekol Valley would potentially improve habitat resource values of the ACEC as well as

the unique amphibian populations associated with the watershed dike system. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Alternative A would involve management practices to maintain and enhance the resource

values for which the Vekol Valley ACEC was designated. Alternative A would also require the

integration of management prescriptions outlined the proclamation, including the protection of

Monument values. Since Monument values coincide with the ACEC resource values, specific

protection provided by Monument designation duplicates the protective measures of the ACEC.

Impacts would be expected to be negligible.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The area is closed to OHV use. Continuation of these policies under Alternative A would be

protective of the resource values of the ACEC.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The continued implementation of existing vegetation management decisions under Alternative A

would generally be protective of the resource values of the ACEC. Invasive species management

would continue to be limited to targeting populations of noxious weeds that can be controlled

or eliminated by approved methods. This would limit the BLM's ability to minimize or reduce

potential impacts of noxious weeds on grassland communities in the ACEC.

The harvesting of vegetation (including wood harvesting) would potentially affect resource values

in the ACEC. Continuing to emphasize passive restoration by natural processes would potentially

benefit the resource values of the ACEC in localized areas.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative A, the Vekol Valley ACEC would be managed under Class III VRM standards,

which would provide appropriate protection of the area's scenic resources but would not restrict

activities that could affect the resource values for which the ACEC was designated.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 763

Impacts would be negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No known impacts would occur.

4.19.3.3.2. National Byways

No allocations.

4.19.3.3.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

The withdrawal of the SDNM from all mineral entry in the Monument has a protective effect on

the Anza NHT at a minor to major level due to the elimination of surface disturbing activities

associated with mineral exploration, development, and extraction.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

The use, operation, and maintenance of existing routes may directly impact the Anza NHT

resources and Monument objects in a minor to major level for the long term by cutting, filling, and

other ground disturbing activities associated with the use and care of routes. The use, operation,

and maintenance of existing routes may indirectly impact NHT resources in a minor to moderate

level for the long term by allowing access into sensitive trail segments and site areas or altering

drainage patterns leading to inundation or erosion.

The development of new routes may directly impact the Anza NHT resources and Monument

objects in a minor to major level for the long term by the use of ground disturbing activities. The

development of new routes may directly or indirectly affect NHT resources by removing vehicle

use from sensitive areas for the long term at a minor to moderate level of intensity.

Designation of a few routes to a nonmotorized level of use may have a direct and indirect

protective effect on the Anza NHT resources and Monument objects for the long term by

prohibiting motor vehicle use, thereby reducing or eliminating the number of visitors in a

localized area.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
764 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

The Anza NHT corridor, as an object of the SDNM, runs through a mixture of management

strategies from VRM Class II, Class III, and Class IV. Management of the NHT under Class IV

(approximately 41 percent of the trail area in the Monument) would allow visual intrusions and

associated ground disturbing activities to dominate the landscape at a level which would damage

or destroy trail and historic landscape integrity through loss of the very elements that the Anza

NHT was designated to do. These activities and ground disturbing projects would be completely

incompatible with National Trail as well as Monument object protection related goals. The

impacts would occur at a major level of intensity within this area.

Allocation of the Anza NHT corridor within the SDNM in a VRM Class III (approximately 21

percent of the trail area in the Monument) would impact the trail and its historic settings by

allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and associated ground disturbing activities at a level

which would quickly deteriorate its integrity. Management at this level would allow activities

and developments that are completely incompatible with a NHT, at a moderate to major level of

intensity in localized areas for the long term.

The areas of the trail within the center areas of the SDNM would be managed at a VRM Class

II (approximately 31 percent of the trail area in the Monument), which would have a far more

beneficial effect on the essential characteristics and attributes of a NHT and the associated

Monument objects. Management of activities and developments would be more restrictive in

terms of visual intrusions and ground disturbing activities on the historic landscape, leading to

a more protection of the trail resources and Monument objects, at a minor to moderate level

of intensity throughout the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated on the Monument

under Alterative A.

4.19.3.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative A would leave the existing livestock grazing regime in place. This

could have moderate landscape level impacts on naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation. This is a moderate impact because the livestock

grazing forage utilization prescriptions for the North and South Maricopa Mountain Wilderness

Areas, as set by the Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment

and Decision Record (BLM, 1995) are not fully being met. Taken as a whole however,

current-grazing regimes would not detract from nor greatly alter current wilderness conditions in

the SDNM over the life of the plan; these regimes would just maintain the current state of affairs.

On the other hand, Monument management prescriptions could add an additional level of

protection to protecting wilderness values. Livestock grazing impacts are more fully detailed in

the Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment and Decision

Record (BLM, 1995).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 765

Localized impacts could also occur with potential moderate effects. The basis for this: (1)

livestock use adjustments with increased or fewer animals; (2) changes to grazing management

systems; (3) potentially large ephemeral turnouts causing short-term impacts on naturalness,

vegetation, and loss or impairment of solitude and primitive recreation opportunities; (4) failure to

currently satisfy all rangeland health standards; and (5) construction or abandonment of rangeland

developments. Such actions could degrade or enhance naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive, unconfined recreation.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

A small portion of the Gila Trails SRMA would overlap four miles along the southern boundary

of the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area. Impacts would negligible.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative A, public lands adjacent to the North Maricopa Mountains, South Maricopa

Mountains, and Table Top Wilderness Areas would retain existing VRM classes, which include

VRM Class III in the SDNM. Such VRM class allocations might allow for minor to negligible

landscape altering activities that could be visible from adjacent wilderness areas, resulting in

potentially minor long term visual detractions from naturalness and opportunities for solitude.

However, it must be noted that Monument status offers considerable resource and landscape

protection. wilderness areas themselves are classified as VRM Class I, with the objective of

preserving the existing character of the landscape. Impacts to naturalness and opportunities for

solitude would thus be negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A. Two areas with wilderness characteristics are adjacent to the North and South

Maricopa wildernesses in the SDNM. Not allocating these areas as lands manged to protect

wilderness characteristics would have negligible to no impact on naturalness and opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation in designated wilderness.

4.19.4. ALTERNATIVE B

Under Alternative B, special designations would include the six wilderness areas, the Juan

Bautista de Anza NHT, Agua Caliente Scenic Byways in the Lower Sonoran, and the existing

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC. In the SDNM, the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC designations

would be removed and the area would be managed in accordance with the terms of the SDNM

proclamation. The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would be managed in concert with the Lower Gila

Historic Trail SRMA in the Lower Sonoran and would be consistent with the NPS management

plan. Agua Caliente road in the Lower Sonoran would be designated as scenic byway and would

be managed to protect the visual resource and natural character of the view shed. Actions that

would affect the qualities for which these areas were designated or are proposed for designation

are considered impacts (see Map 2-16b).

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
766 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.19.4.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.4.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

4.19.4.1.2. National Byways

No unique impacts.

4.19.4.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except, a greater number of

sites would be allocated to public use. These allocations would lead to interpretive developments

that may directly impact the NHT trails at a moderate level for the long term by altering access

points, installation of facilities along the trail and onto areas adjacent to the site, and attracting

additional visitation and possibly vehicle-based activities.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Under Alternative B, the NHT would be allocated as LUA Exclusion Area and excluded from any

potential utility-scale renewable energy development. Impacts from these allocations would have

a moderate affect on the NHT, as there would be no surface disturbances from LUAs within the

NHT’s boundaries, thus assisting the execution of NHT goals and objectives.

Lands within the NHT boundaries would also be retained. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas, just

slightly decrease, as there would be half as many AUMs throughout the Decision Area, thus

decrease potential surface disturbing activities from livestock movement that might harm the

integrity of the NHT. Impacts would be minor.

4.19.4.1.4. Wilderness Areas

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

Impacts from special designations under Alternative B would be negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 767

As under Alternative A, no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated.

Impacts would thus be the same as those described under Alternative A.

4.19.4.2. Lower Sonoran

4.19.4.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Developing facilities to preserve the integrity of cultural landscapes and management of heavily

visited culturally significant resources would provide protection of cultural resources within the

Coffeepot Botanical ACEC and would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A. For

wildlife impacts associated with developing facilities would be expected to range from negligible

to minor, depending on the location of facilities and duration of use at the facilities.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Livestock use would be managed to perpetuate botanical diversity and range developments would

not be located in areas that would increase livestock use where local populations of the cacti

could be found. Reduce perennial grazing would be used. Overall impacts would be expected to

range from negligible to moderate.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

Under Alternative B impacts would be similar to Alternative A except the ACECwould be closed

to OHV use reducing fragmentation and the possible crushing of individual plants. Mining

activities would be required to be mitigated as to not disturb individual plants and avoid known

populations for the cactus reducing habitat fragmentation and allowing persistence of the species

on a small scale. Livestock use would be managed to perpetuate botanical diversity and range

developments would not be located in areas that would increase livestock use where local

populations of the cacti could be found. Overall impacts would be expected to range from

negligible to moderate.

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be expected to be similar to Alternative A.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
768 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Ensure watersheds are in properly functioning condition consistent with Land Health Standards.

Characteristics of a properly functioning watershed include channels that are stable and in

balance with the landscape; erosion and sediment deposition appropriate for the ecological site;

infiltration of surface water in soils sufficient to support desired future conditions (DFCs) and

minimize erosion from runoff; and flood frequencies, durations, and magnitudes appropriate for

the landscape. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Disturbance of sensitive soil surfaces, including those classified as highly susceptible to wind and

water erosion and those with protective desert pavement or well-developed cryptogamic crust

will be avoided. If disturbance occurs, damage will be mitigated. Impacts would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative B, the 8,900-acre Coffeepot Botanical ACEC designation would be removed,

reducing protections to special status species such as the Acuña cactus, cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl, lesser long-nosed bat, and desert tortoise. Impacts from removing the designation

under this alternative and not carrying forward in other alternatives could be expected to range

from minor to major.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative B impacts would be similar to Alternative A except the ACEC would be closed

to OHV use reducing fragmentation and the possible crushing of individual plants. Impacts

would be expected to be negligible.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative B impacts would be similar to Alternative A except the ACEC would be

closed to OHV use reducing fragmentation and the possible crushing of individual plants.

Mining activities would be required to be mitigated as to not disturb individual plants and avoid

known populations for the cactus reducing habitat fragmentation and allowing persistence of the

species on a small scale. Livestock use would be managed to perpetuate botanical diversity

and range developments would not be located in areas that would increase livestock use where

local populations of the cacti could be found. Overall impacts would be expected to range from

negligible to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The majority of the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be assigned to VRM Class II. The El Paso

Natural Gas ROW/Gas Pipeline Road would be Class III. This, along with the management

decision to manage the viewshed of the Batamote-Coffeepot Mountains to protect scenic values

of the viewsheds, would be a more protective designation than under Alternative A. Associated

restrictions on development/use would protect the scenic and natural landscape values of the

ACEC, as well as protect the other resource values of the ACEC.

Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to major.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 769

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

There are no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics. Impacts are expected to be

negligible.

4.19.4.2.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byways

Designation of the Aqua Caliente Road as a Back Country Byway could limit or hinder land use

authorizations if they detracted from or impaired the scenic, natural, recreational, visual, and

cultural opportunities represented by this proposed 30-mile byway.

The management goals presented by this byway could be in major and direct opposition to

the long-term considerations of Maricopa County. The county, in various master regional

transportation system documents, has plans that over the long term, would upgrade this road from

maintained dirt to pavement. This action, in turn, would achieve safe higher speed travel, but

eliminate the recreational Back Country Byway exploratory opportunity aspects of the current

road.

From Recreation Management on National Byways

Recreation opportunities, benefits, and experiences would be moderately enhanced by the

designation of the 30-mile Agua Fria back Country Byway. In turn, this would enhance the

motoring experience of the byway’s users. Impacts would be minor.

From Special Designations on National Byways

Special designations would have negligible impacts on the proposed Aqua Caliente Back Country

Byway.

From Travel Management on National Byways

The comprehensive travel and route management system implemented under Alternative B would

be compatible and offer moderate protection to sustain the natural, scenic, visual, recreational and

cultural sites and associated opportunities afforded by this proposed byway. Impacts would be

negligible to minor.

From Visual Resources on National Byways

Minor to moderate impacts are anticipated on the proposed Agua Caliente Byway from Class

III VRM prescriptions bestowed under this alternative. The protection offered by this VRM is

less than optimal for the preservation of the route’s scenic, natural, and recreational benefits and

outcomes. Over the long-term, some of these byway attributes could be moderately impaired.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
770 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.19.4.2.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Under Alternative B, the majority of the NHT would be managed under the Lower Gila Historic

Trails SRMA-Gila River RMZ. For the areas outside of this planned management area, the

impacts would be the same as Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

In the Lower Gila Historic Trails SRMA, vehicle-based, front country route exploration is

anticipated to be complementary and more protective to the historic trail segments that cross the

unit than under Alternative A. It is anticipated that this activity would impact NHT resources

on a minor level for a short duration, in localized areas due to vehicle incursions. Camping in a

dispersed manner may affect the integrity of NHT resources directly by vehicle incursions,

trampling, and indirectly by possible exposure to the threat of unauthorized collection of artifacts

at a minor level of intensity over the long term, in localized areas.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, in

addition, development of interpretive media and facilities would have a minor to moderate effect

on NHT resources in localized areas.

Public use and management under a SRMA forms the framework of this alternative. As

visitation increases, NHT resources may be impacted directly and indirectly by disturbance

due to vehicle use and trampling by visitors. As additional interpretive media is developed

for the trail, increasing visitation may impact the trail resources directly by vehicle damage to

associated site features and trampling. As vehicle-based visitation is highly promoted under this

alternative, effects to NHT resources are expected to be far greater in level than that expected

under Alternative A.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

a considerable increase in the length of the road network may affect many more NHT resource

sites, segments, and landscapes (historic settings) directly by cutting through and near sites.

Impacts would still range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

The allocation of at least 87 percent of the trail area to VRM Class III would impact the integrity

of Anza National Trail resources and historic landscape settings only slightly less than under

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 771

Alternative A by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and associated ground disturbing

activities associated with a variety of land uses at a level which would deteriorate the integrity of

trail segments and settings.

The remainder of the NHT corridor lies on lands allocated to the Class IV VRM level which would

allow visual intrusions and associated ground disturbing activities associated with a variety of

uses to dominate the landscape at a level which would damage or destroy National Trail resources

as well as historic landscape integrity at a moderate to major level of intensity in localized areas

for the long and short term. Impacts from VRM would range from minor to moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alterative B for

the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.4.2.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

The number, width, and capacity of utility corridors adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and Signal

Mountain Wildernesses would remain essentially unchanged from existing alignments, with

impacts similar to Alternative A. A fully utilized and built-out utility corridor adjacent to the

Sierra Estrella Wilderness would indirectly reduce naturalness and opportunities for solitude

within the north 1⁄2 of the Sierra Estrella Wilderness to a moderate degree over the long term.

Additional powerlines, pipelines and associated support infrastructure sited in this corridor would

be noticeable from half of this area, essentially for two reasons: (1) the wilderness has an open

unscreened aspect to the southwest; and, (2) the utility corridor forms about five miles of the

wilderness area boundary. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

The prospective for improved forage or vegetation conditions from modified grazing practices

and a 51 percent reduction in AUMs could result in long-term vegetative and visual impacts on

the landscape that would maintain or improve naturalness. Forage allocated to livestock would

instead be available to native wildlife. The sights of cattle trailing, cow waste, and trampled

vegetation would be moderately reduced, enhancing wilderness values. Impacts from livestock

infrastructure management would be similar as described under Alternative A. There will be

no impact from water development installation over the long term as the current wilderness

management plan prohibits new livestock developments in the Signal Mountain and Woolsey

Peak Wilderness Areas.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Overall, implementation of the wildlife-related ecological and biological resources measures of

Alternative B would offer minor contributions to naturalness to a greater degree than would

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
772 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

implementation of Alternative A by emphasizing connectivity of wildlife habitat, use of native

vegetation in restoration efforts, and measures to maintain populations of native wildlife. In

contrast, implementation of Alternative B would cause a minor and more substantial detraction

from naturalness than would Alternative A due to the potential increased density of new wildlife

water developments.

Under Alternative B, new wildlife waters would potentially be built in wilderness areas.

Construction activities would detract from naturalness and opportunities for solitude, causing

short-term impacts to wilderness values. In the long term, the presence of new permanent

structures in wilderness areas would detract from naturalness. Moreover, long-term, impacts to

naturalness could also result if abnormally abundant watering sources lead to unnatural wildlife

population levels or behaviors. Impacts from wildlife waters would be minor.

Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of native wildlife would be conducted

in collaboration with AGFD; existing earthen livestock waters could be used as refugia for

native wildlife where livestock grazing is not longer permitted; and the placement of fences

would be restricted or mitigated to avoid adverse impacts to wildlife. Long-term contributions

to naturalness in wilderness areas would result if such actions would maintain native wildlife

populations at natural levels. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative B would contribute to naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive recreation to a greater degree than would Alternative A. Alternative B would

allocate the Gila Bend Mountains SRMA, which includes all lands within the Signal Mountain

and Woolsey Peak Wildernesses. Existing ROS management classes would be replaced by RMZ

settings, with all designated wilderness managed as back country RMZ. This setting would sustain

setting characteristics that produce opportunities for remote primitive recreation experiences.

Under Alternative B, long-term, contributions to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for

solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would result where restrictions to motorized travel

occur adjacent to wilderness areas. Such impacts would occur to a greater degree than under

Alternative A.

Contributions to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be

further enhanced under Alternative B where public lands adjacent to wilderness areas would be

managed as part of the back country RMZ. Impacts would be minor.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative B would contribute to naturalness and opportunities for solitude

and primitive recreation to a moderate degree more than would Alternative A. Most existing

motorized roads providing access or forming a wilderness boundary would remain available for

use next to wilderness areas. However; unlike Alternative A, there would be careful consideration

of potential impacts from motorized use of such roads on adjacent wilderness areas and their

associated indicators. Motorized routes with a predilection to contribute to moderate levels of

vehicle trespass or resource-based impacts (plant theft, wood cutting, fires, campsite clearing,

target shooting, OHV staging, parking) on the periphery of wilderness areas would remain open,

but adverse uses would be mitigated through various management options available to the BLM

for corrective action.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 773

Contributions to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be

augmented under Alternative B because roads and primitive roads adjacent to wilderness areas

would eventually be managed as part of a designated comprehensive travel management network.

Potentially moderate, but adverse effects, from motorized intrusions and associated recreation

uses would be reduced or eliminated in some areas. Moreover, boundary roads and cherry stem

roads would be managed as part of a designated and comprehensive travel management network.

Consequently, adverse effects from motorized intrusions and associated recreation activities

would be lessened or eliminated in many areas.

Over-the-long-term associated management actions would reduce travel and access based impacts

on wilderness to minor or negligible levels.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative B, active restoration of surface disturbances would be emphasized, use of

native species in all restoration projects would be required, and an integrated weed management

program to control invasive species would be put into place. The use of native species and control

of invasive species would limit the spread of non-native vegetation and reduce the size and

intensity of wildfires, which would otherwise destroy native vegetation of non-fire adapted areas

of the Sonoran Desert, resulting in moderate and long-term contributions to the wilderness value

of naturalness. A reduction in grazing activities and AUMs would generally mean smaller herds

and could result in an increase in forage production.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except that under Alternative

B, public lands adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain Wildernesses would be

classified as VRM Class II, with the objective of retaining the existing character of the landscape.

Such actions would play a minor part and indirectly contribute to naturalness of the two

wilderness areas to a greater degree than would Alternative A. Public lands adjacent to the Sierra

Estrella Wilderness would retain existing VRM classifications of Class III and Class IV, which

would result in the same impacts as described under Alternative A.

4.19.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.4.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No ACECs are allocated in this Alternative for the SDNM. The Monument’s proclamation

provides the necessary protection that an ACEC would provide.

4.19.4.3.2. National Byways

No national byways are designated under Alternative A in the Monument.

4.19.4.3.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
774 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Improvements to existing wildlife water developments may affect the Anza NHT and associated

resources as Monument objects directly at a minor to moderate level in localized areas in the short

term as old developments are remodeled. These impacts would be direct due to the use of heavy

equipment to excavate and replace old facilities and indirect due to changes in adjacent drainage

patterns leading to erosion of cultural sites. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Under Alternative B, the NHT would be managed under the SDNM SRMA – Anza NHT RMZ. It

is anticipated that the actions under this allocation would offer the same level of protection to the

Anza NHT resources and Monument objects as Alternative A because the increased management

would not be enough to counteract the sharp increase in public visitation.

In the SDNM SRMA – Anza NHT RMZ, the majority of the lands would be allocated to this level

of management, as back country. In the back country, it is expected that camping in a dispersed

manner and increased vehicular recreation may affect the integrity of Anza NHT resources and

Monument objects directly by vehicle incursions, trampling, and possible exposure to the threat

of unauthorized collection of artifacts at a minor level of intensity over the long term, in localized

areas. Impacts are anticipated to be minor to moderate.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except for

a considerable increase in the length of the road network may affect many more of the Anza NHT

resource sites, segments, landscapes (historic settings), and Monument objects directly by cutting

through and near sites. Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Allocation of the Anza NHT corridor within the SDNM in a VRM Class III (approximately

93 percent of the trail area in the Monument) locale would impact the trail and its historic

settings far more than under Alternative A by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and

associated ground disturbing activities at a level which would quickly deteriorate its integrity.

Management at this level would allow surface disturbing activities and intrusive developments

that are completely incompatible visually with a NHT and may threaten the Monument objects, at

a moderate to major level of intensity throughout the SDNM.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated under Alterative B for

the Monument.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 775

4.19.4.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described in the Lower Sonoran for Alternative B.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

The three one-mile wide corridors in the SDNM would not directly impact the naturalness or

wilderness opportunities of the wilderness areas within the Monument.

Installation of new facilities in the I-8 utility corridor south of the highway would have minor

and indirect impacts on the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness. Currently this corridor is

occupied only by the highway with no underground or overhead facilities. The sight of new

overhead facilities would extend northward one to two miles into the wilderness. However, this

effect would have no greater influence than the sights and sounds of highway traffic currently

experienced by wilderness visitors in areas along the highway.

Installation of new facilities in the Santa Rosa to Gila Bend utility corridor would have no visual

effect on the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness located to the south. The utility corridor

is currently occupied by a highway, sets of railroad tracks, pipelines, optic lines and overhead

transmission facilities. New installations would compliant with VRM prescriptions, nor add

greatly to the level of visual commotion currently present in the landscape. Impacts would be

negligible from this corridor.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Overall, implementation of the wildlife-related ecological and biological resources measures of

Alternative B would offer minor contributions to naturalness to a greater degree than would

implementation of Alternative A by emphasizing connectivity of wildlife habitat, use of native

vegetation in restoration efforts, and measures to maintain populations of native wildlife. In

contrast, implementation of Alternative B could cause a more minor detraction from naturalness

than would Alternative A through a potentially increased density of new wildlife water

developments.

Under Alternative B, potentially new wildlife waters would be built in SDNM wilderness areas,

and considered on a case-by-case basis. Construction activities would detract from naturalness

and opportunities for solitude, causing short-term impacts to wilderness values. In the long term,

the presence of new permanent structures in wilderness areas would detract from naturalness.

Long-term, impacts to naturalness could also result if artificially abundant watering sources lead to

unnatural wildlife population levels and behaviors. Impacts from wildlife waters would be minor.

Reintroductions, transplants, and supplemental stockings of native wildlife would be conducted in

collaboration with AGFD and/or FWS; existing earthen livestock waters would be used as refugia

for native wildlife where livestock grazing is not longer permitted; and the placement of LUAs,

and fences would be restricted or mitigated to avoid adverse impacts to wildlife. Long-term

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
776 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

contributions to naturalness in wilderness areas would result if such actions would maintain

native wildlife populations at natural levels.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

The SDNM’s wilderness areas would be included in the SDNM SRMA and part of the. Recreation

allocations and prescriptions established by those SRMAs are fully compatible with wilderness

management and current wilderness management plans. Accordingly, negligible impacts on

wilderness values are anticipated. As described under Alternative A, about 4 percent of the North

Maricopa Mountains Wilderness would be subject to minor impacts from the sights and sounds of

visitor management and resource protection infrastructure along the Lower Gila Historic Trails

SRMA (Anza NHT and the Butterfield Overland Stage Trail). Elsewhere, few to no noticeable

impacts from recreation use management on wilderness values would be anticipated.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative B, minor, but long-term, contributions to naturalness and outstanding

opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation would result, mainly where

motorized travel restrictions occur adjacent to wilderness areas. The first contribution would

accrue from minor route closures. The second benefit would accrue from improved stewardship

of travel management networks.

Beneficial impacts would emerge to a greater degree than under Alternative A. A few routes

around the north part of the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness and one spur route along the

northern end of Table Top Wilderness would be closed under Alternative B. Such specific route

closures would precipitate a localized reduction or elimination in the motorized trespass and

recreation-related impacts on wilderness values as described under Alternative A.

Most existing motorized roads providing access or forming a wilderness boundary would remain

available for use next to wilderness areas. However; unlike Alternative A, there would be careful

consideration of potential impacts from motorized use of such roads on Monument objects and

adjacent wilderness areas and their associated indicators. Motorized routes with a predilection to

contribute to moderate levels of vehicle trespass or resource-based impacts (plant theft, wood

cutting, fires, campsite clearing, target shooting, OHV staging, parking) on the periphery of

wilderness areas could remain open, but adverse uses would be thoroughly mitigated through

various management options available to the BLM for corrective action.

Contributions to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be

augmented under Alternative B because roads and primitive roads adjacent to wilderness areas

would eventually be managed as part of a designated comprehensive travel management network.

Potentially minor, but adverse effects, from motorized intrusions and associated recreation uses

would be reduced or eliminated in some areas. Over-the-long-term associated management

actions would reduce travel and access based impacts on wilderness to negligible levels.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative B, current vegetation communities would be maintained or enhanced over the

long term. Active restoration of surface disturbances would be emphasized, use of native species

in all restoration projects would be required, an integrated weed management program to control

invasive species would be put into place, and grazing AUMs would be reduced 31 percent.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 777

The use of native species and control of invasive species would limit the spread of non-native

vegetation and reduce the size and intensity of wildfires, which would otherwise destroy native

vegetation of non-fire adapted areas of the Sonoran Desert, resulting in long-term contributions to

naturalness. The health and vigor of vegetative communities would be sustained. As compared to

Alternative A, this alternative would have a moderate influence on the health and vigor of plants

and vegetative communities in the two wilderness areas north of I-8, and a major influence on

the Table Top Wilderness vegetation south of the highway. A reduction in grazing activities and

AUMs would generally mean smaller herds and could result in an increase in forage production.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

In the SDNM, much of the lands surrounding wilderness areas would be allocated to VRM Class

II, which would have minor and indirect contribute to naturalness in the adjoining wilderness

areas.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

As under Alternative A, no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated.

Impacts would thus be the same as those described under Alternative A.

4.19.5. ALTERNATIVE C

Under Alternative C, the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be expanded from 8,900 acres under

Alternative A and B to 63,300 acres under Alternative C. The Aqua Caliente Back Country

Byway would be carried forward from Alternative B. Arizona State Route 238 would be

established as a National Scenic Byway of 18 miles crossing east to west through the SDNM. The

Vekol Valley ACEC of 3,500-acres within the SDNM would not be carried forward.

4.19.5.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.5.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

4.19.5.1.2. National Byways

No unique impacts.

4.19.5.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

any reductions in vehicle use on dirt roads may have an indirect, yet protective effect on Anza

Trail resources at a minor level for the long term by reducing the amount of ambient dust in the

area where interpretive facilities are planned or are located.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
778 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative C, a SCRMA would be allocated in a way that incorporates the Anza Trail

(Map 2–1c). The purpose of this SCRMA will be to focus management of cultural and National

Trail resources for public use and scientific use. This allocation would have a protective effect on

the Anza Trail due to the higher priority that would be placed on the area for inventorying and

monitoring. This would be expected to be at a minor to moderate intensity for the long term.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas, just

slightly decrease, as there would be no ephemeral grazing, thus decreasing the potential surface

disturbing activities from livestock movement year-round that might harm the integrity of the

NHT. Impacts still remain minor to moderate, as livestock grazing would still be allowed during

certain portions of the year.

4.19.5.1.4. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

any reductions in vehicle use on dirt roads may have an indirect, yet protective effect on Anza

Trail resources at a minor level for the long term by reducing the amount of ambient dust in the

area where interpretive facilities are planned or are located.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

Under Alternative C, a SCRMA would be allocated in a way that incorporates the Anza Trail

(Map 2–1c). The purpose of this SCRMA will be to focus management of cultural and National

Trail resources for public use and scientific use. This allocation would have a protective effect on

the Anza Trail due to the higher priority that would be placed on the area for inventorying and

monitoring. This would be expected to be at a minor to moderate intensity for the long term.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas, just

slightly decrease, as there would be no ephemeral grazing, thus decreasing the potential surface

disturbing activities from livestock movement year-round that might harm the integrity of the

NHT. Impacts still remain minor to moderate, as livestock grazing would still be allowed during

certain portions of the year.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 779

4.19.5.2. Lower Sonoran

4.19.5.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The proposed Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC encompasses 63,300 acres of public lands under

Alternative C. This ACEC is being proposed to protect lesser long-nosed bat and cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl habitats, outstanding botanical diversity of the native plant communities,

botanical resources unique to the area such as the Acuña cactus, desert bighorn sheep other

diverse wildlife populations, and outstanding landscape and scenic and cultural resources. The

ACECcontains 100 percent public lands and it is recommended to retain those lands within

the ACEC as public ownership. Overall impacts to wildlife would be expected to range from

negligible to minor.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The ACEC contains 100 percent public lands and it is recommended to retain those lands within

the ACEC as public ownership.

New utility, communication, transportation, and utility-scale renewable energy facilities would

be avoided with the ACEC. If these actions are avoided within the ACEC negligible to minor

impacts wildlife are expected to occur.

Impacts to the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC under Alternative C from the El Paso Natural Gas

Multiuse Utility corridor would be negligible, as this portion of the corridor would be removed

under Alternative C.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Livestock grazing would be closed in the ACEC and related infrastructure associated with grazing

would be removed. Upon removing grazing minor impacts to wildlife would be expected,

however removing associated infrastructure could cause major impacts to wildlife especially if

water sources are removed. Water is a scarce resource in the Sonoran desert and removing any

water source could be detrimental to wildlife species that have become accustomed to a particular

water source. Local populations of wildlife in the area would have to relocate and possibly face

mortality without free water. Impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are

expected to range from negligible to major.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts to resource values in the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC from mineral resource development

would be the same as described for Alternative A, except that Alternative C would provide

additional standard stipulations that could potentially provide a higher level of protection for

resource values within the ACEC. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
780 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The proposed Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC encompasses 63,300 acres of public lands under

Alternative C. This ACEC is being proposed to protect lesser long-nosed bat and cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl habitats, outstanding botanical diversity of the native plant communities,

botanical resources unique to the area such as the Acuña cactus, desert bighorn sheep other diverse

wildlife populations, and outstanding landscape and scenic features. The Coffeepot-Batamote

ACEC does contain an endangered plant species the Acuna cacti and foraging habitat for the

endangered lesser long-nosed bat. The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl has been petitioned as a

candidate and habitat is available for this species within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 100

percent public lands and it is recommended to retain those lands within the ACEC as public

ownership. New routes within the ACEC would be prohibited within washes, unless during route

designations conflicts with wildlife are mitigated and minimization criteria would be established.

At the time of route designations, mitigation, adaptive management, and BMPs would be utilized

to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. Overall impacts to wildlife would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The expanded Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would also be allocated as the Ajo Trails SRMA.

The entire ACEC would be allocated as back country RMZ, with passage RMZ corridors

that would entail 100 feet on each side of the centerline of open motorized vehicle routes.

Decisions to develop campgrounds/sites as needed to reduce impacts; limit developed staging

areas to community interface, front country, and passage RMZs; and encourage the use of

existing sites for parking, staging, and camping areas would help reduce or avoid impacts to the

ACEC-resources due to dispersed recreational use. Additional restrictions on camping limits;

prescriptions for wood collection, campfires, and camp stoves; and managing recreational target

shooting, nonmotorized uses, equestrian and stock-animal use, and emerging forms of recreation

would also assist in reducing impacts from dispersed use. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to moderate.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts will be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative C the proposed Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC would encompass 63,300 acres of

public lands. This ACEC is being proposed to protect lesser long-nosed bat and cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl habitats, outstanding botanical diversity of the native plant communities, botanical

resources unique to the area such as the Acuña cactus, desert bighorn sheep other diverse wildlife

populations, and outstanding landscape and scenic features. The Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC does

contain an endangered plant species – the Acuna cacti –, foraging habitat for the endangered

lesser long-nosed bat and habitat for bighorn sheep and the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl has been petitioned as a candidate and habitat is available for this

species within the ACEC. The ACEC contains 100 percent public lands and it is recommended to

retain those lands within the ACEC as public ownership. Impacts from retaining the public lands

within the ACEC would be negligible. Overall impacts from the special designation would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 781

Motorized travel in the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC under Alternative C would be limited to

designated routes, with some existing routes being closed to motorized travel, including portions

of the route to Coffeepot Well and a less than 1-mile duplicative route the Gas Pipeline Road.

An additional less than 1-mile route segment extending northwest from Coffeepot Well would

be designated as limited. Designation of routes would reduce the potential impacts to resource

values from the illegal proliferation of roads and off-road use. Negligible to minor impacts to

wildlife would be expected.

New routes within the ACEC would be prohibited within washes, unless during route designations

conflicts with wildlife are mitigated and minimization criteria would be established. At the time

of route designations, mitigation, adaptive management, and BMPs would be utilized to avoid

harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. By utilizing these techniques, negligible to

minor impacts to wildlife would be expected.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Prohibiting the collection of trees, shrubs, and cacti and prohibiting wood harvesting would

protect the botanical resource values of the ACEC. Restoration and rehabilitation using both

active and passive methods based on site conditions, using native plants as the first priority,

and pursuing an integrated weed management approach to control invasive species would be

protective of the botanical resource values of the ACEC.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The majority of the expanded Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be assigned to VRM Class II.

The southernmost portion of the ACEC would be assigned to Class III This, along with the

management decision to manage the viewshed of the Batamote-Coffeepot Mountains to protect

scenic values of the viewsheds, would be a more protective designation than under Alternative

A. Associated restrictions on development/use would protect the scenic and natural landscape

values of the ACEC, as well as protect the other resource values of the ACEC. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative C, the protection of water flow and water use in localized areas would provide

protection of the watershed function in and near the expanded Coffeepot Botanical ACEC,

thereby protecting the botanical resource values of the ACEC. Impacts would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The majority of the Coffeepot ACEC would be allocated as lands manged to protect wilderness

characteristics. No impacts are expected.

4.19.5.2.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byways

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
782 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Recreation Management on National Byways

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Byways

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on National Byways

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on National Byways

Impacts are similar to those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.5.2.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

management of the NHT and its resources under a SCRMA allocation would institute an emphasis

of increased scientific research and a focused approach that would have a protective effect on trail

resources for the long term in a minor intensity and on a landscape level than Alternative A.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except

a slight reduction of the number of routes would occur. Fewer routes may have a beneficial

effect on NHT resources as there may be fewer places where impacts would occur. Impacts

would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Under this alternative, about 85 percent of the National Trail area is managed at a VRM Class II,

which would have a far more beneficial effect than Alternative A on the essential characteristics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 783

and attributes of historic landscapes and Anza NHT resources. Management of activities and

developments would be more restrictive in terms of visual intrusions and ground disturbing

activities on the historic landscape, leading to more protection of the NHT resources, at a minor

to moderate level of intensity throughout the Lower Sonoran. The remaining NHT area would

be managed at a Class III VRM level which would impact the integrity of Anza National Trail

resources and historic landscape settings by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and

associated ground disturbing activities associated with a variety of land uses at a level which

would deteriorate the integrity of trail segments and settings. Impacts under Alternative C would

present negligible to minor impacts.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be negligible, as no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be

allocated within or near the NHT boundaries.

4.19.5.2.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative C, future site development for public interpretive and educational purposes,

excavation for scientific study, or other similar activities would have no short long-term effects on

the naturalness of the Lower Sonoran’s three wilderness areas. Cultural and heritage management

activities would be guided by approved wilderness management plans. Implementation of

Alternative C measures for cultural and heritage resources would likely contribute to naturalness

to a greater degree in the three wilderness areas than would Alternatives A and B due to increased

emphasis on resource protection and less emphasis on development for public visitation.

The Gila River Terraces and Southern Historic Trail SCRMA would be allocated adjacent

to the southern boundary of Woolsey Peak Wilderness, increasing protection of cultural and

natural resources and providing opportunities for recreation and interpretation. Impacts would be

negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A, except no ephemeral grazing

would occur. This re-classification would enhance naturalness in the long term as ephemeral

forage would not be removed and would become available to wildlife. The sight, sound, smells

and other impacts from large ephemeral turnouts on the SDNM would not occur, enhancing

naturalness and maintaining opportunities for primitive recreation in a more natural appearing and

untrampled environment. Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would have both

amplified and proactive contributions to naturalness, solitude and primitive recreation values.

Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

Impacts from Lands & Realty Management would result in similar impacts to Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
784 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Overall, implementation of the ecological and biological resources measures under Alternative C

would provide a minor contribution to naturalness to a greater degree than would Alternatives

A and B by protecting core areas of wildlife habitat, emphasizing connectivity of wildlife

habitat, removing ineffective wildlife water developments, requiring use of native vegetation

in restoration efforts, and implementing measures to maintain populations of native wildlife,

especially sensitive species.

Under Alternative C, the Gila Bend WHA totaling 255,700 acres, which would be inclusive of the

Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain Wildernesses, would be allocated to protect native vegetation,

expansive, and unfragmented wildlife habitat and movement corridors. Facilities that would

concentrate recreation use, including motorized routes, nonmotorized trails, and trailheads, would

not be constructed while dispersed, undeveloped recreation opportunities would be emphasized.

Route systems that decrease wildlife habitat fragmentation, wildlife disturbance, and vegetation

damage would be designated. Land use authorizations, mining sites, developments, facilities, and

activities would be avoided or mitigated with particular attention to maintaining wildlife habitat

and movement corridors.

Such measures implemented on public lands adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain

Wildernesses would contribute to naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and

primitive, unconfined recreation. Such impacts would not be realized under Alternative A or B

as no WHAs would be allocated.

Under Alternative C, no new artificial wildlife waters would be constructed, and existing

wildlife waters that are ineffective in achieving targeted wildlife management objectives would

be removed. The removal of ineffective wildlife developments would enhance naturalness.

Conversely, impacts to naturalness would result if encroaching human activities restrict wildlife

movements to and from existing water sources and populations decline in response. Overall,

implementation of Alternative C poses greater contributions to the naturalness of wilderness areas

than does Alternative B, while there would be few discernible difference in impacts compared to

Alternative A. Overall impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Contributions to naturalness and opportunities for solitude due to the SRMA and back country

RMZ allocations within and adjacent to the Signal Mountain and Woolsey Peak Wildernesses

would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Impacts on the Sierra Estrella Wilderness

would be indistinguishable from Alternative A and B.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

No special designations proposed under Alternative C would impact wilderness areas.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts on wilderness areas are from Travel Management are similar to those described under

Alternatives B, except that Alternative C could restrict motorized use on up to 30 percent of

roads and primitive roads that would be otherwise open to motorized use under Alternative

A, and up to 6 percent more route closures and restrictions than proposed under Alternative

B. Thus, implementation of Alternative C could slightly contribute more to naturalness and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 785

opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation than would Alternative B. Like Alternative

B, Alternative C would also employ a designated comprehensive travel management network

and apply consideration of potential impacts from motorized use on adjacent wilderness areas

and associated indicators.

Motorized routes with a predilection to contribute to moderate levels of vehicle trespass or

resource-based impacts (plant theft, wood cutting, fires, campsite clearing, target shooting, OHV

staging, parking) on the periphery of wilderness areas might be closed or use limited. Adverse

uses would be mitigated through various management options available for corrective action.

Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative C, the range of vegetation management actions would result in long-term

contributions to naturalness, more so than under Alternatives A and B. Both active and passive

restoration of surface disturbances would be emphasized, use of native species in all restoration

projects would be required, and an integrated weed management program to control invasive

species would be put into place. The lack of ephemeral grazing would enhance forage for

wildlife. Impacts would be negligible.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative C, lands adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain Wildernesses

would be classified as VRM Class II, with the objective of retaining the existing character of

the landscape. Public lands adjacent to the Sierra Estrella Wilderness would also primarily be

classified as VRM Class II, although a portion of adjacent public lands would be classified as

VRM Class III. To the extent that landscape-altering activities would be visible from areas of

designated wilderness, long-term detractions from naturalness and opportunities for solitude

could occur. Overall, however, more protective visual resource prescription allocations under

Alternative C would contribute to naturalness of designated wilderness to a greater degree than

would Alternatives A and B, primarily in the vicinity of the Sierra Estrella Wilderness. Impacts

would be negligible.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Alternative C would allocate 128,100 acres of the Lower Sonoran to protect wilderness

characteristics; however, these areas would not be in close proximity to existing designated

wilderness areas, resulting in no impacts.

4.19.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.5.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No ACECs are allocated in this Alternative for the SDNM. The Monument’s proclamation

provides the necessary protection that an ACEC would provide.

4.19.5.3.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byways

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
786 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Only minor impacts are anticipated on the Arizona State Route 238 National Scenic byway from

the installation of additional underground utilities within the Santa Rosa - Gila Bend utility

corridor. The corridor is already impacted by roads, railroad tracks, powerlines and underground

cables. Additional installations would not be greatly noticeable except by the most perceptive

visitor. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Recreation Management on National Byways

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Special Designations on National Byways

There would no impacts on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, wilderness areas or the

Anza NHT from Arizona State Route 238 being designated as a National Scenic Byway under

Alternative C.

From Travel Management on National Byways

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Visual Resources on National Byways

Lands north of State Route 238 would be managed to a VRM Class II standard, thus ensuring

additional protection to scenic, natural and recreational benefits and outcomes. Impacts would be

negligible.

4.19.5.3.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except for a

slight reduction of the number of routes. The reduction of motorized routes may have a beneficial

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 787

effect on the Anza NHT resources and Monument objects as there may be fewer places where

impacts would occur. Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

The Anza NHT corridor is a Monument object running through both VRM Class III and Class II

areas. Management of this high potential segment of the Anza NHT corridor in VRM Class III

(approximately 52 percent of the trail area in the Monument) would impact NHT resources by

allowing visual intrusions on the landscape and associated ground disturbing activities at a level

which would quickly deteriorate its integrity. Management at this level would allow activities

and developments that are incompatible with a NHT, at a moderate to major level of intensity,

over the long term.

The areas of the Anza NHT within the center areas of the SDNM, roughly 41 percent of the

trail area in the Monument, would be managed at a VRM Class II, which would have a far

more beneficial effect on the essential characteristics and attributes of a NHT. Management of

activities and developments would be more restrictive in terms of visual intrusions and ground

disturbing activities on the historic landscape, leading to a more protection of the NHT resources

and associated Monument objects, at a minor to moderate level of intensity. This management

regime would be far more protective of the Anza NHT and its associated Monument objects

than under Alternative A.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be negligible, as no lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

allocated within or near the NHT boundaries.

4.19.5.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

In the SDNM, a cultural SCRMA would be located along the Anza NHT bordering the North

Maricopa Wilderness. Future site development for public interpretive and educational purposes,

excavation for scientific study, or other similar activities could have minor indirect impacts on

naturalness when or if such developments or excavations are observable from the adjoining

wilderness.

Implementation of Alternative C measures for cultural and heritage resources across the SDNM’s

three wilderness areas would likely contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than would

Alternatives A and B due to increased emphasis on resource protection and less emphasis on

development or management for public visitation. Impacts would be negligible.

Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

Additional underground utility installations within the 1⁄2 -mile wide corridors would not impact

the naturalness or solitude of the Monument’s wilderness areas. All potential utility installations

would be underground, therefore, impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
788 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A, except no ephemeral grazing

would occur. This re-classification would enhance naturalness in the long term as ephemeral

forage would not be removed and would become available to wildlife. The sight, sound, smells

and other impacts from large ephemeral turnouts on the SDNM would not occur, enhancing

naturalness and maintaining opportunities for primitive recreation in a more natural appearing

and untrammeled environment. Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would have

proactive contributions to naturalness, solitude and primitive recreation values. Impacts would be

negligible to minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran, except

that no WHAs would be designated within the SDNM. The Monument proclamation protects

many of the natural resources proposed for protection in the WHAs, thus the impacts are similar.

Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts are similar to Alternative B from management of the SDNM SRMA. Pedestrian and

equestrian recreational access to the SDNM from public, State and private lands would be more

restricted than under Alternative A and B, limited to established access points. Equestrian

users would be required to remain on designated routes within 0.5 mile of these designated

access points increasing the travel time and ease of access to the Monument’s wilderness areas.

Conversely, the proposed access actions would potentially reduce impacts to wilderness areas

adjacent to Federal, State and private lands. Impacts would be minor.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

There would be no impacts on wilderness areas from Arizona State Route 238 being designated as

a National Scenic Byway under Alternative C. Any potential impacts would be negligible.

Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Travel Management actions under Alternative C would have a moderate, but

indirect, contributions to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined

recreation of designated wilderness to a greater degree than would implementation of Alternatives

A and B. Overall, impacts would be localized. Alternative C would restrict motorized use on

about 211 miles of roads/primitive roads otherwise open to motorized use under Alternative A,

and about 75 miles that would be open under Alternative B. Where these route restrictions to

motorized travel correspond to the boundaries of designated wilderness, long-term retention or

augmentation the wilderness values of naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude

and primitive, unconfined recreation would result. Instances of motorized trespass and

recreation-related camping and staging impacts would be reduced.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Alternative C would offer major positive, but indirect, impacts on wilderness areas. All lands

adjacent to existing wilderness in the SDNM would be allocated as VRM Class I or Class II.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 789

Management to preserve or retain the existing character of these adjacent landscapes would, to

the greatest extent, offer supplemental protection for wilderness area’s scenic and natural values.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Areas adjacent to South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area (west of the Wilderness and north

of I-8) would be allocated as lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics. This would result

in restrictions to certain types of land use and development activities, which would indirectly

contribute to the resource values of the adjacent wilderness area. Opportunities for solitude

would be enhanced, areas open to hiking and hunting in a wild setting would be increased, and

natural conditions would be retained over a larger area of Sonoran Desert outwash landscapes.

Major indirect positive impacts are expected.

4.19.6. ALTERNATIVE D

Under Alternative D, special designations in the two Decision Areas would include six wilderness

areas and portions of the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT.

In the Lower Sonoran, an area of approximately 48,500 acres would be designated as the Saddle

Mountain ACEC (to include the Palo Verde Hills) to protect geology, native vegetation and

wildlife, including desert bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, and raptor species, cultural resources,

and outstanding landscape and scenic features. Instead of the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC, an

approximately 77,600-acre area would be designated as the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC to protect

habitat for lesser long-nosed bat and Acuña cactus, the outstanding biological diversity of the

native plant communities, desert bighorn sheep, and other diverse wildlife populations. An

approximately 58,500-acre area would be designated as the Cuerda de Lena ACEC to protect the

endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope as well as to protect habitat for other wildlife species

including cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl and to protect cultural resources.

An approximately 79,100-acre area would be designated as the Lower Gila Terraces and

Historic Trails ACEC to manage the Gila River and terraces, Butterfield Overland Stage Routel,

Mormon Battalion Trail, Painted Rock Petroglyph Site, and associated areas to protect cultural

resources. Management prescriptions for resource management and resource use would be

established for these ACECsas detailed in Table 2.20, “Proposed Route Designation Table by

Alternative” (p. 184).

The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT would be managed in concert with the Lower Gila River Terraces

and Historic Trails ACEC and the management emphasis will be on protecting cultural resources

while providing limited scientific research interpretive opportunities. Agua Caliente Road in

the Lower Sonoran and SR-238 and I-8 in the SDNM would be allocated as national scenic or

Back Country Byways under Alternative D.

4.19.6.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.6.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
790 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.19.6.1.2. National Byways

No unique impacts.

4.19.6.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for both Decision Areas.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

Activities proposed under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran from cultural and heritage

resources are limited in scope and nature, therefore, would have a negligible impact on NHTs.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Livestock grazing would be closed throughout the Decision Area, resulting in negligible affects on

the NHT, as there would be no surface disturbances from grazing within the NHT’s boundaries,

thus assisting the execution of NHT goals and objectives.

4.19.6.1.4. Wilderness Areas

No unique impacts.

4.19.6.2. Lower Sonoran

4.19.6.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative D an area of approximately 79,100 acres of public lands (14,300 more acres

than Alternative C and 68,700 more acres than Alternative A) would be designated as the

Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC to protect habitat and populations of the endangered Acuna Cactus.

All public lands within the ACEC would be retained. New routes would be prohibited within

washes unless conflicts with wildlife and cultural resources are mitigated during route designation

to minimize habitat fragmentation. Impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are

expected to range from negligible to minor.

The proposed Cuerda de Lena ACEC encompasses 58,500 acres of public lands. This ACEC

is proposed to protect habitat for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn as well as protect habitat

for other wildlife species, including the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. A vast majority of the

ACEC is public land with approximately 70 acres of private land and approximately 640 acres of

State land. It is recommended that lands not in public ownership be acquired to further protect

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 791

habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn as funding and opportunities arise. Overall impacts to wildlife

and threatened and endangered species from cultural, within the ACEC, would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

Under Alternative D the proposed Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would

encompass approximately 76,200 acres of public lands. The intent of the ACEC is to protect the

cultural resources, historic trail resources, and sensitive habitats in which they reside. Limitations

placed on surface disturbing activities within the boundaries and restoration in selected areas will

have a beneficial effect upon wildlife and cultural resources in the ACEC.

The BLM would propose to develop cultural resources for interpretation and environmental

education purposes for the Saddle Mountain ACEC. This would have negligible to minor impacts

on wildlife through avoidance for the short term depending on the location and frequency of use

within the ACEC and proximity to areas traditionally used by wildlife.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The El Paso Natural Gas (Ajo) utility corridor would be removed from this alternative and all

LUAs would be excluded, including utility-scale renewable energy development, which would

reduce habitat fragmentation within the ACEC. All public lands within the ACEC would be

retained. Negligible impacts would be expected.

Within the Cuerda de Lenda ACEC all LUAs would be prohibited, as the ACEC is allocated as a

LUA Exclusion Area, therefore, impacts would be negligible.

Within the Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC all LUAs (including utility-scale

renewable energy development) would be prohibited, as the ACEC is allocated as a LUA

Exclusion. All Federal lands would also be retained, thus assisting the management objectives

for allocating this ACEC. Impacts would be negligible to wildlife, cultural, and historic trail

resources.

Lands that are not currently under public ownership would be acquired and public lands would

be retained within the Saddle Mountain ACEC. This would have minor impacts on wildlife due

to the fact that there is very small amount of State and private lands within the ACEC. LUAs

would be avoided in the ACEC, utility-scale renewable energy development would be prohibited,

and the Palo Verde to Devers multiuse utility corridor would be removed. These actions would

present positive impacts on the management of this ACEC. However, impacts would remain at

minor, as the major linear LUAs can still be authorized in the El Paso Natural Gas corridor,

which is retained in this alternative.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Coffeepot ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing to protect the outstanding botanical

resources. Closing the ACEC to grazing would allow vegetation to reach desired plant

communities and reduce competition between wildlife and cattle for food, water and space

resources. Fencing and facilities (i.e. corrals, etc) related to the grazing operation would be

removed. By removing these facilities wildlife could move unencumbered with the ACEC;

however, if water sources are removed wildlife may vacate areas that have traditionally held

water for livestock in which wildlife have become dependent upon. This action could be

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
792 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

detrimental to wildlife in the local area of water removals. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to major.

The Cuerda de Lena ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing to protect the outstanding

botanical resources. Closing the ACEC to grazing would allow vegetation to reach desired

plant communities and reduce competition between wildlife and cattle for food, water and space

resources. Fencing and facilities (i.e. corrals, etc) related to the grazing operation would be

removed. By removing these facilities wildlife could move unencumbered with the ACEC;

however, if water sources are removed wildlife may vacate areas that have traditionally held

water for livestock in which wildlife have become dependent upon. This action could be

detrimental to wildlife in the local area of water removals. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to major.

The Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing to

protect the outstanding botanical resources. Closing the ACEC to grazing would allow vegetation

to reach desired plant communities and reduce competition between wildlife and cattle for food,

water and space resources. Fencing and facilities (i.e. corrals, etc) related to the grazing operation

would be removed. By removing these facilities wildlife could move unencumbered with the

ACEC; however, if water sources are removed wildlife may vacate areas that have traditionally

held water for livestock in which wildlife have become dependent upon. This action could be

detrimental to wildlife in the local area of water removals. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to major. These activities would have a protective effect on cultural resources

within this ACEC.

The Saddle Mountain ACEC would be closed to livestock grazing to protect the outstanding

botanical resources. Closing the ACEC to grazing would allow vegetation to reach desired

plant communities and reduce competition between wildlife and cattle for food, water and space

resources. Fencing and facilities (i.e. corrals, etc) related to the grazing operation would be

removed. By removing these facilities wildlife could move unencumbered with the ACEC;

however, if water sources are removed wildlife may vacate areas that have traditionally held

water for livestock in which wildlife have become dependent upon. This action could be

detrimental to wildlife in the local area of water removals. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to major.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The Coffeepot ACEC would be withdrawn to locatable mineral extraction; however, valid

existing rights would be allowed to continue. Withdrawing the ACEC to all forms of mineral

extraction could retain or improve habitat availability for wildlife. Impacts to wildlife and

threatened and endangered species are expected to range from negligible to minor.For leasable

minerals the ACEC would be closed to entry. Negligible impacts are expected to occur. Mineral

material disposals (Saleable materials) the ACEC would be an avoidance area. Negligible

impacts are expected to occur.

The Cuerda de Lena ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposals. By closing the area to

mineral material disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid

existing rights will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through

plans of operation where appropriate. The ACEC would also be proposed as withdrawn from

locatable minerals. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACECto allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 793

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

The Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would be withdrawn to locatable

mineral extraction; however, valid existing rights would be allowed to continue. Withdrawing

the ACEC to all forms of mineral extraction could retain or improve habitat availability for

wildlife. Similarly, this would have a protective effect on the cultural and historic trail resources

in the ACEC. Impacts are expected to range from negligible to minor. For leasable minerals the

ACEC would be closed to entry. Negligible impacts are expected to occur. Mineral material

disposals (Saleable materials) the ACEC would be an avoidance area. Negligible impacts are

expected to occur.

The Saddle Mountain ACEC would be closed to new mineral material sales and valid existing

rights would be recognized. Mineral material sales would be managed through plans of operations

and would contain appropriate mitigation as not to harm, harass, or cause mortality to wildlife

in the area. This would be a minor impact. New mining activities would be avoided in bighorn

sheep lambing areas, high quality mule deer habitats, and in Category I and II tortoise habitats.

By reducing the amount of disturbance from new mining activities minor impacts to wildlife are

expected to occur. Valid existing rights as related to mining would be respected, however; surface

disturbing activities from operation would be minimized through plans of operations, adaptive

management and BMPs. By utilizing to above mentioned techniques impacts would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

While the ecological and Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat decisions would improve habitat

and wildlife resources in the Coffeepot ACEC, the decision not to construct new wildlife waters

under Alternative C could inhibit the maintenance or enhancement of the ACEC's wildlife

resources, particularly the big game species cited in the importance and relevance statements.

Overall impacts would be expected to range from negligible to major.

It is proposed that the Cuerda de Lena ACEC be closed to public entry from March 15th through

June 15th in accordance to the Sonoran pronghorn recovery teams’ recommendations. By closing

the area to public entry during this time frame negligible impacts to the Sonoran pronghorn are

expected. This closure to entry to the public allows the pronghorn females to birth uninterrupted,

allows new born antelope the opportunity to wean without distractions and allows male pronghorn

the ability to seek females for procreation undisturbed. This closure would also assist the lesser

long-nosed bat in foraging without human disturbance from the general public and allow the

cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl to breed, hunt and brood uninterrupted. Overall impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Impacts from priority wildlife would be negligible on the Gila River Terraces ACEC and the

Saddle Mountain ACEC.

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The northern portion of the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC would be allocated as an ERMA (57,900

acres), while the southern portion of the ACEC would be allocated as the Ajo Trails SRMA

with back country RMZ in the southeast (30,100 acres), Frontcountry RMZ in the western

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
794 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

portion of the ACEC (6,700 acres), and a small portion of the ACEC in the community interface

RMZ (1,900 acres). The SRMA would be managed for remote self directed and unstructured

opportunities to discover the areas resources and scenic landscapes, thereby, protecting the natural

resource values of the ACEC as well. Management of recreation use in the ERMA generally

would not provide structured recreation opportunities except where needed to compliment other

management objectives. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Camping within the Cuerda de Lena ACEC would be limited to dispersed and undeveloped sites.

By limiting camping in this manner negligible to minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur.

Limiting other forms of recreation would be expected to have the same impact as camping.

Overall impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species within the ACEC would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Within the Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC recreation would be encouraged

and managed to levels appropriate to protect the ACEC’s cultural resources and habitat for

wildlife. SRMAs and RMZs would be established to enhance visitor settings and at the same

time protect the integrity of the ACEC’s resources and habitats there within. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Recreational routes would be prohibited in washes within the Saddle Mountain ACEC where

conflicts with wildlife would likely occur. Mitigation, adaptive management and BMPs would be

utilized to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife associated with recreational

routes. This would have minor impacts to wildlife in the area. Areas within the ACEC could

be closed or access limited to motorized vehicles where conflicts with wildlife could not be

mitigated adaptive management and BMPs would be utilized to avoid harassment and long term

displacement of wildlife. Minor impacts to wildlife are expected. Nonmotorized trails could be

constructed within the ACEC as long as mitigation adaptive management and BMPs are utilized

to avoid harassment and long term displacement of wildlife. There would be minor impacts to

wildlife from the construction on nonmotorized trails with mitigation. Recreational speed events,

such as endurance motocross racing would be prohibited within the ACEC. Speed events have the

potential harm, harass, or cause mortality to wildlife in the area. By prohibiting these types of

recreational activities negligible to minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts will be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran for the

Coffeepot and Cuerda de Lena ACEC.

Impacts are expected to negligible on the Gila River Terraces ACEC and the Saddle Mountain

ACEC.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative D, an area of approximately 79,100 acres of public lands would be designated

as the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC to protect habitat and populations of the endangered

Acuna Cactus. All public lands within the ACEC would be retained. New LUAs, including

utility-scale renewable energy development, would be excluded from the ACEC to reduce habitat

fragmentation within the ACEC. Utilities would be required to be installed underground within

the existing multi-use utility corridor to retain the unencumbered viewshed and reduce the amount

of further fragmentation exterior the existing utility corridors. LUAs would be excluded from

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 795

the remaining area to retain habitat connectivity and natural settings associated with the ACEC.

Overall impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are expected to range from

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

All public lands within the ACEC would be retained. New LUAs, including utility-scale

renewable energy development, would be excluded from the ACEC to reduce habitat

fragmentation within the ACEC. Utilities would be required to be installed underground within

the existing multi-use utility corridor to retain the unencumbered viewshed and reduce the amount

of further fragmentation exterior the existing utility corridors. LUAs would be excluded from

the remaining area to retain habitat connectivity and natural settings associated with the ACEC.

Overall impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are expected to range from

negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

The proposed Cuerda de Lena ACEC encompasses approximately 58,500 acres of public lands.

This ACEC is proposed to protect habitat for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn as well as protect

habitat for other wildlife species, including the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. A vast majority

of the ACEC is public land with approximately 70 acres of private land and approximately 640

acres of State land. It is recommended that lands not in public ownership be acquired to further

protect habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn as funding and opportunities arise. Overall impacts to

wildlife and threatened and endangered species within the ACEC would be expected to range

from negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A.

Under Alternative D, the proposed Lower Gila River Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would

encompass approximately 76,200 acres of public lands. The intent of the ACEC would be to

protect cultural and historic trails and increase habitat availability by limiting surface disturbing

activities within its boundaries. Route designation and the criteria used for minimization would

decrease impacts to wildlife and cultural resources by allowing IDTs to evaluate and reduce the

amount of roads, trails and routes that would be in conflict with wildlife management goals

and objectives. Overall impacts to wildlife and cultural and historic trail resources would be

expected to be negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative

A to this area.

The development of interpretive sites along the Anza Trail may have a minor to moderate impact to

the ACEC and its wildlife and cultural resources due to the expected increase in human visitation.

Under Alternative D, the proposed Saddle Mountain ACEC would encompass approximately

48,500 acres. The intent of the ACEC would be to increase habitat availability by limiting surface

disturbing activities within its boundaries with a focus on bighorn sheep habitat conservation.

Route designation and the criteria used for minimization would decrease impacts to wildlife by

allowing IDTs to evaluate and reduce the amount of roads, trails and routes that would be in

conflict with wildlife management goals and objectives. Overall impacts to wildlife would be

expected to be negligible to minor which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative

A to this area.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

A portion of the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC would be designated closed to motorized use and

motorized use within the remaining portion of the ACEC would be limited to designated routes.

As compared to Alternative C, substantially more routes within the ACEC would be designated as

closed to motorized use under Alternative D, providing more protection to the ACEC resource

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
796 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

values. Certain routes would be designated as closed to motorized use. These include the

segments of routes within the braided wash northwest and southeast of Coffeepot Well as well

as duplicative and spur routes within the former ACEC area. Within the expanded ACEC area,

most of the route closures would be duplicative and spur routes located in the western portion

of the ACEC between Ajo and the Batamote Mountains. Routes that would be designated as

closed include routes that are in Ten Mile and Sikort Chuapo, and Darby Arroyo washes or their

tributaries. The route network located east of the Batamote Mountains that is interconnected

with the BGR East road network would also be designated as closed. A better-established route

from the Gas Pipeline Road to the southeastern foothills of Batamote Mountains would remain

designated as open. Certain routes within the ACEC would be designated as administrative use

only. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

It is proposed that the Cuerda de Lena ACEC be closed to public entry from March 15th through

June 15th in accordance to the Sonoran pronghorn recovery team recommendations. This closure

to entry to the public allows the pronghorn females to birth uninterrupted, allows new born

antelope the opportunity to wean without distractions and allows male pronghorn the ability

to seek females for procreation undisturbed. By closing the area to public entry during this

timeframe, negligible impacts to the Sonoran pronghorn are expected. This closure would also

assist the lesser long-nosed bat in foraging without human disturbance from the general public

and allow the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl to breed, hunt and brood uninterrupted. Overall

impacts would be expected to be negligible to minor.

Impacts are expected to be negligible on the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC

and the Saddle Mountain ACEC. The reduction of the number of routes under this alternative

would have a protective effect on the cultural and historic trail resources. This is expected to be

minor to moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the

Coffeepot-BatamoteCoffeepot-Batamote ACEC.

Prohibiting the collection of trees, shrubs, and cacti and prohibiting wood harvesting would

protect the botanical resource values of the Cuerda de Lena ACEC. Restoration and rehabilitation

using both active and passive methods based on site conditions, using native plants as the first

priority, and pursuing an integrated weed management approach to control invasive species would

be protective of the botanical resource values of the ACEC.

Prohibiting the collection of trees, shrubs, and cacti and prohibiting wood harvesting would

protect the botanical resource values of the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails Saddle

Mountain ACECs. Restoration and rehabilitation using both active and passive methods based

on site conditions, using native plants as the first priority, and pursuing an integrated weed

management approach to control invasive species would be protective of the botanical and

cultural resource values of the ACEC. Impacts would be negligible.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under this alternative the Coffeepot-BatamoteCoffeepot-Batamote ACEC would be expanded

south past HWY 85 to encompass approximately 77,600 acres. The majority of the Coffeepot

Botanical ACEC would be assigned to VRM Class II. The highway and the southernmost portion

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 797

would be assigned as Class III. This, along with the management decision to manage the viewshed

of the Batamote-Coffeepot Mountains to protect scenic values of the viewsheds, would be a more

protective designation than under Alternative A. Associated restrictions on development/use

would protect the scenic and natural landscape values of the ACEC, as well as protect the other

resource values of the ACEC. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

The Cuerda de Lena ACEC encompasses approximately 59,300 acres. The majority of the ACEC

would be assigned as Class II VRM. The area along HWY 85 would be assigned as Class III.

The proposed ACEC was designed to protect habitat for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn.

VRM restrictions would enhance habitat for the pronghorn by reducing visual obstructions in

areas utilized by the pronghorn within Class II VRM areas. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC in its entirety encompasses approximately 144,500

acres. Under this Alternative Class II and III classifications would be assigned. A majority of

the ACEC contains VRM Class II and some Class III to a lesser degree. The proposed VRM

classifications would assist in protecting habitat along the Fred J. Weiler Green belt to assist in the

management of migratory birds as well as terrestrial and aquatic species. Impacts are expected

to range from negligible to minor. These class II designations would indirectly affect cultural

and historic resources by eliminating the scope and visual impact of development in the ACEC.

Expected impacts to cultural resources are minor to moderate.

The Saddle Mountain ACEC encompasses approximately 48,500 acres. The majority of the

ACEC is proposed as Class II and Class III along two pipelines within the ACEC. The Class

II assignment would reduce the amount of visual obstructions within the ACEC and could

benefit wildlife by reducing areas of avoidance created by visual obstructions. Impacts would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

Impacts are expected to be negligible for the Cuerda de Lena ACEC, Lower Gila Terraces and

Historic Trails ACEC and Saddle Mountain ACEC.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

The majority of the Coffeepot-Batamote-Sauceda ONA ACEC would be allocated as lands

manged to protect wilderness characteristics. These lands would be closed to mineral entry and

location under Alternative D, protecting them from surface disturbing activities. Impacts are

expected to range from negligible to minor.

The majority of the Cuerda de Lena ACEC would be allocated as lands manged to protect

wilderness characteristics. These lands would be closed to mineral entry and location under

Alternative D, protecting them from surface disturbing activities. Impacts are expected to range

from negligible to minor.

A small portion of the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would be allocated as lands

manged to protect wilderness characteristics. These lands would be closed to mineral entry and

location under Alternative D, protecting them from surface disturbing activities. Impacts are

expected to range from negligible to minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
798 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The majority of the Saddle Mountain ACEC would be allocated as lands manged to protect

wilderness characteristics. These lands would be closed to mineral entry and location under

Alternative D, protecting them from surface disturbing activities. Impacts are expected to range

from negligible to minor.

4.19.6.2.2. National Byways

No national byways have been allocated under this alternative in the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.6.2.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Under this alternative, an ACEC allocation would include all of the non- SDNM areas and would

carry with it certain restrictions. These restrictions of no saleables and No Surface Occupancy

under the leasable program would have a far more protective effect than under Alternative A,

at a minor to major level both directly and indirectly due to the reduction or elimination of

surface disturbing activities associated with mineral exploration, development, and extraction for

the long term.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except for additional restrictions outside of the Fred J.

Weiler Greenbelt, but under the allocation of the Gila Bend Mountains Wildlife Habitat Area.

These restrictions in the WHA of avoidance for saleable minerals and a No Surface Occupancy

restriction for leasables would have a protective effect on the National Historic Trail resources

at a minor to moderate level for the long term by either reducing or eliminating the ground

disturbance from minerals prospecting, extraction, and associated vehicle damage.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

The existing Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail designation with its Comprehensive

Management Plan (NPS) in the implementation phase may affect directly the Trail segments and

sites associated with it for the long term due to its status as a nationally important resource.

Management of the National Historic Trail and its resources under an ACEC would have a farther

reaching protective direct and indirect effect on Trail resources at a minor to major level of

intensity over the long term throughout the area than under Alternative A due to a very limited

approach to the development of interpretive facilities and no surface disturbing installations of

them.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 799

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, except for a much larger

reduction in the number of routes. Fewer routes may have a beneficial effect on National Historic

Trail resources as there may be fewer places where impacts would occur.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.6.2.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Implementation of Alternative D measures for cultural and heritage resources would likely

contribute to naturalness to a greater degree than would Alternatives A, B, and C due to increased

emphasis on resource protection and less emphasis on development for public visitation. Under

Alternative D for cultural resource management, site allocation and management for resource

protection would be emphasized. Sites currently available for public interpretation would be

maintained, but additional sites would not be allocated to public use. No SCRMAs would be

allocated in the Lower Sonoran. Impacts are still anticipated to be negligible.

From Lands & Realty Actions on Wilderness Areas

The entire Monument would be allocated as a LUA Exclusion area and no multiuse utility

corridors would be allocated. The absence of multiuse utility corridors and new installations

along the western boundary of the Sierra Estrella Wilderness would indirectly increase

naturalness and opportunities for solitude within the north 1⁄2 of the Sierra Estrella Wilderness to a

moderate degree over the long term. No additional powerlines, pipelines and associated support

infrastructure would be constructed within sight of this wilderness; thus current conditions would

be maintained. Impacts would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative D, all livestock grazing allotments would be closed to grazing when current

permits expire. This action would result in moderate and long-term enhancements to naturalness

as all forage allocated to livestock would become available to native wildlife. Moreover,

vegetation trampling, barren sites surrounding waters, along fence lines and in staging areas,

trailing, and vegetative breakage/damage would also be eliminated, along with the sight of

abundant livestock waste. Such actions would result in increased contributions to naturalness and

solitude when compared to Alternatives A, B, and C. Range developments for livestock would be

removed, posing long-term detractions from naturalness as water sources used by native wildlife

would no longer be available. Opportunities to view wildlife could undergo major impairment

or loss. On-the other-hand, removal of artificial waters developed by humans would, over the

long-term, enhance the naturalness of the wilderness areas.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
800 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In the Lower Sonoran, the Gila Bend WHA (255,700-acres), which would be inclusive of the

Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain Wildernesses, would be allocated to protect native vegetation

and expansive, unfragmented wildlife habitat and movement corridors. The management

decisions and impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative C, with the impacts

potentially reaching the moderate level.

Under Alternative D, no new artificial wildlife waters would be constructed and existing wildlife

waters would be removed. This would have two impacts. First, wilderness Areas may appear

more natural overtime due to the removal of human installed wildlife infrastructure. Second, and

on-the-other-hand, removal of waters may cause substantial population declines to bighorn sheep

and other native wildlife populations in wilderness areas. These populations are reliant to such

water sources. There removal would result in impacts to naturalness and a loss of outstanding

wildlife viewing opportunities. Such actions under Alternative D would pose substantially greater

minor to moderate detractions to naturalness from the removal of all wildlife water catchments

compared to Alternatives A and C. In contrast to Alternative B, under which the density of

wildlife water catchments would be increased, no net increase or decrease to naturalness would be

discernable between the alternatives as both could lead to unnatural wildlife population levels.

Overall impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A and B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be similar to those described under the analysis for Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Moderate impacts on vegetative resources are anticipated under Alternative D. The curtailment of

grazing would allow natural ecological processes to occur and be emphasized within the Signal

Mountain and Woolsey Peak Wilderness Areas. Both ephemeral and annual grazing forage would

be maintained for use only by wildlife. Passive restoration of surface disturbances would be

emphasized under Alternative D, except where active restoration is required to stabilize sites.

Use of native species in all active restoration projects would be required, and an integrated weed

management program to control invasive species would be put into place. Moderate long-term

contributions to naturalness would result from the use of native species and control of invasive

species as limiting the spread of non-native vegetation would reduce the size and intensity of

wildfires, which in turn destroy native vegetation. Impacts in terms of contributions to naturalness

due to these vegetation management actions would be similar to those under Alternative C,

and greater than under Alternatives A and B.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 801

Wilderness areas would be slightly more protected from offsite visual impacts under Alternative

D than in preceding alternatives. Public lands adjacent to the Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain

Wildernesses would be classified as VRM Class II. This classification would offer the wilderness

areas more protection from indirect visual impacts. Public lands adjacent to the Sierra Estrella

Wilderness will also primarily be classified as VRM Class II, although a portion of adjacent

public lands along a major utility corridor will remain managed as VRM Class III. Public lands

managed to Class III present a negligible to minor potential for off-site visual effects on the

Sierra Estrella Wilderness.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Allocated lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics in the Lower Sonoran would be next

to the northwestern boundaries of the Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain wildernesses, and near

the southeastern boundary of the Woolsey Peak Wilderness. Minor protective contributions and

enhancements to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation

would occur in those portions of wilderness areas adjacent to or near allocated lands manged to

protect wilderness characteristics. Visitors would be afforded a much larger landscape where

naturalness could be appreciated and additional opportunities for outstanding solitude and

primitive, unconfined recreation realized. Impacts would be negligible.

4.19.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.6.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No ACECs are allocated in this Alternative for the SDNM. The Monument’s proclamation

provides the necessary protection that an ACEC would provide.

4.19.6.3.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byways

Impacts from Lands & Realty Management actions on the designation of Arizona State Route

238 and I-8 as National Scenic Byways would be negligible as the utility corridor is not brought

forward for consideration in Alternative D. Conditions will remain as they are currently with no

additional impacts. This action would have minor to moderate effects on the retention of scenic,

natural, vistas and recreational opportunities along these byways.

From Recreation Management on National Byways

Impacts on special designations from the designation of I-8 as a National Scenic Byway would

be minor by affording some landscape and scenery management emphasis along the 10 miles

of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness boundary next to the highway. Currently, except

for the highway itself, the surrounding Sonoran Desert landscapes are exceedingly natural

with wilderness to the north and uninterrupted vistas to the south. The impacts from Special

Designations on the designation of Arizona State Route 238 as a National Scenic Byway would

be negligible, as described under Alternative C.

From Special Designations on National Byways

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
802 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts on special designations from the designation of I-8 as a National Scenic Byway would

be minor by affording some landscape and scenery management emphasis along the 10 miles

of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness boundary next to the highway. Currently, except

for the highway itself, the surrounding Sonoran Desert landscapes are exceedingly natural

with wilderness to the north and uninterrupted vistas to the south. The impacts from Special

Designations on the designation of Arizona State Route 238 as a National Scenic Byway would

be negligible, as described under Alternative C.

From Travel Management on National Byways

Impacts are anticipated to be negligible.

From Visual Resources on National Byways

Impacts from VRM management actions on the designation of Arizona State Route 238 and I-8 as

National Scenic Byways would be moderate as the surrounding lands would be managed under

Class I visual prescriptions. The current conditions of naturalness, scenery, vistas, would be

maintained on both sides of the South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness.

4.19.6.3.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument, except that

there would be some additional restrictions on the use of heavy equipment which may minimize

the level of direct effect on the Anza NHT and associated resources during construction or

maintenance. Impacts would be minor.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran, except,

no ACECs exists within the Monument that would provide the protection to NHT resources,

therefore, similar management prescriptions for the NHT exist to provide similar protective direct

and indirect effects on trail resources at a minor to major level of intensity over the long term.

From Travel on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument, except

for a much larger reduction in the number of routes. Fewer routes may have a beneficial effect

on the Anza NHT resources and Monument objects as there may be fewer places where impacts

would occur. Impacts would range from minor to moderate.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 803

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Under this alternative, allocation of the Anza NHT corridor and the associated Monument

objects would lie in a narrow VRM Class II (approximately 67 percent of the trail area in the

Monument) Management zone, surrounded on both sides by a management zone of VRM Class I

(approximately 33 percent of the trail area in the Monument). Management of the narrow NHT

corridor under a VRM Class II in the immediate, “foreground” landscape and VRM Class I in

the remainder of the surrounding “middleground” to “background” landscape would have a far

more beneficial effect than under Alternative A on the essential characteristics and attributes of a

NHT. Management of activities and developments would be more restrictive in terms of visual

intrusions and ground disturbing activities on the historic landscape, leading to a more protection

of the NHT resources and associated Monument objects, at a minor to moderate level of intensity.

This alternative would offer the highest level of protection from incompatible developments and

visual intrusion upon this historic landscape. Intensity of these effects would be felt at a minor

level within the SDNM over the long term.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Under this alternative, portions of allocated lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics

lie within the central boundaries of the NHT within the Monument. Prescriptions for avoiding

the placement of new s, restoration of disturbed areas, and minimizing the intrusions of new and

existing developments within allocated lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would

offer an increased level of protection over Alternative A for a high potential segment of the Anza

NHT, as a Monument object, and its associated resources. Impacts would be minor.

4.19.6.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Lands & Realty on Wilderness Areas

No utility corridors would be designated in the SDNM and new utility installations would not

be constructed along State Route 238 or I-8. Visual and scenic conditions would remain as they

currently are. Potential visual impacts described under Alternatives B and C would not occur.

Overall, this action would offer a slight visually protective influence on the South Maricopa

Mountains Wilderness in the north and a moderate visual protective effect on the wilderness

area’s south side.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran, except

that no WHAs would be designated within the SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
804 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative D, recreation management and establishment of an SRMA would contribute to

naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation to a greater degree

than any other alternative, because the largest part of lands adjacent to the wilderness areas

would be managed for nonmotorized recreational opportunities consistent with wilderness. One

SRMA would be designated and 96 percent of it would be allocated to back country RMZ.

Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

There are no impacts on wilderness areas from Arizona State Route 238 being designated as a

National Scenic Byway under Alternative C. I-8 being designated as a National Scenic Byway

would have moderate impacts on naturalness and solitude within the South Maricopa Mountains

Wilderness. A protective management emphasis would be placed for preservation of scenic,

cultural, historic and recreation values along this highway contributing to a unique travel

experience through the Monument’s Sonoran Desert landscapes, and maintain scenic and natural

views, both within and outside the wilderness.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Under Alternative D, 11 motorized routes providing access to the wilderness areas, six motorized

routes representing 17 miles of wilderness boundary, and two cherrystem roads representing

10-miles of wilderness boundary would be designated as closed to motorized vehicle use. This

action would contribute to a moderate degree to naturalness and solitude in adjacent wilderness

areas than would Alternatives A, B and C. Motorized trespass and indirect recreation and resource

impacts would no longer occur along roads unavailable for public use.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts are the same as described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on Wilderness Areas

Compared to preceding alternatives, all lands adjacent to existing wilderness areas would be

managed as VRM Class I. This classification would better preserve the existing natural character

of landscapes next to wilderness, contributing an additional minor level of protection from off-site

and indirect visual impacts on the wilderness. This effect, in turn, would protect the scenic

and naturalness values of the wilderness areas.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Three of the areas allocated as lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics in the SDNM

would adjacent or near to the North and South Maricopa Wildernesses. Minor protective

contributions and enhancements to naturalness and opportunities for solitude and primitive,

unconfined recreation would occur in those portions of wilderness areas adjacent to or near

allocated lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics. Visitors would be afforded a

much larger landscape where naturalness could be appreciated and additional opportunities

for outstanding solitude and primitive, unconfined recreation realized. Indirectly, solitude

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 805

and primitive recreation opportunities could be moderately enhanced as visitors seeking

a wilderness-type experience would have more landscapes offering and protecting such

opportunities than presented under Alternatives A, B, C and E.

4.19.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Under Alternative E, special designations in the two Decision Areas would be the same as those

described under Alternative D, except the acres would decrease or stay the same among the four

ACECs. Management prescription within theseACECs would also be less restrictive than those for

Alternative D. Agua Caliente Road would also be added as a scenic byway in the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.7.1. Both Decision Areas

4.19.7.1.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No unique impacts.

4.19.7.1.2. National Byways

No unique impacts.

4.19.7.1.3. National Historic Trails

From Air Quality Resources on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for both Decision Areas.

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for both Decision Areas.

From Lands & Realty on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Livestock Grazing on National Historic Trails

Impacts could be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

4.19.7.1.4. Wilderness Areas

No unique impacts.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
806 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.19.7.2. Lower Sonoran

4.19.7.2.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative E impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species would be similar

to Alternative D except: The reduction in acres under Alternative E is based on elevation

requirements and soil characteristics needed by the Acuna cactus. Under Alternative E an area

of approximately 61,300 acres of public lands would be designated as the Coffeepot-Batamote

ACEC. Livestock facilities could be developed to improve livestock distribution and natural

resource conditions and when the facilities are not in conflict with wildlife or cultural resources.

Impacts to wildlife are expected to be greater than D; however impacts would range from

negligible to minor with proper management.

Alternative E is similar to Alternative D except: under Alternative E: The Cuerda de Lena

ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposals. By closing the area to mineral material

disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid existing rights

will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of operation

where appropriate. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACEC to allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

Under Alternative E impacts would be similar to D except: Alternative E mineral material

disposals would not be allowed within 500 feet of cliff faces to protect raptor nesting areas as

well as cultural and heritage sites in the Lower Gila Terraces ACEC and Historic Trails ACEC.

Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as Alternative D.

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Saddle Mountain

ACEC.

From Lands & Realty on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

As under Alternative C and D, the El Paso Natural Gas utility corridor would be removed,

providing for protection of resource values (particularly visual) of the ACEC from development

of this corridor. In addition, the Coffeepot ACEC would become an avoidance area for all LUAs,

including utility-scale renewable energy development sites. Lands would also be retained.

Negligible impacts would be expected.

Under Alternative E, the Cuerda de Lena ACEC would become a LUA avoidance area and would

be prohibited from utility-scale renewable energy development. Lands would also be retained in

the ACEC. Therefore, impacts would be negligible.

El Paso Natural Gas utility corridor would be a removed and impacts would be similar to those

discussed in Alternative D. The Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC contains lands

manged to protect wilderness characteristics under this alternative, which would be managed as

avoidance areas for all LUAs. The ACEC would also prohibit utility-scale renewable energy

development. All Federal lands within the ACEC would also be retained. These actions would

present positive impacts on the management of this ACEC.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 807

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Saddle Mountain

ACEC, except conditions might slightly lessen as the Palo Verde to Devers and El Paso Natural

Gas multiuse utility corridors are still present under this alternative. Impacts would range from

minor to moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Livestock facilities could be developed to improve livestock distribution and natural resource

conditions and when the facilities are not in conflict with wildlife or cultural resources. Allowing

grazing within the ACEC could improve habitat characteristics for wildlife species within the

ACEC. Livestock developments would be mitigated to allow passage, such as fences, and use,

such as water sources, by wildlife. Impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species are

expected to range from negligible to minor.

Livestock facilities could be developed to improve livestock distribution and natural resource

conditions and when the facilities are not in conflict with wildlife or cultural resources. Allowing

grazing within the Cuerda de Lena ACEC could improve habitat characteristics for wildlife

species within the ACEC. Livestock developments would be mitigated to allow passage, such

as fences, and use, such as water sources, by wildlife. Impacts to wildlife and threatened and

endangered species are expected to range from negligible to minor.

Livestock facilities could be developed to improve livestock distribution and natural resource

conditions and when the facilities are not in conflict with wildlife or cultural resources. Allowing

grazing within the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC could improve habitat

characteristics for wildlife species within the ACEC. Livestock developments would be mitigated

to allow passage, such as fences, and use, such as water sources, by wildlife. Impacts to wildlife

and threatened and endangered species are expected to range from negligible to minor. Areas

where livestock gather in number may impact cultural and historic trail resources to a minor to

moderate level.

Livestock grazing would be managed to ensure the resource values of the Saddle Mountain

ACEC are maintained and protected. Managing livestock grazing in this manner would allow the

persistence of habitat for wildlife species within the ACEC and reduce competition for resources

needed by wildlife for life cycle requirements. Overall impacts from Alternative E would be

expected to range from negligible to minor.

From Minerals Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Washes in the ACEC would be closed to disposal of mineral materials. Closing washes to the

disposal of material minerals would retain wash characteristics for wildlife species in the ACEC

and reduce the amount of fragmentation and retain natural settings within the xeroriparian

systems. Management of mineral uses would be through plans of operation. Valid existing rights

would be respected; however, potential surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of

operations where appropriate. Impacts to wildlife are expected to be greater than D; however

impacts would range from negligible to minor with proper management.

Alternative E is similar to Alternative D except: under Alternative E: The Cuerda de Lena ACEC

would be closed to mineral material disposals, closed to leasable Minerals, and open to locatable

minerals with appropriate stipulations and NTLs. . By closing the area to mineral material

disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid existing rights

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
808 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of operation

where appropriate. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACEC to allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

Portions of the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing.

This would have a protective effect on the cultural and historic trails of the ACEC. Impacts to

would are expected to range from negligible to minor.

Saddle Mountain ACEC would be closed to mineral leasing. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern

Although seasonal closures to avoid potential effects to cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl would

be implemented under Alternative E in a slightly different manner than under Alternative C,

both would be equally protective of the owl. Unlike Alternative C but similar to Alternative D,

there would be no additional protection potential afforded though a natural resource allocation

overlapping the Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC.

Alternative E is similar to Alternative D except: under Alternative E: The Cuerda de Lena

ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposals. By closing the area to mineral material

disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid existing rights

will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of operation

where appropriate. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACEC to allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

Impacts from priority wildlife would be negligible on the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic

Trails ACEC and the Saddle Mountain ACEC.

From Recreation Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Recreation management decisions would provide protection of resource values of the

Coffeepot-Batamote-Sauceda ONA ACEC in much the same way as described under Alternative

D, with some elements of Alternative C. The proposed ACEC, however, would be within the Ajo

Trails SRMA. With the exception of motorized routes that would be within the passage RMZ,

nearly the entire ACEC would be within the back country RMZ (62,500 acres, with only 500

acres in Frontcountry RMZ). Impacts from requiring equestrian and stock animal users with SRPs

to use certified weed-free feed and encouraging others to provide weed-free feed for their animals

would be the same as under Alternative C, which would slightly less protective of resource

values in the ACEC than under Alternative D. Impacts from allowing paintball activities in

certain areas that would likely be outside of ACECs would be the same as under Alternative C.

Geocache sites would be prohibited in cultural resource sites of the ACECs, protecting cultural

resource values of the ACEC. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor. All

camping (vehicle-based and primitive) would be limited to designated sites within the ACEC

from February 1 to September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 809

dispersal season. Designating camping areas within the ACEC would allow the general public to

utilize the ACEC while providing protections to the owl during life cycle requirements.

Impacts are the same as those describe under Alternative D for the Cuerda de Lena, Lower Gila

Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC, and Saddle Mountain ACECs.

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Soil Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts will be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Coffeepot and Cuerda

de Lena ACECs.

Impacts are expected to negligible for the Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC and

Saddle Mountain ACEC.

From Special Designations on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative E, impacts to wildlife and threatened and endangered species would be similar

to Alternative D. However, the reduction in acres under Alternative E is based on elevation

requirements and soil characteristics needed by the Acuna cactus. Under Alternative E an area

of approximately 61,300 acres of public lands would be designated as the Coffeepot-Batamote

ACEC.

Impacts to wildlife are expected to be greater than D; however impacts would range from

negligible to minor with proper management which would be an improvement as compared to

Alternative A and B.

Alternative E is similar to Alternative D. However, under Alternative E, the Cuerda de Lena

ACEC would be closed to mineral material disposals. By closing the area to mineral material

disposals habitat would remain connected and available for wildlife use. Valid existing rights

will be respected; however surface disturbance would be minimized through plans of operation

where appropriate. Using plans of operations on existing rights foot prints of operations could

be decreased in the ACEC to allow for habitat availability for all wildlife species. Impacts from

Alternative E would be greater than D; however, overall impacts from the special designation

would be expected to range from negligible to minor which would be an improvement as

compared to Alternative A.

The development of interpretive sites along the Anza NHT may have a minor to moderate impact

to the ACEC and its wildlife and cultural resources due to the expected increase in human

visitation.

Impact would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Gila Terraces

and Historic Trails ACEC in the Lower Sonoran, except, under Alternative E, mineral material

disposals would not be allowed within 500 feet of cliff faces to protect raptor nesting areas

and important cultural sites. Impacts from Alternative E would be the same as Alternative D

which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A. Overall impacts from the special

designation would be expected to range from negligible to minor which would be an improvement

as compared to Alternative A for this area.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
810 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impact would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Saddle Mountain ACEC

in the Lower Sonoran, except, livestock grazing would be managed to ensure the resource values

of the ACEC are maintained and protected. Managing livestock grazing in this manner would

allow the persistence of habitat for wildlife species within the ACEC and reduce competition

for resources needed by wildlife for life cycle requirements. Overall impacts from Alternative E

overall impacts from the special designation would be expected to range from negligible to minor

which would be an improvement as compared to Alternative A for this area.

From Travel Management on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under Alternative E, portions of routes within the proposed Coffeepot-Batamote ACEC, would be

designated as closed and additional routes within the ACEC would be designated as administrative

use only. The reduction of motorized routes open to motorized use would reduce the amount

of noise, dust, vandalism, and vegetative and soil damage in the ACEC. Management of

nonmotorized, mechanized travel and hiking and equestrian travel would be protective of resource

values in the same manner as described under Alternative C. Motorized vehicle use would be

restricted in washes that contain occupied or suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owls habitat from

February 1 to September 15 to protect pygmy-owls during the breeding, nesting, and dispersal

season. All other areas would be limited to existing or designated routes. With restrictions in large

washes and limiting motorized use to existing or designated routes that contain the owl or habitat

characteristics for the owl, the public is still afforded recreational opportunities while protecting

the owl and its life cycle requirements. Overall impacts would be negligible to minor.

Impacts are the same as those describe under Alternative D for the Cuerda de Lena, Gila River

Terraces, and Saddle Mountain ACECs.

From Vegetation Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Prohibiting the collection of trees, shrubs, and cacti and prohibiting wood harvesting would

protect the botanical resource values of the ACEC. Restoration and rehabilitation using both

active and passive methods based on site conditions, using native plants as the first priority,

and pursuing an integrated weed management approach to control invasive species would be

protective of the botanical resource values of the ACEC.

Prohibiting the collection of trees, shrubs, and cacti and prohibiting wood harvesting would

protect the botanical resource values of the Cuerda de Lena ACEC. Restoration and rehabilitation

using both active and passive methods based on site conditions, using native plants as the first

priority, and pursuing an integrated weed management approach to control invasive species would

be protective of the botanical resource values of the ACEC.

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Gila Terraces

and Historic Trails ACEC and Saddle Mountain ACEC.

From Visual Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Under this alternative the Coffeepot-BatamoteCoffeepot-Batamote ACEC would encompass

approximately 61,300 acres. The majority of the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC would be assigned to

VRM Class II. The El Paso Natural Gas ROW/Gas Pipeline Road would be Class III. This, along

with the management decision to manage the viewshed of the Batamote-Coffeepot Mountains

to protect scenic values of the viewsheds, would be a more protective designation than under

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 811

Alternative A. Associated restrictions on development/use would protect the scenic and natural

landscape values of the ACEC, as well as protect the other resource values of the ACEC. Impacts

would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

The Cuerda de Lena ACEC encompasses approximately 59,300 acres. The entire ACEC would

be assigned as Class III VRM. The proposed ACEC was designed to protect habitat for the

endangered Sonoran pronghorn. VRM restrictions could enhance habitat for the pronghorn by

reducing visual obstructions in areas utilized by the pronghorn within Class III VRM areas.

VRM Class III restrictions are not as stringent as Class III allowing potential visual obstructions

that may cause avoidance areas by the pronghorn. Impacts would be expected to range from

negligible to moderate.

The Lower Gila Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC in its entirety encompasses approximately

144,500 acres. Under this Alternative, Class II and III classifications would be assigned. A

majority of the ACEC contains VRM Class III and some Class II to a lesser degree. The proposed

VRM classifications would assist in protecting habitat along the Fred J. Weiler Green belt to assist

in the management of migratory birds as well as terrestrial and aquatic species. Impacts are

expected to range from negligible to moderate.

The allocation of VRM Class III would indirectly impact the integrity of historic trails, cultural

resources, and historic landscape settings by allowing visual intrusions on the landscape. This

would deteriorate the integrity of these heritage resources at a minor to moderate level of intensity.

The Saddle Mountain ACEC encompasses approximately 48,500 acres. The majority of the

ACEC is proposed as Class IV and III. And a small portion in the northwest as Class II. The

Class II assignment would reduce the amount of visual obstructions within the ACEC and could

benefit wildlife by reducing areas of avoidance created by visual obstructions. The Class III and

VI classifications would allow for more obstruction within the ACEC and could potentially

create large avoidance areas for some wildlife species. Impacts would be expected to range

from negligible to moderate.

From Water Resources on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Coffeepot ACEC.

Impacts are expected to be negligible for the Cuerda de Lena, Lower Gila Terraces and Historic

Trails, and Saddle Mountain ACECs.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Portions of the Coffeepot-Batamote-Sauceda ONA ACEC would be allocated as lands manged to

protect wilderness characteristics, which would be protective of the resource values of the ACEC

as described under Alternative C. Impacts would be negligible.

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated in the Cuerda de Lena

ACEC. Impacts would be negligible.

No lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be allocated near the GLower Gila

Terraces and Historic Trails ACEC. Impacts would be negligible.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
812 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

A small portion of the Saddle Mountain ACEC would be allocated as lands manged to protect

wilderness characteristics, which would be protective of the resource values of the ACEC.

Impacts would be from negligible.

4.19.7.2.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byway

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on National Byway

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Byway

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Travel Management on National Byway

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on National Byway

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

4.19.7.2.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran, except

that the restrictions would overlap with NHT only in far fewer areas. Impacts are anticipated

to be moderate.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran,

except that some interpretive facilities would be developed. As additional interpretive media is

developed for the trail, increasing visitation may impact the trail resources directly in a minor

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 813

level by vehicle encroachment, and trampling. Affects would be far less than that expected under

Alternative A due primarily to restrictions in place under the ACEC allocation.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower Sonoran.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be negligible, as no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be

allocated within or near the NHT boundaries.

4.19.7.2.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative D for the Monument. Although

the Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trail SCRMA would not be allocated under

Alternative D or E, the area would become an ACEC, providing similar protections. Similarly,

although no SCRMA would be allocated the SDNM, the cultural resources would receive similar

protection as under Alternative D.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Management of the Gila Bend WHA in the Lower Sonoran would have impacts similar to

those described for Alternatives C and D. This, in addition to decisions protecting core areas of

wildlife habitat, emphasizing connectivity of wildlife habitat, removing ineffective wildlife water

developments, requiring use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, and measures to maintain

populations of native wildlife, especially sensitive species, would result in Alternative E's

biological and ecological decisions contributing to naturalness and associated wilderness values to

a greater degree than those under Alternatives A and B, and nearly equal to those of Alternatives

C and D. Wildlife waters would be developed and maintained on a case-by-case basis and would

have impacts similar to those described under Alternative A. Impacts would be negligible.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
814 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Decisions requiring use of native vegetation in restoration efforts, and measures to maintain

populations of native sensitive species, would result in Alternative E's biological and ecological

decisions contributing to naturalness to a minor, but slightly greater degree, than those offered

under Alternatives A, B or C.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

The designation of 55,400 acres of the Lower Sonoran as lands manged to protect wilderness

characteristics would have no impacts on wilderness areas; these areas are not in close proximity

to designated wilderness.

4.19.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

4.19.7.3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

No ACECs are allocated in this Alternative for the SDNM. The Monument’s proclamation

provides the necessary protection that an ACEC would provide.

4.19.7.3.2. National Byways

From Lands & Realty on National Byways

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C in the Monument, except,

impacts from lands and realty Management actions on the designation of Arizona State Route

238 and I-8 as a National Scenic Byway would range up to moderate due to visual impacts

from the potential installation of underground utility installations and upgrades of the Interstate

ROW. Such installations south of I-8 could have moderate impacts on the scenic, natural, vistas

and recreational opportunities along this byway. Currently, except for the highway itself, the

surrounding classic Sonoran Desert landscapes are exceedingly natural with wilderness to the

north and uninterrupted vistas to the south.

From Recreation Management on National Byways

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C in the Monument, except,

management actions on the designation of I-8 as a National Scenic Byway would be negligible.

From Special Designations on National Byways

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C in the Monument, except,

impacts on Special Designations from the designation of I-8 as a National Scenic Byway would

be minor by affording some landscape and scenery mangement emphasis along 10 miles of the

South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness next to the highway. Currently, except for the highway

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 815

itself, the surrounding classic Sonoran Desert landscapes are exceedingly natural with wilderness

to the north and uninterrupted vistas to the south. The impacts from Special Designations on

the designation of Arizona State Route 238 as a National Scenic Byway would be negligible,

as described under Alternative C.

From Travel Management on National Byways

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D in the Monument.

From Visual Resources on National Byways

Impacts from VRM management actions on the designation of Arizona State Route 238 would

be the same as described under Alternative C, except impacts from VRM management on the

designation of I-8 as National Scenic Byways would be potentially more adverse than Alternative

D. Under Alternative D, the lands south of I-8 would be managed as VRM Class 1 areas; no

noticeable visual disturbances would be allowed. Under Alternative E, the area would be

managed under Class III prescriptions as a utility corridor. Impacts produced by installation of

underground utilities for up to 1⁄2 mile south of the highway could moderately impair scenic

vistas southward over the short-term. Mitigation, soil banking, narrow or restricted LUA widths,

and large-scale plant restoration efforts would be needed to bring the impacts down to a minor

intensity if the utility corridor was fully occupied by underground installations.

4.19.7.3.3. National Historic Trails

From Minerals Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Monument.

From Recreation Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Special Designations on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Monument, except that

some interpretive facilities would be developed. As additional interpretive media is developed for

the trail, increasing visitation may impact the trail resources and Monument objects directly in a

minor to moderate level by vehicle encroachment, and trampling. Affects would be far less than

that expected under Alternative A due primarily to restrictions in place.

From Travel Management on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Visual Resources on National Historic Trails

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
816 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument, except that

VRM Class II management would be extended over about 31 percent of the Anza NHT in the

Monument and its associated landscape and resources. This will have a protective effect on the

Anza NHT to a minor to moderate level of intensity.

From Wilderness Characteristics on National Historic Trails

Impacts would be negligible, as no lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics would be

allocated within or near the NHT boundaries.

4.19.7.3.4. Wilderness Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Monument.

From Livestock Grazing on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Monument, except that

no WHAs would be designated within the SDNM, as the Monument proclamation protects many

of the natural resources intended for protection in the WHAs.

From Recreation Management on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Special Designations on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Monument.

From Travel Management on Wilderness Areas

Potential impacts to wilderness areas from Travel Management under Alternative E would be

slightly less than those described under Alternative D. Six miles of boundary road would be

closed instead of the about 11-miles closed under Alternative D. Moreover, public use on five

other wilderness access roads would be curtailed, as opposed to a total of 11 roads where access is

cut under Alternative D. Overall, Alternative E provides more protection to wilderness values

than Alternative A, B and C, and less protection than afforded by Alternative D.

From Vegetation Resources on Wilderness Areas

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Monument.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Wilderness Areas

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 817

Allocations to lands manged to protect wilderness characteristics under Alternative E would have

no direct impacts on wilderness areas, with, by and large, impacts similar to Alternative C.

Proposed wilderness character allocations are several miles south of I-8. Indirectly, solitude and

primitive recreation opportunities could be slightly enhanced as visitors seeking a wilderness-type

experience would have more landscapes offering and protecting such opportunities than presented

under Alternatives A and B, and less than offered under Alternatives C and D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
818 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.20. IMPACTS ON HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & PUBLIC

SAFETY

The impacts of management decisions on the occurrence of or risks associated with hazardous

materials and wastes, solid wastes, and public health and safety are discussed in this section.

Risks associated with hazardous materials, wastes, and public health and safety are directly

proportionate to the types and frequency of resource use within the Decision Areas. Typically,

the presence of hazardous materials and wastes may be related to vehicular travel and the use

of fuels and other hazardous substances associated with vehicles. These types of spills and

releases usually occur as a result of a vehicular accident, either from the vehicle itself or from

hazardous materials and/or wastes that the vehicle might be transporting. Spills and releases of

hazardous substances may also occur during recreational activities such as recreational shooting,

or during other uses of public lands, including livestock grazing, utility line installation and

maintenance, and mining. Similarly, the threat to public health and safety is related to the use of

motor vehicles (including ATVs and motorcycles), recreational target shooting, abandoned mines

and prospects, the proximity of military operations at the BGR, the presence of UXO (especially

in the Sand Tank Mountains Area of SDNM), livestock operations, activities related to smuggling

and undocumented aliens (UDAs), wildfires, and natural hazards.

4.20.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.20.1.1. Indicators

Potential of public injury related to:

● Vehicle use,

● Recreational activities (specifically target shooting),

● Spills or releases of hazardous substances,

● Utility installations,

● Abandoned mines and prospects,

● The proximity of military operations at the BGR,

● The presence of UXO,

● Livestock operations,

● Activities related to smuggling and undocumented aliens (UDAs),

● Wildfires, and

● Natural hazards.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 819

4.20.1.2. Assumptions

● The following assumptions regarding the future management of public safety and hazardous

materials management are made:

● It is assumed that a certain degree of safety risk is inherent in any human activity. Proper

safety precautions mitigate the risk of accident or injury, but circumstances beyond normal

expectations can always arise.

● The natural hazards that typically occur in the desert environment would include rugged

terrain, seasonally extreme temperatures, intense sunlight, and lack of drinking water, flash

floods, and the presence of venomous or otherwise dangerous wildlife. These risks would

be present under all alternatives at whatever particular level of activity is undertaken or type

of activity is performed.

● In all areas where construction or maintenance of motorized routes, fences, campgrounds,

nonmotorized trails, trailheads, LUAs, wildlife under/overpasses, and any other activity

could occur, there is the potential for an inadvertent spill or release of hazardous materials or

wastes. It is assumed that use of appropriate protocol during construction activities would

occur, thereby lessening that risk.

● The use and application of mechanical, chemical, biological means, as well as the use of

prescribed fires to control noxious weeds carries the inherent risk for spills and releases of

hazardous chemicals. It is assumed that any materials used would be applied according to

and in coordination with appropriate Federal, State, county, municipal, and tribal agencies, as

well as in accordance with all manufacturers’ directions. It is also assumed that any resulting

effect would be localized.

4.20.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

No impacts to Hazardous Materials & Public Safety are anticipated for management actions

relating to:

● Air Quality

● Cave Resources

● Cultural and Heritage Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management

● Special Designations

● Visual Resources

● Vegetation Resources

● Water Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis
820 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Soil Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

● Wilderness Characteristics

4.20.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

4.20.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.20.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Wildland Fire Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

The risks associated with exposure to wildfires are similar under all alternatives, because

wildfires could occur in any location or circumstance given the needed components. Wildfires

have the potential to endanger persons or property; however, the plant cover in the Decision

Areas is generally too sparse to carry wildfire effectively or to generate fires with sufficient

heat to be self-propagating. Accordingly, as the impact of these topics would be common to all

alternatives, they will not be discussed individually in the following analysis. Impact could range

from negligible to major.

4.20.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are identified for the Lower Sonoran under Common to All Alternatives.

4.20.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts are identified for the SDNM under Common to All Alternatives.

4.20.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.20.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Minerals Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Under Alternative A, there is no formal inventory of known and suspected historic and abandoned

mining claims. As a result, sites are closed and remediated as they are discovered in the Planning

Area or if the sites present an immediate safety concern. Impacts from the lack of an inventory

could result in minor to major impacts as the potential for public injury within these unknown

sites would still exist.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 821

In addition, all caves, mines, wells, abandoned structures, or other confined spaces would be

closed to public entry unless a particular site is signed as open for such entry, or entry is authorized

under a special use permit, which would further protect public health and safety.

From Special Designations on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Management actions related to special designations (specifically within the five designated

wilderness areas, the Vekol Valley Grasslands and Coffeepot-Batamote ACECs) call for limited

surface disturbing activities and development within their boundaries. As a result, these areas

are remote and in some cases difficult to access. In remote areas like these, medical assistance

could be delayed in the event of injury due to recreational activities. Impacts would be negligible

to minor.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Since recreational activities are most often conducted in areas that can be accessed by motor

vehicle via designated routes, the opportunity for access to more remote areas via designated

routes would potentially cause interaction with the smugglers and UDAs. Under Alternative A

the greatest number of open vehicle route miles of any of the alternatives exists, making access

more available and detection of unauthorized entry less noticeable by law enforcement. No

TMA closures, included seasonal closures, are identified under Alternative A. As a result, the

opportunity to access remote and low-lying areas for illegal activity is greater than with the

other alternatives.

4.20.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

In the Lower Sonoran, ten utility corridors corresponding to the existing LUAs would continue

to be designated under Alternative A, including corridors for natural gas pipelines, utility lines,

pipelines, and electrical transmission lines. LUAs would also be approved on a case-by-case basis

throughout the Decision Area. Therefore, the potential for new authorizations and maintenance

on existing LUAs such as utility lines would occur more within this alternative than any other

proposed alternative. As a result, the potential for accidents related to utility construction and

maintenances would increase as more surface disturbance activities take place. Impacts would

be minor.

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Alternative A currently presents the greatest amount of AUMs (17,541) compared to all of the

action alternatives. Therefore, the potential for public safety risks, such as encounters with

agitated livestock, or visitor mishaps at range improvements such as stock ponds, fences, or wells

would be the greatest under Alternative A. Impacts to public safety are anticipated to be minor.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
822 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Under Alternative A, the BLM would maintain the existing inventory of abandoned mine sites

and hazardous waste sites and update this inventory as sites are discovered and reported. Use of a

response-only approach to public safety at the mine sites would limit the ability of the BLM to

proactively prevent endangerment of the public’s health and safety. Known abandoned mines

would continue to be characterized and prioritized for containment and/or cleanup responses

based on available funding. These activities would be conducted to determine the potential

for the presence of high levels of heavy metals in waste rock or tailings, as well as ground or

surface water quality degradation. Maintenance of this inventory would be helpful at these known

sites, but the existence of other undocumented sites pose some risk of hazardous and solid waste

dumping in the abandoned mine shafts. Impacts from a response oriented inventory would present

moderate impacts. Impacts would be moderate.

Requiring the public to obtain permits to enter the Sentinel Plain area south of I-8 would decrease

public injury from military activities associated with the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range.

Impacts would be moderate.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

By providing the most miles of open routes for travel, Alterative A would allow for the greatest

opportunity for motorists to experience safety risks related to vehicle accidents with individuals

recreating on public lands (recreating such as off road target shooting, hiking, or camping),

livestock grazing activities, and utility development. Impacts would be minor to moderate.

Under Alternative A, lands designated as SRMAs would comprise about 41 percent of the total

acreage in the Lower Sonoran, while ERMAs would comprise the remaining lands. Since

recreation use in ERMAs is unstructured and recreation management actions are limited to those

of a custodial nature (managing visitor health and safety conflicts, user conflicts, and challenges

to resource stewardship objectives), the occurrence of littering and wildcat dumping would more

likely occur in ERMAs compared to SRMAs. Impacts would be minor.

The Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA would be managed under Alternative A to facilitate

compatible recreational use while protecting public safety in the vicinity of the BGR. The SRMA

was relinquished from the BGR in 2001 and is contaminated with scattered UXOs. The area is

also vulnerable to additional, although unintended, UXO contamination from aircraft delivered

ordnance training activities that occur on the adjacent BGR. Existing management decisions

direct the BLM and the Air Force to consider means of cleaning up existing UXOs and preventing

additional UXO contamination. Visitors are exposed to a safety risk. The current lack of an

entry permit required to enter this SRMA from the Lower Sonoran under Alternative A would

leave visitors uninformed concerning the potential presence of UXO hazards. Impacts would be

minor to moderate.

A number of recreational target shooting areas are located in the Lower Sonoran. Most target

shooting areas are located near established travel routes. Travel management under Alternative A

provides for the greatest number of open travel route miles, allowing for the greatest opportunity

for off-road target shooting, although target shooting would be allowed only outside of developed

areas. Alternative A does not address the risk of lead contamination in soils from bullets and the

buildup of shooting debris and lacks of specific management prescriptions for recreational target

shooting, which could increase the risk of injury. The lack of directives regarding cleanup of trash

or spent shells under Alternative A combined with the highly-disbursed nature of recreational

target shooting could result in the buildup of solid waste in a number of locations in the Decision

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 823

Areas. Under Alternative A, concern would continue regarding recreational target shooting

activities conducted at popular sites where shooting is officially unsupervised, random, and, at

times, concentrated. There would also be continued concern over the safety of specific shooting

locations and practices and the use of automatic weapons. Impact would be moderate.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Current travel management decisions would remain in place under Alternative A. As such, the

potential for spills and releases of hazardous materials in the event of a vehicular accident exists.

Under Alternative A, approximately 12 percent of the Lower Sonoran (primarily wilderness areas

and the Coffeepot Botanical ACEC) would be closed to motorized travel. All motorized vehicles

would be limited to existing and/or designated roads and vehicle routes. Hazardous materials

spills that could occur as a result of an automobile accident could contaminate the soil and/or

water. Under Alternative A, 1670 miles of routes would be open for public use in the Lower

Sonoran and. This larger number of route miles would allow for the greatest disbursement of

traffic throughout the Decision Areas among the alternatives, potentially reducing the likelihood

of vehicular accidents. While vehicular accidents could occur anywhere along these routes,

accidents are more likely to occur in some specific locations. Based on projected population

growth and the increase in demand for public lands, more congestion on the roadways would

likely occur in the future. Also under Alternative A, no seasonal limitations on routes have been

identified, leaving washes and other thermally sensitive areas available to public vehicular use.

In the event of flooding, the potential exists for a vehicle to be stranded, risking the safety of its

occupants, and possibly resulting in an inadvertent spill or release of a hazardous substance into

the floodwaters and onto public lands or into the groundwater through infiltration.

4.20.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

In the SDNM Decision Area, three utility corridors corresponding to the existing LUAs would

continue to be designated under Alternative A. LUAs would also be approved on a case-by-case

basis throughout the Decision Area, as long as they do not negatively impact the Monument

objects. Therefore, the potential for new authorizations and maintenance on existing LUAs such

as utility lines would occur more within this alternative than any other proposed alternative. As a

result, the potential for accidents related to utility construction and maintenances would increase as

more surface disturbance activities take place. Impacts would be minor. Impacts would be minor.

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be negligible.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

While allotments south of I-8 would be closed once current permits expire in the Monument,

Alternative A would still allow the greatest amount of AUMs (8,703) within the Monument,

compared to all of the action alternatives. Therefore, the potential for public safety risks, such

as encounters with agitated livestock, or visitor mishaps at range improvements such as stock

ponds, fences, or wells would be the greatest under Alternative A. Impacts to public safety are

anticipated to be minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
824 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except, the Sand

Tank Mountains, formerly known as “Area A”, south of I-8, is restricted to entry by permit only,

in an effort to decrease public injury from military activities associated with the Barry Goldwater

Air Force Range. Impacts would be moderate.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the SDNM, except,

lands designated as SRMAs would comprise about 30 percent of the total acreage in the

Monument, while ERMAs would comprise the remaining lands. Since recreation use in

ERMAs is unstructured and recreation management actions are limited to those of a custodial

nature (managing visitor health and safety conflicts, user conflicts, and challenges to resource

stewardship objectives), the occurrence of littering and wildcat dumping would more likely occur

in ERMAs compared to SRMAs. Impacts would be moderate.

In SDNM, all visitors would need to obtain a permit prior to entering the Sand Tank Mountains

to protect public safety, which would decrease the risks associated with UXOs in the area. This

would result in the decrease of potential public injury in this area. Impacts would be minor.

A number of recreational target shooting areas are located in the SDNM Decision Areas. Most

target shooting areas are located near established travel routes. Travel management under

Alternative A provides for the greatest number of open travel route miles, allowing for the

greatest opportunity for off-road target shooting, although target shooting would be allowed only

outside of developed areas. Alternative A does not address the risk of lead contamination in soils

from bullets and the buildup of shooting debris and lacks of specific management prescriptions

for recreational target shooting, which could increase the risk of injury. The lack of directives

regarding cleanup of trash or spent shells under Alternative A combined with the highly-disbursed

nature of recreational target shooting could result in the buildup of solid waste in a number

of locations in the Decision Areas. Under Alternative A, concern would continue regarding

recreational target shooting activities conducted at popular sites where shooting is officially

unsupervised, random, and, at times, concentrated. There would also be continued concern

over the safety of specific shooting locations and practices and the use of automatic weapons.

Impacts are expected to be moderate.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Current travel management decisions would remain in place under Alternative A. As such, the

potential for spills and releases of hazardous materials in the event of a vehicular accident exists.

Under Alternative A, all motorized vehicles would be limited to existing and/or designated

roads and vehicle routes.

Hazardous materials spills that could occur as a result of an automobile accident could

contaminate the soil and/or water. The larger number of route miles opened in Alternative A

would allow for the greatest disbursement of traffic throughout the Decision Areas among the

alternatives, potentially reducing the likelihood of vehicular accidents. While vehicular accidents

could occur anywhere along these routes, accidents are more likely to occur in some specific

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 825

locations. Based on projected population growth and the increase in demand for public lands,

more congestion on the roadways would likely occur in the future. Also under Alternative A,

no seasonal limitations on routes have been identified, leaving washes and other thermally

sensitive areas available to public vehicular use. In the event of flooding, the potential exists

for a vehicle to be stranded, risking the safety of its occupants, and possibly resulting in an

inadvertent spill or release of a hazardous substance into the floodwaters and onto public lands

or into the groundwater through infiltration.

4.20.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.20.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Minerals Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for both Decision Areas,

except that under Alternative B, an inventory of known and suspected historic and active mining

claims would be established and updated annually and response or remedial actions would be

developed based upon the determined risks. Management of hazardous materials would be more

proactive than under Alternative A, thereby decreasing the risks to public health and safety. In

addition, all caves, mines, wells, abandoned structures, or other confined spaces would be closed

to public entry unless a particular site is signed as open for such entry, or entry is authorized under

a special use permit, which would further protect public health and safety.

From Special Designations on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

4.20.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

However, the risks (impacts) related to public safety from LUA construction would be slightly

minimized, as 329,300 acres would be allocated as LUA avoidance areas and 118,400 acres would

be allocated as LUA exclusion areas. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

However, the risks (impacts) related to public safety from human-livestock interaction would be

minimized, as there would be approximately 40% fewer AUMs than in Alternative A. Impacts

would be minor to negligible.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
826 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative B calls for establishing an inventory of all known abandoned mine sites and

hazardous waste areas within the Decision Areas and to proceed with closing these sites to the

public. Alternative B also calls for establishing priorities for remediation of physical safety

hazards, posting signs, and closing areas to public access where public safety is an issue could

substantially decrease the risk of human injury and death related to vehicle use, uncontrolled

recreational activities (specifically target shooting), spills or releases of hazardous substances,

utility installations, abandoned mines and prospects, the presence of UXO, livestock operations,

activities related to smuggling and undocumented aliens (UDAs), wildfires, and natural hazards.

Positive impacts from these actions would be moderate to major, as injuries would decrease

substantially over the life of the plan.

Similar to Alternative A, Alternative B would still require the public to obtain permits to enter the

Sentinel Plain area south of I-8 would decrease public injury from military activities associated

with the Barry M Goldwater Air Force Range. Impacts would be moderate.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

lands designated as SRMAs under Alternative B would comprise about 70 percent of the total

acreage in the Decision Area (29 percent more than under Alternative A), while ERMAs would

comprise only about 50 percent of the Decision Area. This would result in less opportunity for

littering and illegal dumping under Alternative B due to the larger number of acres managed

under the more intensively-managed SRMA areas. Portions of the Lower Gila Historic Trails and

Saddle Mountain SRMAs and Saddle Mountain ERMA would be designated to the back country

RMZ and include areas that would be unavailable for motorized travel, and thus decreasing

the risk of vehicular traffic accidents. A 40-acre area within the Ajo Trails SRMA would be

designated as a limited motorized and mechanized vehicle use area where vehicle types are

limited to those that are 50 inches wide or less (i.e. ATVs or motorcycles). Those qualified

vehicles participating in these activities have an increased chance for accident or injury in the

area due to rough terrain and unforeseen obstacles. However, due to the strict designation of

this activity, risk would be limited to the allocated areas. Along with the Ajo Trails SRMA,

the Buckeye Hills East Trails and Painted Rock Mountains Trails SRMAs would emphasize

motorized and intensive use recreational opportunities, presenting additional risk for accident or

injury, but these impacts would be expected to be relatively localized. Other SRMAs would be

established under Alternative B to provide for nonmotorized day use activities. While the risk of

accident or injury exists with any recreational activities, the lack of motorized activities would

tend to decrease the opportunity for serious injury or hazardous spills.

The Sentinel Plain Lava Flow SRMA would be restricted to entry by permit only to protect

public health and safety from the presence of possible munitions and UXOs. An entry permit

and the associated instructions for accessing the area would provide visitors with information

concerning the potential presence of UXO hazards, which should reduce risk of accident or

injury. In the SDNM, impacts from obtaining a permit prior to entering the Sand Tank Mountains

would be the same as under Alternative A.

As most target shooting areas are located near established travel routes, having slightly fewer

miles of routes available under Alternative B for off-road target shooting would reduce the

opportunity for shooters to leave shooting debris and materials behind. Under Alternative B,

recreational target shooting would be managed to provide for removal of all brass, targets, target

litter, and other materials from public lands at the close of each shooting visit. In addition, the use

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 827

of targets and target materials that do not add litter are required under this alternative. However,

disbursed recreational target shooting would most likely increase with the availability of more

lands managed for recreational use, creating the potential for injury from inappropriate use or

the use of automatic weapons. Both recreational shooters as well as recreational visitors within

the range of fire would be at risk.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Under Alternative B, outside of designated wilderness, vehicles would be limited to routes

designated as open or available for nonmotorized, mechanized vehicle use. Under this alternative,

approximately 11 percent of the public lands in the Lower Sonoran would be closed to public

travel (compared to about 12 percent under Alternative A), leaving an additional 806,960

acres available for travel along designated routes. This increased availability for route usage

would slightly increase over Alternative A (by 28 percent or almost 806,960 acres), increasing

proportionately the risk of injury or hazardous spill from an automobile accident. Alternative B

would provide slightly less opportunity for recreational activities than Alternative A that could

pose a safety risk than Alternative A, such as off-road target shooting, hiking, and camping.

Vehicle access from highways onto public lands that cross highways, railroads, or other LUA

barriers may elevate the potential of a vehicular accident, potentially resulting in the release

of hazardous substances and injury. Legal public access to public lands for motorized and

nonmotorized travel would be developed under Alternative B, reducing the risk of accidents in

these areas compared to Alternative A.

Access to locations where illegal drug production might occur would be slightly less available

than under Alternative A, but detection of unauthorized entry would be slightly more noticeable

by law enforcement officers. Travel management area closures are identified for the Painted

Rocks camping area and for the pronghorn seasonal closure area under Alternative B, which

would somewhat restrict the opportunity to access remote and low-lying areas for illegal activity

compared to Alternative A, slightly decreasing the risk to visitor safety from personal encounters

or from hazardous materials.

4.20.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A in the SDNM, however, the entire

Monument would be allocated as a LUA avoidance area, which would have the same decreasing

risk effects to public safety related to the construction of LUAs as under Altenraitve A, as the

LUA avoidance area allocation would allow for LUA development within the Monument, while

making sure that all Monument objects would be protected. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM. However,

the risks (impacts) related to public safety from human-livestock interaction would be slightly

minimized, as there would be approximately 40% fewer AUMs than in Alternative A. Impacts

would be minor to neglibible. 8,500 acres would be fenced off, so impacts in the exclosure

would be negligible.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
828 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran. However,

similar to Alternative A, the Sand Tank Mountains, formerly known as “Area A”, south of I-8, is

restricted to entry by permit only, in an effort to decrease public injury from military activities

associated with the Barry Goldwater Air Force Range. Impacts would be moderate.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Under Alternative B, the entire SDNM would be allocated as one SRMA with about 76 percent of

the lands managed within the back country RMZ where motorized travel is not permitted. This

would reduce motorized travel use, thereby reducing the likelihood of hazardous materials spills

from accidents compared to Alternative A. The allocation of more acres to the back country RMZ

and fewer acres to the front country RMZ under Alternative B would concentrate visitor use to

the latter, potentially increasing the number of accidents involving motorized vehicles. The front

country RMZ would also experience more-concentrated levels of litter and debris than the back

country RMZ, requiring a greater cleanup effort.

In the SDNM, dispersed recreational target shooting would most likely increase in all areas except

developed recreational sites. Under Alternative B, recreational target shooting would be managed

to provide for removal of all brass, targets, target litter, and other materials from public lands at

the close of each shooting visit. In addition, the use of targets and target materials that do not add

litter are required under this alternative. However, disbursed recreational target shooting would

most likely increase with the availability of more lands managed for recreational use, creating the

potential for injury from inappropriate use or the use of automatic weapons. Both recreational

shooters as well as recreational visitors within the range of fire would be at risk.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

68 percent of the SDNM would remain open to travel on designated routes and impacts would be

similar to Alternative A. This would reduce the area where vehicular accidents could occur in

the Decision Areas. At the same time, the reduced miles of routes would result in slightly more

concentrated traffic on the remaining open routes, which would slightly increase the possibility

for traffic accidents. Alternative B would provide slightly less opportunity for recreational

activities than Alternative A that could pose a safety risk than Alternative A, such as off-road

target shooting, hiking, and camping.

Vehicle access from highways onto public lands that cross highways, railroads, or other LUA

barriers may elevate the potential of a vehicular accident, potentially resulting in the release

of hazardous substances and injury. Legal public access to public lands for motorized and

nonmotorized travel would be developed under Alternative B, reducing the risk of accidents in

these areas compared to Alternative A.

Access to locations where illegal drug production might occur would be slightly less available

than under Alternative A, but detection of unauthorized entry would be slightly more noticeable

by law enforcement officers. Travel management area closures for the pronghorn seasonal closure

area under Alternative B, which would somewhat restrict the opportunity to access remote and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 829

low-lying areas for illegal activity compared to Alternative A, slightly decreasing the risk to

visitor safety from personal encounters or from hazardous materials.

4.20.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.20.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Minerals Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Special Designations on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas,

except more acres would be allocated to ACECs, which would slightly increase the potential for a

delay in safety responses in these remote areas. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

4.20.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A and B for the Lower Sonoran,

however, the risks (impacts) related to public safety from LUA construction would be slightly

minimized, as Alternative C would remove a section of the El Paso Natural Gas corridor that

travels from Gila Bend to the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation and 402,400 acres would be

allocated as LUA avoidance areas and 247,000 acres would be allocated as LUA exclusion

areas. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

lands designated as SRMAs under Alternative C would comprise about 70 percent of the Lower

Sonoran, while ERMAs comprise only about 31 percent of the lands. This would result in less

opportunity for littering and illegal dumping compared to Alternatives A and B due to the larger

number of acres more intensively managed under the SRMA designation. Impacts from the Ajo

Trails (including the 40-acre OHV area) and Buckeye Hills East Trails SRMAs would be the

same as described under Alternative B. The acreage allocated for the Painted Rock Mountains

Trails SRMA under Alternative C would represent over twice the acreage as would occur under

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
830 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative B, decreasing the risk of accident or injury due to rough terrain and unforeseen

obstacles compared to Alternative B.

As most target shooting areas are located near established travel routes, the slight reduction in

miles of routes under Alternative C would further reduce the opportunity for shooters to leave

shooting debris and materials behind, as well as reduce the risk of injury to the recreational shooter

as well as other visitors passing through the area. Impacts from requiring the removal of all brass,

targets, target litter, and other materials from public lands at the close of each shooting visit and the

use of targets and target materials that do not add litter would be the same as under Alternative B.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts from lands closed to OHV travel would be the same as under Alternative B in the Lower

Sonoran, except that, under Alternative C, there would have a reduction in miles of routes open to

the public in the Lower Sonoran compared to Alternative A, which would reduce the area where

vehicular accidents could occur. In addition, seasonally closing some routes that are located in

washes would reduce the risk of stranded or abandoned automobiles in flooded washes that could

result in releases of hazardous materials or wastes compared to Alternatives A and B. At the same

time, reducing the miles of routes open to the public would concentrate traffic on the remaining

open routes, increasing the possibility for traffic accidents to occur due to congestion. Based on

the projected population growth and the increase in demand for public lands, more congestion

on the roadways would likely continue to occur in the future. As Alternative C provides for

fewer open travel route miles than Alternatives A or B, there would be a reduced opportunity for

recreational activities that could pose a safety risk. These would include off road target shooting,

hiking, camping, or any recreational activity that would provide exposure to accident or injury.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, fewer miles of routes available for travel under Alternative C

would create less opportunity for visitors to travel to remote areas and encounter smugglers and

UDAs, thus reducing safety risks associated with such encounters.

Although designating fewer miles of open routes within the Decision Areas under Alternative C

would create fewer opportunities for illegal and solid waste dumping along established roadways

compared to Alternatives A or B, anticipated increases in population and use of public land would

tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by UDAs

would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

4.20.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B in the SDNM, however, only two

1⁄2 mile wide multiuse corridors would be allocated in the Monument and the entire Monument,

which would slightly reduce impacts related to public safety risks with LUA construction and

maintenance as the potential area for larger utility lines would be decreased. Impacts would

be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 831

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the SDNM, however,

the risks (impacts) related to public safety from human-livestock interaction would be slightly

minimized, as there would be the same amount of AUMs as Alternative A, but all grazing would

be perennial, thus minimizing the time herds are in the allotments. Impacts would be minor.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the SDNM, except, about

89 percent of the SDNM would be managed within the back country RMZ, which would slightly

reduce motorized travel more than under Alternative B, thereby further reducing the total area

exposed to hazardous materials spill from accidents and the associated risks to public health and

safety. On the other hand, concentrating visitor use in the front country RMZ would increase the

potential for vehicle accidents and associated injury in this RMZ. Litter and debris would also

likely increase in the front country RMZ due to concentrated use, which would require a greater

cleanup effort. In the SDNM, impacts from obtaining a permit prior to entering the Sand Tank

Mountains would be the same as under Alternative A.

As most target shooting areas are located near established travel routes, the slight reduction in

miles of routes under Alternative C would further reduce the opportunity for shooters to leave

shooting debris and materials behind, as well as reduce the risk of injury to the recreational

shooter as well as other visitors passing through the area. Impacts from requiring the removal of

all brass, targets, target litter, and other materials from public lands at the close of each shooting

visit and the use of targets and target materials that do not add litter would be the same as under

Alternative B. Impacts from limits placed on recreational target shooting in the SDNM would be

similar to Alternative B, with the exception that fully automatic weapons would be prohibited,

eliminating the risk of such use to public health and safety.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts from lands closed to OHV travel would be the same as under Alternative B in the SDNM.

Under Alternative C, there would be a 13 percent reduction in miles of routes open in the SDNM,

which would reduce the area where vehicular accidents could occur. In addition, seasonally

closing some routes that are located in washes would reduce the risk of stranded or abandoned

automobiles in flooded washes that could result in releases of hazardous materials or wastes

compared to Alternatives A and B. At the same time, reducing the miles of routes open to the

public would concentrate traffic on the remaining open routes, increasing the possibility for traffic

accidents to occur due to congestion. Based on the projected population growth and the increase

in demand for public lands, more congestion on the roadways would likely continue to occur in

the future. As Alternative C provides for fewer open travel route miles than Alternatives A or

B, there would be a reduced opportunity for recreational activities that could pose a safety risk.

These would include off road target shooting, hiking, camping, or any recreational activity that

would provide exposure to accident or injury.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
832 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Compared to Alternatives A and B, fewer miles of routes available for travel under Alternative C

would create less opportunity for visitors to travel to remote areas and encounter smugglers and

UDAs, thus reducing safety risks associated with such encounters.

Although designating fewer miles of open routes within the Decision Areas under Alternative C

would create fewer opportunities for illegal and solid waste dumping along established roadways

compared to Alternatives A or B, anticipated increases in population and use of public land would

tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by UDAs

would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

4.20.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.20.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Eliminating livestock grazing in both Decision Areas under Alternative D would eliminate the

potential for injury from interaction with stock animals. Additionally, much of the fencing would

be removed throughout the area, decreasing risks caused from fences. Impacts would therefore be

negligible.

From Minerals Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Special Designations on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas,

except more acres would be allocated to ACECs, which would slightly increase the potential for a

delay in safety responses in these remote areas. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

4.20.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower Sonoran,

however, the risks (impacts) related to public safety from LUA construction would be minimized

the greatest under Alternative D, as a section of the El Paso Natural Gas corridor that travels from

Gila Bend to the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation would be removed, as well as the Palo

Verde to Devers and Gila Bend to Santa Rosa multiuse utility corridors. Alternative D would also

have the most acres allocated as a LUA Exclusion Area (560,800 acres) and 246,100 acres would

be allocated as LUA avoidance area. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

From Public Safety Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 833

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

While the percentage of the Lower Sonoran that would be managed as SRMAs would be similar

to Alternative A, impacts from hazardous materials and risks to public safety would decrease

under Alternative D because fewer routes would be designated as open for vehicular travel.

Alternative D emphasizes a more diverse, less intensely managed visitor experience, which would

reduce the risk of motorized vehicle-related accidents.

As most target shooting areas are located near established travel routes, providing the least miles

of routes open to the public under Alternative D would reduce the opportunity for shooters to

leave shooting debris and materials behind, as well as reduce the risk of injury to shooters and

other recreationists. Impacts from requiring the removal of all brass, targets, target litter, and other

materials from public lands at the close of each shooting visit and the use of targets and target

materials that do not add litter would be the same as under Alternatives B and C.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Under Alternative D, almost four times the length of routes of the Lower Sonoran would be closed

to vehicular travel compared to Alternatives B and C, which would greatly reduce the number

of automobile accidents. Alternative D also proposes the least number of miles of routes open

to the motorized use, further reducing the potential for automobile accidents. At the same time,

this fewer number of route miles would allow for more concentration of traffic on the remaining

open routes, increasing the possibility for traffic accidents to occur due to congestion. Based on

projected population growth and the increase in demand for public lands, more congestion on the

roadways would likely to occur in the future. By providing for the least miles of routes open to

the public, Alternative D would reduce opportunities for recreational activities that could pose a

safety risk more than any other alternative, including off road target shooting, hiking, camping, or

any recreational activity that would provide exposure to accident or injury.

Alternative D would provide the fewest miles of routes available for travel among the alternatives,

which would create the least opportunity for visitors to travel to remote areas and encounter

smugglers and UDAs, thus reducing safety risks from such encounters.

Although designation the fewest miles of open routes within the Decision Areas under Alternative

D would create the fewest opportunities for illegal and solid waste dumping along established

roadways among the alternatives, anticipated increases in population and use of public lands

would tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by

UDAs would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

4.20.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Public safety risks (impacts) would be eliminated under Alternative D for the Monument, as there

would be no future LUAs authorized within the Monument, as the entire Monument would be a

LUA Exclusion Area and no multiuse utility corridors would be designated. Impacts would be

negligible to minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
834 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the SDNM, except,

one SRMA would be allocated with 89 percent of the lands being managed within the back

country RMZ. This would reduce motorized travel use more than any other alternative, thereby

further reducing the risk of automobile accidents and associated injury and hazardous material

spills. On the other hand, the allocation of the lands in SDNM to the back country RMZ would

further concentrate the visitor use in the front country RMZ, increasing the risk of accidents and

hazardous spills. The front country RMZ would also likely experience more litter and debris,

requiring a greater cleanup effort. Impacts from obtaining a permit prior to entering the Sand Tank

Mountains would be the same as under Alternative A. In the SDNM, all forms of recreational

target shooting would be prohibited, which would eliminate all target shooting-related risks

throughout the Monument.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Under Alternative D, almost two times the length of routes of the SDNM would be closed to

vehicular travel compared to Alternatives B and C, which would greatly reduce the number of

automobile accidents. Alternative D also proposes the least number of miles of routes open to the

motorized use, further reducing the potential for automobile accidents. At the same time, this

fewer number of route miles would allow for more concentration of traffic on the remaining

open routes, increasing the possibility for traffic accidents to occur due to congestion. Based on

projected population growth and the increase in demand for public lands, more congestion on the

roadways would likely to occur in the future. By providing for the least miles of routes open to

the public, Alternative D would reduce opportunities for recreational activities that could pose a

safety risk more than any other alternative, including off road target shooting, hiking, camping, or

any recreational activity that would provide exposure to accident or injury.

Alternative D would provide the fewest miles of routes available for travel among the alternatives,

which would create the least opportunity for visitors to travel to remote areas and encounter

smugglers and UDAs, thus reducing safety risks from such encounters.

Although designation the fewest miles of open routes within the Decision Areas under Alternative

D would create the fewest opportunities for illegal and solid waste dumping along established

roadways among the alternatives, anticipated increases in population and use of public lands

would tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by

UDAs would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

4.20.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

4.20.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Minerals Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 835

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas.

From Special Designations on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative B for both Decision Areas,

except more acres would be allocated to ACECs, which would slightly increase the potential for a

delay in safety responses in these remote areas. Impacts would be negligible to minor.

4.20.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A and B for the Lower Sonoran,

however, the risks (impacts) related to public safety from LUA construction would be slightly

minimized, as Alternative E would remove a section of the El Paso Natural Gas corridor that

travels from Gila Bend to the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation (similar to Alternative C) and

372,400 acres would be allocated as LUA avoidance areas and 255,700 acres would be allocated

as LUA exclusion areas. Impacts would be minor.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts from encounters with agitated livestock or visitor mishaps at range improvements would

be the same as under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran..

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety on Hazardous Materials & Public

Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B for the Lower Sonoran.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

lands designated as SRMAs under Alternative E would comprise about 69 percent of the total

acreage, while ERMAs comprise only about 31 percent of the lands. Overall impacts would be

similar to Alternative C due to similar percentage of the Decision Area being allocated to SRMAs

and ERMAS, as well as similar management strategies for these recreation management areas.

Impacts from recreational target shooting in the Lower Sonoran would be similar to Alternative

C, with the exception that recreational target shooting sites may be developed in areas where

demand is high and an appropriate location is available, reducing the risk of injury to either

the shooter or a passer-by.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts from travel management decisions relating to acres closed to motorized travel and miles

of routes designated closed to public use would be most similar to Alternative C. Following this,

Alternative E would allow more opportunities for recreational activities that could pose a safety

risk compared to Alternative D, but less opportunity compared to Alternatives A and B.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
836 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Based on the total miles of route open to the public within the Decision Areas, the opportunities

for illegal and solid waste dumping along established roadways would be similar to Alternative C.

As under all alternatives, anticipated increases in population and use of public land along would

tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by UDAs

would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

Impact from encounters with smugglers and UDA would be similar to that described under

Alternative C.

4.20.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative D in the SDNM.

From Livestock Grazing on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Monument.

From Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for the SDNM.

From Recreation Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts would be the same as those discussed under Alternative A for the SDNM, except, As

under Alternatives A, B, C, and D, the SDNM SRMA would be designated under Alternative

E. Recreational management strategy for this SRMA would be same as that identified under

Alternative C, thus resulting in similar impacts. Impacts from allocating roughly 87 percent of

the SDNM under Alternative E to the back country RMZ would also be similar to Alternative

C, which would allocate 91 percent of the SDNM to the back country RMZ. Impacts from

require visitors to obtain a permit prior to entering the Sand Tank Mountains would be the same

as described under Alternative A.

Impacts in the SDNM due to the prohibition of recreational target shooting would be the same as

under Alternative D.

From Travel Management on Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

Impacts from travel management decisions relating to acres closed to motorized travel and miles

of routes designated closed to public use would be most similar to Alternative C. Following this,

Alternative E would allow more opportunities for recreational activities that could pose a safety

risk compared to Alternative D, but less opportunity compared to Alternatives A and B.

Based on the total miles of route open to the public within the Decision Areas, the opportunities

for illegal and solid waste dumping along established roadways would be similar to Alternative C.

As under all alternatives, anticipated increases in population and use of public land along would

tend to increase the incidences of dumping and littering. Heavily traveled routes used by UDAs

would remain areas of substantial litter accumulation.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 837

Impact from encounters with smugglers and UDA would be similar to that described under

Alternative C.

4.21. IMPACTS ON SOCIOECONOMICS

This section assesses economic and social effects of the Planning Area alternatives. Many

public-land uses generate revenue and are discussed in this section. Other uses that do not

generate revenue but are just as vital to the public are also discussed. Communities within

Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties are closely associated with public lands and thus constitute

the study area for socioeconomic values for the RMP. The resource management decisions

expected to have the greatest impacts to socioeconomics in the study area include those relating to

the management of energy and minerals, grazing, recreation, and lands and realty. Other resource

management disciplines expected to have some impact on socioeconomic conditions that vary by

alternative include management of biological and ecological resources; cultural resources; visual

resources; wilderness characteristics; travel management; and special designations.

4.21.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.21.1.1. Indicators

When analyzing impacts to social and economic resources, the following impact indicators

are used:

● Employment and income at the personal, household, business, or community level

● Access as measured by miles of open/closed routes and acres of special designations

● Additionally, the values of sense of place and sense of well-being are important methods of

evaluating impacts to social values. These methods are more challenging to measure but are

mentioned throughout this analysis.

4.21.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions regarding socioeconomics are made:

● Visitor use is expected to increase as populations increases. Increased visitation will have

economic impacts to communities in the study area that serve as stopping points for services

near public lands.

● All alternatives for management of SDNM support the objectives of Presidential Proclamation

7397 and consequently contribute to the protection of social values in the Monument.

● Since the SDNM proclamation honors prior existing rights, private inholdings will be

developed, decreasing the amount of open space available within SDNM.

● Management actions that influence employment, demand for goods and services, business

growth, and visitation within this broad study area will affect socioeconomics. Impacts will

most greatly be felt in small rural communities that economically and socially rely, at least

partially, on resources uses within the Decision Areas, including vegetation products, lands

and realty, livestock grazing, minerals, recreation, and travel.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Socioeconomics
838 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Any action that enhances the quality of recreation experience or creates additional facilities

or improved access will potentially increase visitation. Increased visitation will stimulate

increased expenditures for goods and services in the local and regional economies. This in

turn will tend to encourage additional business activity and population growth.

● Hunting management and the number and types of habitat improvement projects aimed

at improving health and vitality of game animals will affect local economies in terms of

influencing the number and types of hunters coming to the Decision Areas and the number

and success of professional outfitters

● Actions that increase renewable energy and mining activities will tend to stimulate the local

and regional economies, both through increased employment and demand for goods and

services for the mining operation itself. Duration of this effect will depend upon the magnitude

of energy production and mineral deposits and market demand for the products. Conversely,

actions eliminating current renewable energy and mining activities or discouraging or

precluding new renewable energy and mining activities will tend to decrease or at least limit

local and regional economic benefits.

● Changes in allowable grazing could influence ranchers within the Decision Areas, which,

in turn, could affect local communities dependent upon ranching operations in terms of

tax revenue from livestock sales and the purchase of equipment and feed. In SDNM, the

proclamation’s termination of livestock grazing permits south of I-8 in 2008-09 will result in

an economic and social cost to the permittees.

● Land disposals that ultimately lead to the development for residential use or commercial and

light industrial development will have an economic impact in terms of employment and

earnings, as well as increased tax base for the area. According to the proclamation, all public

lands in SDNM will be retained, except exchange may be considered to further the protective

purposes of the Monument. The continuation of policy to retain Federal land (surface and

subsurface estate) will preclude economic activity that could potentially be associated with

land development activity on disposed lands. The BLM will receive no revenue from land

disposal in the Monument. All SDNM lands will remain a part of the Monument in perpetuity.

This will protect the Monument and sustain it as permanent open space for the growing

area that surrounds it.

4.21.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Socioeconomics

No impacts to socioeconomics are anticipated for management actions relating to:

● Cave Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

4.21.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Methods of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 839

4.21.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.21.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Air Quality, Hazardous Materials & Public Safety, Water Resources, Soil

Resources, and Wildland Fire Management on Socioeconomics

Actions to manage air quality, public safety, water resources, and watersheds and soils would

contribute to the overall social well-being of the public but would vary little by alternative.

Wildland Fire management would continue to have positive socioeconomic impacts related to the

protection of life and property, fire ecology, aesthetics, and the employment and expenditures

related to these programs.

4.21.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are identified for the Lower Sonoran under Common to All Alternatives.

4.21.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

The proclamation guidance against commercial utility-scale renewable energy sites on SDNM

renders the BLM unable to plan for the development of utility-scale renewable energy within

SDNM at a time when such energy is becoming more economical, and is increasingly addressed

in community planning. Closure of the Monument to utility-scale renewable energy development

is expected to have negligible to minor impacts on utility-related revenue sources.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

For all alternatives in the SDNM, mineral development is restricted by the proclamation to mining

for locatable minerals only on valid existing claims. Where development on valid existing rights

occurs, economic gains would be realized commensurate with the scale of the activity. However,

it is expected that social impacts would be negligible and localized in scale as any proposal to

develop valid existing rights would be subject to site-specific, case-by-case review of mine plans

of operation, to ensure that undue and unnecessary degradation of resources does not occur.

Currently there are no existing claims in SDNM.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

Impacts of individual route designations within the SDNM are expected to have similar impacts

across all alternatives. Under all action alternatives, route designations are designed to minimize

conflicts among users, while promoting safety and protection of resources.

Primary impacts to socioeconomic resources from route designation stem from accessibility for

recreation such as motorized and nonmotorized trail-based recreation (OHV driving, mountain

biking, hiking, etc.) along with access to other activities (such as hunting, wildlife viewing,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
840 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

geocaching, etc.). Generally, more access leads to more recreation, which leads to more potential

for recreation-related income/revenue.

While each alternative has varying amounts of designations for primitive roads as open,

administrative, size restraints, seasonal and permanent closures, none is different enough to vary

in impacts to socioeconomic values. Impacts from all alternatives to area income/revenue are

expected to be negligible to minor.

4.21.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

Alternative A would not address issues related to major events that have shaped the socioeconomic

setting in the Planning Area since the previous planning efforts. The result would be conflicting

uses of public land. Revenue to private industry/businesses would continue to accrue from the

following activities on public land, with the amount of revenue varying widely: production

of mineral materials, ancillary facilities to support copper mining, grazing, land disposal for

development, accommodation of utilities, and camping at fee campgrounds.

Overall, the social well-being of those who feel all roads should be open, or who need motorized

access because of physical limitations, would increase while the social well-being of recreationists

who prefer solitary and quiet experiences could decrease. Opportunities for hunting or the quality

of hunting experiences would likely decrease as more people recreate on public lands and would

provide no means to manage wildlife habitat in response to growing population pressures. Groups

and individuals who give a very high prior¬ity to resource use may feel that enough resource use,

such as minerals production and grazing, would be allowed on public lands under this alternative.

Groups and individuals who give a very high prior¬ity to resource protection may feel the

resources they are concerned about would not be adequately protected.

4.21.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Socioeconomics

The lack of RMP decisions concerning heritage resources would tend to impede the development

of cultural tourism. Under this alternative, prioritization of other resource objectives over cultural

protection, interpretation, and education may result in decreased cultural tourism, having a

negligible to minor negative effect on nearby revenue streams related to cultural tourism.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

Under this alternative, production of salable, leasable, and locatable minerals on public lands

would continue to provide mineral material at current levels. Since investment in locatable

mineral development in the Planning Area is expected to increase, this alternative is expected to

have minor to moderate impacts on local economic growth in employment and income in the

surrounding communities.

Restricting mineral development in the SDNM to valid and existing rights would have negligible

to moderate negative effects on employment and economics associated with mineral development.

Continued mineral development could cause a loss of scenic views and natural landscapes, which

would decrease the social well-being of those individuals or groups who value these resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 841

Overall, impacts on social well-being are anticipated to be negligible to moderate, depending on

the development of mineral resources.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Socioeconomics

Healthy wildlife populations are intertwined with wildlife viewing and hunting visitation, and

such expenditures would not likely increase as result of management actions under Alternative A,

having no impact on the area economy.

The lack of WHA allocations and specific habitat protection would disappoint those who value

wildlife protection. Restoration by mostly passive means and lack of specific decisions to use

native plants would slowly return damaged sites to natural conditions and may result in minor

negative impacts in the social well-being of area residents who value natural desert ecosystems.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

While OHV use, hiking, hunting, and other forms of recreation would continue to be managed

under current conditions, population-driven increases in demand would likely result in a

negligible to minor increase in economic contributions and employment attributable to recreation,

camping, and tourism on public lands. The continuation of existing recreation management

programs would result in relatively minor economic impacts due to visitor expenditures.

Associated social effects, such as conflicts among uses, would continue and possibly escalate,

having minor to moderate negative impacts on the social well-being of recreation users.

From Special Designations Management on Socioeconomics

Continued management of existing special designations such as the Coffeepot Botanical and

Vekol Valley Grasslands ACECs, the Fred G. Weiler Green Belt, and the Juan Bautista de Anza

NHT is expected to result in no change in social and economic impacts to the local economy.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

Alternative A would close an estimated 15 miles of routes in the Lower Sonoran, leaving 1670

miles open (99 percent) for public use. In the SDNM, Alternative A would close 27 miles of

routes in the Monument, leaving 568 miles open (89 percent) for public use. This alternative

provides the most opportunity for people who are dependent on vehicular access to enjoy the

resources of the national Monument. Because visitation is expected to increase and because there

are few restrictions on use and public access, this alternative is expected to have negligible to

minor impacts on increased recreation-related employment and income.

Management of motorized use as proposed under Alternative A would provide for high levels

of motorized access on designated routes, lending to positive experiences for those who value

motorized access. However, the social well-being of groups and individuals, who feel some

roads, should be closed to motorized use, or who value solitude experiences, would thus diminish

under Alternative A. The overall impact of travel management to social well-being is expected to

be negligible under this alternative.

From Vegetation Resources on Socioeconomics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
842 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Commercial landscapers who remove native vegetation by permit, and sell the plants would

continue to benefit economically from such actions. While allowing the collection of native

plant material for personal and commercial use would align with cultural values that depend on

native plant collection, it may also result in deterioration of resource values. Management under

Alternative A for vegetation would have no/negligible impact on current social and economic

values since it is expected that no major changes would result from management actions.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative A, the large acreage in VRM classes III and IV (78 percent of the Lower

Sonoran and 49 percent of the SDNM) would support active uses of public lands, such as more

intensive recreation uses in both Decision Areas, and mineral development and LUAs in the

Lower Sonoran. While this would meet social and economic demands associated with those uses,

such VRM class assignments could allow for the degradation of visual resources, attracting fewer

visitors seeking scenic views. Over time, it is expected that management of visual resources

would have a minor affect on visitor-related revenue. Additionally, loss of scenic value would

have a negligible to moderate negative impact on the social values of residents who have

expressed a desire to maintain the scenic views of the Sonoran Desert.

From Wilderness Characteristics Management on Socioeconomics

Coupled with increasing population growth and demand for recreation and public use of public

lands, not allocating lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics could result in a

degradation of those characteristics. In the long term, there would be a lack of prescriptions to

keep the lands as secluded, remote, and peaceful as area residents wish that they would be.

Overall, social well-being of people or groups who prefer solitary and quiet experiences would

see minor to moderate declines and the social well-being of those who prefer more developed

experiences would see minor to moderate increases.

4.21.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

The continuation of existing management of realty actions would have negligible to moderate

impacts on the potential economic activity associated with development related to lands and realty

transactions. In the Lower Sonoran, disposal of 18,900 acres could remove the potential for those

parcels to serve as undeveloped open space, thereby affecting negatively those who value open,

uninterrupted tracks of land. However, making 8,000 acres available for exchange only may

offset any open space losses. If land is disposed through sale, negligible to moderate increases in

area income can be expected due to potential development and property tax revenue.

In the Lower Sonoran, ten 1-mile wide existing utility corridors would remain and this alternative

would allow for additional use. This would have a negligible to moderate impact on area

economic development, depending on the nature of the development.

Development within existing or new LUAs would have negligible to moderate negative social

impacts related to the location of the development, and negligible to minor economic impacts

on the service population affected by infrastructure improvements Economic benefits to the

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 843

local communities from growing interest in solar development on public lands are expected to

be moderate to major.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative A, grazing in the Lower Sonoran and north of I-8 outside the SDNM would be

expected to continue at current levels, having a no impact on income trends, while supporting

the traditional ranching lifestyle. Since there would be no change in the authorized level of

grazing use, the real estate value of ranch properties would remain unchanged, thereby having

no effect on local real estate prices.

4.21.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

In the SDNM, three 1-mile utility corridors would remain. The corridors would support the

growing needs of an increasing population in the study area. Development within existing or

new LUAs would have potential negligible to minor social impacts related to location of the

development, and negligible to minor economic impacts on the service population affected by

infrastructure improvements. Few limitations on alignments may decrease the costs for LUA

developments and would allow economic opportunity for new LUAs within the Decision Areas,

having a negligible to moderate positive economic impact.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

Allotments south of I-8 within the SDNM were closed when existing permits expired, per the

Monument proclamation. Closure of these allotments caused a minor to moderate economic loss

to ranchers who held the permits and a negligible to minor loss to the traditional ranching lifestyle

in this area. In contrast, closing the allotments may allow the land to return to a more natural

state, further protecting the resources of the SDNM and having a negligible to minor positive

impact for those individuals and groups who believe grazing should cease in the Monument.

Under Alternative A livestock grazing would continue to be permitted on a case-by-case basis,

based on rangeland health evaluations conducted during the permit rrenewalprocess.

4.21.4. ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would allow for the greatest number of uses and would emphasize opportunities

for those uses, especially those involving motorized access and developed forms of recreation.

This alternative would require the most intensive management. Coordination among the BLM,

local communities, and other public and private partners would result in both resource protection

and revenue to private industry/businesses. Revenue effects to private industry/businesses from

mining, and land disposition would be similar to those under Alternative A. Alternative B would

have more utility corridors, communication sites, and participation in utility-scale renewable

energy development than any other action alternative.

Overall, the social well-being of those who value access and resource use would be greatest

under Alternative B, while the social well-being of recreationists who prefer solitary and quiet

experiences would be less than any other action alternative. Opportunities for hunting and

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
844 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

wildlife viewing would be enhanced through increased access and hands-on management. While

several of the management decisions present in Alternative B would address resource protection

more than those in Alternative A, in most cases only small acreage would receive protection.

The emphasis on motorized recreational uses under Alternative B would not limit contributions

to the economy from users that enjoy motorized recreation. The development of recreational

facilities and increased acreage of community interface and front country RMZs could increase

revenue associated with developed recreation opportunities. On the other hand, some groups and

individuals who give a very high priority to resource protection may feel the resources they are

concerned about would not be adequately protected under Alternative B.

4.21.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Socioeconomics

Cooperative planning of heritage tourism projects and promotion of cultural tourism could

increase visitation and tourism-associated revenue, having a greater potential for increased local

economic impacts than under Alternative A. More than Alternative A, prioritized management

of certain cultural areas would provide opportunities for increased public visitation and

interpretation, thereby increasing social well-being of people who value cultural opportunities.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

While grazing would continue in the long-term, under Alternative B it would be reduced from

Alternative A by almost 40 percent. This alternative would allow fewer ranching opportunities and

less associated income than afforded in Alternative A, having a moderate to major impact on the

income of affected ranchers and a negligible to minor impact to local communities. Coordination

and consultation with affected parties would be the same as described in alternative A.

Minor negative impacts would be expected for the ranching lifestyle. Reduced grazing would have

a greater positive impact on the social wellbeing of those who think that grazing should be limited.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Socioeconomics

Employment and income is expected to remain the same or have minor increases over Alternative

A due to management actions protecting wildlife movement corridors that will increase

opportunities for healthy wildlife and associated hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography.

The lack of WHA allocations under Alternative B, however, would have similar impacts as

Alternative A. Restoration by active means and use of native plants would return damaged sites to

natural conditions faster than under Alternative A, aligning better with the social values of those

who value maintaining natural desert ecosystems.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

As under Alternative A, some forms of visitation and associated economic activity may increase

under Alternative B due to few restrictions on public access, even though some decisions may

slightly limit public access in order to meet resource goals and objectives. Overall, sales and rental

businesses associated with motorized recreation would likely increase, while the sales of supplies

and gear associated with nonmotorized recreation may decrease, as compared to Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 845

There may be a negligible to minor positive impact to the economies of local communities but

little or no net change in employment with recreation use on public lands under Alternative B.

This alternative provides more access than any other action alternative but – when compared to

Alternative A – the closures might have minor negative impacts on the social wellbeing of those

who value motorized access to the Planning Area. Overall, Alternative B would provide the least

opportunity for solitude and nonmotorized recreation and would diminish the social well-being

of groups and individuals who participate in these activities.

From Vegetation Resources on Socioeconomics

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Socioeconomics

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

4.21.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

Alternative B allows for 36,300 acres available for disposal by any method – almost twice as

many acres as Alternative A. 3,400 acres are made available for R&PP and no lands would be

made available for exchange only. PILT payments to the counties would decrease compared to

Alternative A during land disposals, but those lands would become subject to property tax,

which typically generates more revenue than PILT payments. Overall impacts to revenue/income

are expected to be negligible to minor. The social values of those people or groups who value

retention of public lands would decline, but there would be increased opportunities for other

agencies or groups to apply for parcels through the R&PP Act compared to Alternative A. Overall

social impacts are expected to be minor.

Alternative B would allow for the development of utilities within the designated corridors,

with the least amount of LUA exclusion areas of any action alternative. Fewer limitations on

alignments may decrease the costs for LUA developments. Adjacent communities would not

need to accommodate transmission lines where the lines could be put on public lands because ten

BLM utility corridors would provide sufficient, yet limited, locations for new utilities. Placement

of communication facilities would not be allowed to conflict with wildlife management, aligning

with the social values of those people or groups who value intact wildlife areas but possibly

increasing costs to communication companies. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible to minor.

Compared to Alternative A, the BLM’s participation in utility-scale renewable energy

development could increase, having minor to major impacts on utility-associated revenue.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative A for both Decision Areas.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
846 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Recreation management under Alternative B would serve a large and growing recreational

demand in the study area. In the Lower Sonoran, the 646,600 acres of SRMAs (including 53

percent back country and 34 percent front country) would provide a wide variety of recreational

opportunities and allow for intensive use. Management decisions under Alternative B would

allow for the development of a larger number of recreational facilities on public lands compared

to Alternative A, which would accommodate the highest number and density of visitors.

Communities next to SRMAs would likely experience more sales of goods and services to support

the particular recreational activities of the developed areas than in Alternative A.

Overall, potential increases in recreation-related employment and income would be greatest

under this alternative, though somewhat similar to Alternative E. The greatest negative impacts

to social well-being would be felt by those who value primitive, nonmotorized recreation and

quiet open space. On the other hand, those who value motorized recreation will experience the

most well-being under this action alternative.

From Special Designations on Socioeconomics

While this alternative enlarges the Coffeepot Mountain ACEC (from 8,900 acres to 14,372 acres)

not designating several potential ACECs may result in deterioration of the resources currently

present, conflicting with the social well-being of people or groups who value these resources but

aligning with the social well-being of people or groups who value fewer restrictions on public

lands.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative B would allocate the majority of public lands as VRM Class III

and Class IV (83 percent). Effects are expected to be similar to Alternative A, but with greater

intensity.

4.21.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

As described for the Lower Sonoran, this alternative provides the least amount of LUA exclusion.

Three one wide mile utility corridor would be designated , therefore, impacts would be similar to

Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

The entire SDNM would be managed as a SRMA, with 76 percent managed as back country and

22 percent managed as front country. This alternative has the least amount of back country of any

action alternative. Front country acreage would be near rapidly growing communities to the north

of SDNM, which would likely receive revenue from spending on goods and services to support

the particular recreational activities of the developed areas. Overall economic impacts, however

are expected to be similar to Alternative A, but slightly greater intensity.

From Special Designations on Socioeconomics

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 847

Designation of the Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways in the SDNM would increase tourism

and related spending in the area, at a negligible to minor level. The current character of these roads

would be maintained through more active management than under Alternative A and align with

the social well-being of people or groups who value protection of natural and cultural resources

as well as public access and visitation. In the SDNM, Alternative B would discontinue the

designation for the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC, which may counter social values specific to

this designation. However, the impacts would be negligible because the resources within this area

would be managed to a similar or greater level of protection under the Monument proclamation.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

In the SDNM, Alternative B would not allocate any acreage to VRM Class IV but would allocate

22 percent of the area to VRM Class III. This alternative has more land allocated to Class I and

II than Alternative A, but less than any action alternative. Impacts would be similar to those

described in Alternative A, only at a slightly less intensity.

4.21.5. ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would respond to recent trends in the Planning Area by balancing “hands-on”

resource protection with human use and influence. Revenue to private businesses from mineral

materials and locatable minerals would be similar to Alternative B. Revenue from land disposition

would be similar to other alternatives. No ephemeral grazing would be permitted. Management

to accommodate infrastructure (e.g., utility corridors, telecommunication sites, and utility-scale

renewable energy opportunities) would provide sufficient locations, albeit fewer than under

Alternative B.

Overall, Alternative C would positively impact the social well-being of recreationists who prefer

solitary and quiet experiences. On the other hand, the social well-being of those who feel all

roads should be open, or who need motorized access because of physical limitations, could

decline compared to Alternatives A and B. Opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing would

be enhanced through a focus on protecting wildlife habitat and providing suitable, but limited,

access. Groups and individuals who give a very high priority to resource use may feel that not

enough resource use would be allowed on public lands under this alternative. Likewise, some

groups and individuals who give a very high priority to resource protection may feel the resources

they are concerned about would be adequately protected. Emphasis of nonmotorized recreational

uses, increased management and protection of wildlife habitats, and designated route closures

and use limitations would limit contributions to the economy from users that enjoy motor¬ized

recreation. The Planning Area might receive a similar amount of business revenue related to

the public land as it would under Alternative B, but more of the recreation revenue would be

associated with cultural and ecotourism and less would be associated with motorized recreation.

4.21.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Socioeconomics

Unlike Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would allocate 127,600 acres of SCRMAs in the

Lower Sonoran and 49,800 acres of SCRMAs in the SDNM, which would be intensively managed

for protection of resources and scientific research. Cultural management prescriptions would have

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
848 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

a joint emphasis on public visitation and scientific research/resource protection, but with fewer

sites selected for public visitation than under Alternatives A and B, thereby possibly having a

smaller economic impact than in Alternative B. Like Alternative B, cooperative planning of

heritage tourism projects with tribes, other agencies, and organizations could specifically affect

local economies in surrounding communities by increasing visitation and tourism-associated

revenue at a negligible to minor level.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative C, perennial grazing would be the same as Alternative A. However, this

alternative would allow no ephemeral grazing. This could affect some cattle ranchers who rely

on ephemeral grazing. Grazing would continue in the long-term with similar maintenance of

a traditional ranching lifestyle as Alternative A, although perhaps with the need to rely on

other cattle production options, such as feedlots. Net income to ranchers would likely decrease

compared to Alternative A, but would be greater than B because perennial livestock numbers

would be larger.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Socioeconomics

Compared to Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would be more successful maintaining healthy

wildlife populations and natural landscapes, which tend to attract visitors to the Decision Areas.

This will be accomplished through the creation of four WHAs, along with expanded management

for wildlife movement corridors. As a result, visitor-related expenditures would increase in

response to ecological/biological management actions under Alternative C as compared to

Alternatives A and B.

From Special Designations on Socioeconomics

Alternative C would allocate 63,300 acres of ACECs – more than under Alternatives A and B but

less than under Alternatives D and E. The designation would have improved effects on the social

well-being of people or groups who value these resources and degrading effects on the social

well-being of people or groups who value fewer restrictions on public lands.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

In the Lower Sonoran, there would be 529 fewer miles of routes open to the public than proposed

under Alternative A and 429 fewer miles than proposed under Alternative B. In the SDNM, 190

fewer miles of routes would be open to the public than proposed under Alternative A and 140

fewer miles than proposed under Alternative B. Under Alternative C, management emphasis

would be placed on resource protection, which is still consistent with serving both the social values

of the protection of resources and public access/use opportunities on public land. Although not as

dense as under Alternatives A and B, the motorized route network under Alternative C would still

be responsive to the desires of individuals and groups who feel public lands should remain open to

motorized access, enhancing their social well-being, albeit less than under Alternatives A and B.

Alternative C would provide an increased opportunity for solitude and nonmotorized recreation,

increasing the social well-being of groups and individuals who participate in these activities.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, potential decreases in visitation may occur for some users

as a result of more restrictions on use and decreased public access. In general, sales and

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 849

rental businesses associated with motorized recreation under Alternative C would be slightly

lower compared to Alternative A and B, while the sales of supplies and gear associated with

nonmotorized recreation may be slightly higher. There may be a slight impact to the economies

of local communities.

From Vegetation Resources on Socioeconomics

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B. Resource values would be further

protected under Alternative C by not permitting wood harvesting in the Decision Area, although

such actions may have a minor to moderate negative social and economic impact to those

residents or visitors who harvest wood.

Compared to Alternatives A and B, the focus on controlling invasive species would include

requiring SRP users to use certified weed-free feed for their animals would result in decreased

introduction and spread of invasive species. Such actions would increase the cost to users.

However, the social values associated with maintaining native species on public lands would

be met.

In the SDNM, impacts from restrictions on harvesting vegetation would be similar to Alternative

B.

4.21.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be similar to Alternative B.

In the Lower Sonoran, future development of utilities within designated utility corridors would be

allowed under Alternative C, although there would be one less corridor than under Alternative B.

As under Alternative B, the BLM would consider transmission line siting outside the corridors on

a case-by-case basis. In addition to special designations, WHAs, SCRMAs, ACECs, and allocated

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be avoidance areas as under Alternative

B. Routing around these areas could be costly to utility companies and ultimately to consumers.

Communication sites would also be accommodated as in Alternative B, further aligning with the

social values of those people or groups who value intact wildlife areas but possibly increasing

costs to communication companies.

The BLM would evaluate utility-scale renewable energy sites on a case-by-case basis and

authorize them if the project is consistent with other management objectives for the area. WHAs,

SCRMAs, ACECs, and allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be

avoidance areas under Alternative C. While the BLM would not work with industry to identify

priority areas for utility-scale renewable energy development, there could still be numerous sites

permitted in the Lower Sonoran given the high potential for solar energy facility development.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

The revenue yield from mineral extraction would be somewhat reduced compared to Alternatives

A and B because mineral material disposals in ACECs, SCRMAs, WHAs, and allocated Lands

Managed to Protect Wilderness Characteristics would be approved in a manner that maintains

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
850 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

or enhances the resources for which the designation was made. Leasable mineral development

would be unlikely and would be subject to similar stipulations. The effects of management

decisions for locatable minerals are the same as described under Alternative B, except for

additional stipulations concerning natural resource protection where mineral development occurs.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

Management of recreation in Alternative C would balance motorized and nonmotorized uses with

resource protection, which would meet overall recreational demand. While the sales and rental of

recreational vehicles and equipment would be greater than Alternative A, especially in gateway

communities, the increase would not be as high compared to Alternative B. On the other hand,

mechanized vehicle use, equestrian recreation, and hiking would involve equipment expense that

could offset any losses associated with motorized recreational activities.

SRMAs would be of similar size as under Alternative B, more land would be allocated to

back country in order to serve Alternative C's management focus on balancing motorized and

nonmotorized uses. While the total number of visitors to public lands could be as high as under

Alternative B, motorized recreation use may decrease and nonmotorized recreation use may

increase. Groups or individuals who value both types of recreational activities would have a

range of places to enjoy them.

From Visual Resources Management on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative C, less area of the Lower Sonoran (48 percent) would be assigned to VRM

Classes III and IV and more area would be assigned to VRM Class I and II (52 percent) than

Alternatives A and B. The social well-being of visitors and residents who desire protection of

scenic views would increase, along with associated tourism spending. However, the reduced

acreage in Class III and IV would reduce opportunities for more developed recreation and mining

use, each with associated negative impacts to local economies and social values.

From Wilderness Characteristics Management on Socioeconomics

Alternative C would allocate 128,100 acres in the Lower Sonoran as lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics. Compared to Alternatives A and B, which have no lands managed

to protect wilderness characteristics allocations, the social well-being of people or groups who

prefer more developed experiences and opportunities would decrease and the social well-being of

recreationists who prefer solitary, quiet experiences would increase.

Impacts to the local economy are anticipated to be negligible as employment and income are

expected to remain unchanged despite the lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

allocations.

4.21.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

In the SDNM, two one-half mile utility corridor would be designated – as under Alternative B

– however, only transportation and underground utility uses with their ancillary above ground

facilities would be allowed in the corridor under Alternative C. This would likely increase costs to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 851

utility companies and their customers and slightly decrease the ability of utility companies to

meet the growing needs of the Planning Area.

In contrast to both Alternatives A and B, communication facilities would not be allowed within

SDNM and no communication sites would be designated. Such actions would protect the visual

and/or natural resources of the Monument, as well as increasing the costs to meet the growing

communication needs of the Planning Area.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

As under Alternative B, the entire SDNM would be established as a SRMA; however, under

Alternative C, 88 percent would be allocated as back country and 11 percent allocated as

front country, with more acreage assigned to back country compared to Alternative B. As a

result, the front country recreational demand would be less served and the less intensive back

country demand would be better served under Alternative C, with the social value for dispersed

and primitive nonmotorized, non-mechanized recreation opportunities at SDNM being more

recognized. Communities would still be likely to receive revenue from spending on goods and

services to support the particular recreational activities of the area.

From Visual Resources Management on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative C, 88 percent of lands would be allocated as VRM Class I and II, while 12

percent would be allocated as VRM Class III and IV. Overall, the allocations proposed by

Alternative C would likely attract more visitors seeking scenic views than the allocations proposed

by Alternatives A and B, thereby likely increasing tourist spending on a negligible to minor level.

From Wilderness Characteristics Management on Socioeconomics

Alternative C would allocate 112,200 acres in the SDNM as lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics. Compared to Alternatives A and B, the social well-being of people or groups who

prefer more developed experiences and opportunities would decrease and the social well-being of

recreationists who prefer solitary, quiet experiences would increase.

4.21.6. ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would respond to recent trends in the Planning Area by emphasizing resource

protection and nonmotorized recreation in remote settings. Its overall management would be

the least intensive of all alternatives. Several of the programs that provide an income would

be curtailed or terminated, including reductions in lands available for mineral entry and the

closing of all grazing allotments, negatively affecting private businesses. Alternative D proposes

the least land eligible for disposal. Alternative D also proposes the smallest acreage available

for utility corridors and the least potential utility-scale renewable energy site acreage, and

would require some utilities to be placed underground, an expensive option. Alternative D's

emphasis on nonmotorized recreational uses, designated route closures, and use limitations

would limit contributions to the economy from users that enjoy motorized recreation, but may

increase contributions to the economy from users that enjoy nonmotorized recreation. Overall,

there would be fewer revenue-generating recreational uses under Alternative D compared to

all other alternatives.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
852 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Overall, there would be positive effects to the social well-being of recreationists who prefer

solitary and quiet experiences. The social well-being of those who feel all roads should be open,

or who need motorized access because of physical limitations, could decline. Opportunities

for hunting and wildlife viewing would be enhanced by a focus on protecting wildlife habitat,

but may be impaired by limitations on access.

4.21.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Socioeconomics

Similar to Alternatives A and B, no allocation would be made for SCRMAs under Alternative D,

with cultural resource protection being accomplished through ACEC designations. Compared

to Alternative C, the BLM’s investment in combined site protection and development would

decrease, potentially decreasing the number of cultural tourists and recreational users to the area.

There would be a concurrent decrease in associated spending in the surrounding communities;

however, the social well-being of those people or groups who value resource protection would

increase over the other alternatives.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

Compared to all other alternatives, net income to pertinent ranchers would be reduced the most.

Impacts are expected to be major as revenue from livestock grazing would cease all together.

The termination of grazing throughout both Decision Areas under Alternative D would be

interpreted by some as the end of a ranching tradition, while it would be interpreted by others as

an effort to return public lands to a more natural state.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Socioeconomics

As under Alternative B, managing uses to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat would require

investment for wildlife health, with a long-term social and economic effect on maintaining

the integrity of the Sonoran Desert. Under Alternative D, more opportunities would exist for

hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography than under Alternatives A and B, but less than under

Alternative C.

In addition, Alternative D would remove existing wildlife waters, which could further decrease

opportunities for hunting, wildlife viewing, and photography. This would especially be true in

times of drought when wildlife populations may decline due to the removal of all wildlife waters.

Restoration by passive means and use of native plants would return damaged sites to natural

conditions slower than under the other alternatives, which would align with the social values of

maintaining natural desert ecosystem. Overall, this alternative is expected to create less revenue

to local economies than Alternatives A, B, and C.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

Alternative D would allocate much less land to SRMAs – 100,200 acres versus to more than

600,000 acres in Alternatives B and C for the Lower Sonoran and no SRMAs in the SDNM.

Resource protection measures such as ACECs would be in place under Alternative D and

consistent with management goals to emphasize nonmotorized and undeveloped recreation

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 853

opportunities. The reduced variety of recreational opportunities, market niches, and visitor

facilities under Alternative D would provide for a reduced number and density of visitors

compared to Alternatives B and C.

As the demand for more intensive recreational uses is likely to increase in the surrounding

communities due to increases in the population, communities adjacent to the Decision Areas

would not likely receive revenue associated with spending on goods and services to support the

particular recreational activities of the developed areas.

Alternative D emphasizes resource protection/conservation and nonmotorized, primitive

recreation, which would increase the social well-being of people or groups who value protection,

solitude, quiet, and other traits of remote areas over the other alternatives. In contrast, motorized

recreation enthusiasts would experience the largest decrease in opportunities for recreation

throughout the Decision Areas. The sales and rental of recreational vehicles and equipment would

likely decrease as compared to Alternatives A, B, and C, especially in gateway communities;

however, sales and rental of equipment and supplies for nonmotorized forms of recreation may

offset this loss to some degree.

From Special Designations on Socioeconomics

In contrast to Alternative C, it would be unlikely that visitation would increase due to proposed

protection of resources because access to places where people-place connections exist would

decrease under Alternative D. Such places under Alternative D would include wildlife, cultural,

and special areas, and areas managed for species and habitat. Under Alternative D, total ACEC

designations would protect natural and cultural resources and the outstanding landscape and

scenic features present on a total of 263,700 acres, more than under A, B, or C.

Resources currently present would receive increased protection compared to the other alternatives,

aligning with the social well-being of people and groups who value increased protection of

public lands, while decreasing the social well-being of people or groups who value resource

use and access.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

In the Lower Sonoran, motorized access to public lands would be reduced most compared to all

other alternatives; both by closing 378,300 acres to motorized vehicle use and by limiting open

routes to an estimated 904 miles or 54 percent of available routes. In the SDNM, motorized

vehicles would be limited to 261 miles of routes (41 percent of all available routes). In addition,

allocated lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would be closed to motorized use

areas. The net result would be to offer more remoteness to those who value this quality than

the other alternatives, but fewer opportunities for more intensive recreational experiences and

convenient access. Those who are physically limited to visit public lands by motorized vehicle

would be excluded from more portions of the Decision Areas than under the other alternatives.

Among nonmotorized users, those who prefer not to share routes with motorized vehicles would

tend to be attracted to the routes that are closed to motorized use. It is unlikely that the designated

routes and trails under Alternative D would address the growing recreation and tourism demand

for motorized use and access, which could lead to a reduced level of use that could damage

sensitive resources.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
854 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The most potential for decreased visitation due to increased restrictions on use and reduced

opportunities for public access would occur under Alternative D. These include restrictions

on motorized access, camping, recreational target shooting, equestrian use, and nonmotorized

mechanized use, as well as seasonal closures, not allowing group tours for cultural resources, and

closing environmentally sensitive areas. Economic activity associated with visitation to public

lands could be shifted to other recreation sites within the general area that are not as restrictive.

Nonetheless, given the increasing urbanization in the area and the wider attraction of Monument

designation, the overall visitation to public lands from local and regional residents is expected to

increase or remain unchanged despite the restrictive management under Alternative D.

From Vegetation Resources on Socioeconomics

In contrast to Alternative A, B, and C, collection of native plant material would be prohibited

in both Decision Areas under Alternative D. This would result in a decline of the social and

economic well-being of those people or groups who have a cultural attachment to collection,

while resource values would receive increased protection.

Also in contrast to Alternatives A, B, and C, the focus on controlling invasive species would

include requiring all equestrian and stock animal users to use certified weed-free feed and refrain

from consuming forage on public lands. This would result in largest decrease in introduction and

spread of invasive species. This alternative would most increase the cost to users but decrease

costs to the BLM. The social values associated with maintaining native species on public lands

would be met.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Socioeconomics

Alternative D prescribes the most acreage to allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics: 276,500 acres in Lower Sonoran and 153,000 acres in the SDNM. Impacts would

be similar to Alternative C, only with larger intensity.

4.21.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative D, more acreage would be made available for retention than under any

other Alternative. Acreage available for R&PP and disposal by any means would be similar

to Alternative B. Revenue associated with land development would be the least under this

Alternative, as compared to others. The social well-being of those individuals or groups who

value retention of public lands would increase compared to other alternatives.

In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative D would designate the least number of corridors than any other

alternative, although all designated corridors would be one mile wide. More acreage would be in

LUA exclusion areas than under any other Alternative.

These actions under Alternative D would promote resource conservation for the protection and

enhancement of natural and cultural resources, further aligning with the social values of those

people or groups who value intact wildlife and cultural areas, more so than under any other

alternative. At the same time, these decisions would reduce the economic opportunity for new

LUAs on public lands. As a result, alternate routings may be needed to provide new utility

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 855

service to the potential service population, which could potentially be at increased costs to the

utility company and ultimately to the consumer.

Impacts from management of utility-scale renewable energy under Alternative D would be similar

to those under Alternative C, although somewhat more restrained as ACECs would be exclusion

areas for utility-scale renewable energy development sites outside of designated corridors, and

lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would only be available for location with

special stipulations.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative D, the most land would be closed to mineral entry in the Lower Sonoran. This

would reduce the revenue yield to the BLM and mining industry, although there is not sufficient

data available to project whether the reduction in the acreage would increase the cost of mineral

materials in the region. For mineral materials and leasables, the revenue yield would be further

reduced because permit approvals in WHAs would be based on whether the mineral extraction

could be done in a manner that maintains or enhances the resources for which the designation

was made.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative D would allocate the most acreage to VRM Classes I and II (77

percent of the Decision Area), the least acreage to VRM Classes III (21 percent of the Decision

Area). This would result in an increase in the social well-being of visitors and residents who

desire protection of scenic views compared to Alternatives A, B, and C.

4.21.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

No utility corridors would be designated within the SDNM, although existing LUA would be

retained. As under Alternative C, communication sites would be not be designated in SDNM

and new communication facilities would be prohibited. These actions under Alternative D

would promote resource conservation for the protection and enhancement of natural and cultural

resources, further aligning with the social values of those people or groups who value intact

wildlife and cultural areas, more so than under any other alternative. At the same time, these

decisions would reduce the economic opportunity for new LUAs on public lands. As a result,

alternate routings may be needed to provide new utility service to the potential service population,

which could potentially be at increased costs to the utility company and ultimately to the consumer.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

In the SDNM, Alternative D would allocate the most acreage to VRM Class I and II (100 percent)

no acreage allocated in Classes III or IV. This would protect visual and scenic resources in all

landscapes across the SDNM, attracting the most visitors seeking scenic views. While the

increased acreage in VRM Class I would align with those groups or individuals who value scenic

views, the allocation would impact those users who value more intensive uses of public lands.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
856 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.21.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative E would respond to recent trends in the Planning Area by providing for a range of

recreational and cultural visitation experiences while providing resource protection. There would

be intensive management of uses and “hands-on” resource protection measures. Revenue effects

to private industry/businesses and to the BLM from recreation would be similar to Alternative B,

while effects from mining and land disposition would be similar to Alternative C, and effects

from grazing would be similar to Alternative A. With several utility corridors in Alternative

E, the BLM could present the many options to energy providers for transmission line siting,

helping meet energy demand at a relatively low cost. Utility-scale renewable energy development

prescriptions would be similar to Alternative B, but more areas would be avoidance or exclusion

areas under Alternative E.

Alternative E would provide a variety of recreational experiences with enough additional controls

to protect resources and to provide for additional niche markets, such as cultural and heritage

tourism. Overall, there would be positive effects to the social well-being of recreationists who

prefer solitary and quiet experiences and to the social well-being of those who feel a majority of

roads should remain open. Opportunities for hunting and wildlife viewing would be enhanced

through a focus on protecting wildlife habitat and providing suitable access. Groups and

individuals who give a very high prior¬ity to resource use may feel that not enough resource use

would be allowed on public lands under this alternative, though more resource use would occur

under this alternative than under Alternatives C or D. Some of the groups and individuals who

give a very high priority to resource protection may feel the resources they are concerned about

(e.g., wildlife, visual resources, and desert ecosystems) would be adequately protected.

4.21.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Socioeconomics

Alternative E would be similar to Alternative D in the Lower Sonoran by not allocating SCRMAs

(outside of the Monument) but providing protection to resources in the Saddle Mountain area

through ACEC designation. However, the BLM’s investment in combined site protection and

development would be similar to Alternative C and may result in slightly increased visitation

compared to Alternatives A and D, with an associated increase in spending in the surrounding

communities.

From Livestock Grazing on Socioeconomics

Grazing under Alternative E would be classified similar to Alternative A. Impacts in terms of

maintaining a traditional ranching lifestyle and resultant economic impact would be similar

to that described under Alternatives A. Impacts from Grazing in the SDNM would be similar

to those in Alternative B for the Monument.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Socioeconomics

Wildlife and habitat management under Alternative E would provide opportunities for hunting,

wildlife viewing, and photography similar to Alternative C, but more than under Alternatives

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 857

A, B, and D, due to allocating a WHA in the Lower Sonoran while still providing some public

access and wildlife waters.

From Recreation Management on Socioeconomics

In the Lower Sonoran, Alternative E would allocate a similar number of acreage to SRMAs as

Alternative C. Front country allocation would be similar to Alternative D and back country

allocation would be similar to Alternative B. In addition, a greater variety of recreational

opportunities and visitor facilities would be provided under Alternative E, although to a lesser

degree than in Alternatives A and B. Management of the SRMAs would be similar to Alternative

B, but would spur somewhat different spending on goods and services.

As under Alternative B, the entire SDNM would be a SRMA, with less area managed as front

country than C, but more than B. Under Alternative E, the 78,700 acres allocated to the front

country RMZ would accommodate sustainable motorized and mechanized access for camping,

picnicking, and other activities near rapidly growing communities to the north of SDNM and the

Town of Buckeye. The communities would benefit from spending on goods and services to

support the particular recreational activities of the developed areas. The 406,500 acres allocated

to back country would provide opportunities for visitors to engage in primitive nonmotorized,

non-mechanized activities. Visitor facilities would be provided offsite in coordination with the

local communities, and provide a potential opportunity for a development project in the local

communities.

From Special Designations on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative E, there would be the most total acres under ACEC designation compared to

other alternatives. This management strategy would align with the social well-being of people

and groups who value increased protection of public lands and the social well-being of people or

groups who value resource use and access.

From Travel Management on Socioeconomics

Overall, impacts to visitation from increased restrictions on use and public access would be most

similar to Alternative C. In addition, increased restrictions on public access to meet resource goals

and objectives would be similar to Alternative C.

From Vegetation Resources on Socioeconomics

As under Alternative B, collection of native plant material for personal use and scientific purposes

in the Lower Sonoran would align with cultural values; however, resource values would be further

protected under Alternative C by not permitting wood harvesting, which is similar to Alternative

D. Impacts from requiring a special use permit for collecting plant material in the SDNM would

be the same as under Alternative B. Impacts from controlling invasive species and requiring the

use of certified weed-free feed would be similar to Alternative C.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Socioeconomics

Alternative E would designate fewer acres in both Decision Areas than proposed under

Alternatives C and D as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. As a result,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
858 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Alternative E would meet both the social well-being of people or groups who prefer solitary, quiet

experiences and the social well-being of people or groups who prefer more developed experiences

and opportunities. Proposals for use of lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics would

be considered on a case-by-case basis and would not likely be permitted, increasing costs similar

to Alternative C.

4.21.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

Impacts from land tenure decisions would be similar to Alternative C.

In the Lower Sonoran, utility corridors would be limited to 8 one mile wide corridors and the core

mountain area of the Saddle Mountain ACEC would be an exclusion area for LUAs, which is

similar to Alternative D. Like Alternative C, other ACECs and allocated lands managed to protect

wilderness characteristics would be avoidance areas. These decisions would allow for the future

development of utilities within designated utility corridors, increasing the economic opportunity

for new LUAs on public lands compared to Alternatives A and D. As a result, new utility service

to the potential service population would be met, which could potentially reduce costs to the

utility company and ultimately the consumer while still promoting resource conservation more

than Alternatives A, B, and C, and aligning with the social values of those people or groups

who value intact wildlife and cultural areas.

Impacts from utility-scale renewable energy development prescriptions would be similar to

Alternative D, albeit more widespread as ACECs and lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics would be avoidance areas for utility-scale renewable energy development sites and

facilities outside of designated corridors, other than with special stipulations. The core mountain

area of Saddle Mountain ACEC would be an exclusion area.

From Minerals Management on Socioeconomics

Under Alternative E, the economic effects of mineral resource extraction would be similar to

those under Alternative C.

From Visual Resources on Socioeconomics

Impacts would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

4.21.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Socioeconomics

In the SDNM, no utility corridors would be designated, which is the same as Alternatives D.

Compared to Alternative B, this would greatly increase costs to utility companies and their

customers while protecting the visual resources and open space views in the Monument. Impacts

in the SDNM would be similar to Alternative D.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 859

4.22. IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This section assesses environmental justice effects of the Planning Area alternatives. Public-land

uses can cause adverse effects to communities defined by environmental justice constraints.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251), the communities of Buckeye,

Gila Bend, Goodyear, Tolleson, Ak Chin Village, Gila River Indian Community, Arlington,

Tonopah, Mobile, Palo Verde, Sentinel, Rainbow Valley, Ajo, the Tohono O’odham Nation,

Why, Apache Junction, Casa Grande, Florence, the Gila River Indian Community, Maricopa,

Stanfield, the community bordering the eastern portion of the SDNM, Globe, and Miami all have

characteristics of either minority populations greater than 36.2 percent or more than 13.2 percent

of the community live below the poverty level.

The resource management decisions expected to have the greatest impacts to socioeconomics

in the study area includes those relating to the management of energy and minerals and lands

and realty

4.22.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.22.1.1. Indicators

The following impact indicators are used when conducting analysis on Environmental Justice:

● Adverse impacts to low income or minority communities as measured by potential reduced

income/employment to these communities.

● Actions that could lead to an impediment to economic development in low income or minority

communities.

4.22.1.2. Assumptions

See assumptions described for socioeconomic impacts.

4.22.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Environmental Justice

Management actions from all program areas except for lands and realty and minerals are not

expected to have an impact on environmental justice in the Planning Area and are not discussed

further.

4.22.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.22.2.1. Both Decision Areas

No unique impacts are identified that are common to all alternatives for both Decision Areas.

4.22.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are identified that are common to all alternatives for the Lower Sonoran.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Environmental Justice
860 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.22.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Under all alternatives, no adverse impacts are anticipated from minerals management to adjacent

low income or minority communities from mineral management within the SDNM

From Travel Management on Environmental Justice

There would be no impacts to communities with environmental justice concerns from

management of the SDNM under Alternative A.

The route designation of within the SDNM is not expected to have any impact on low-income

and/or minority communities and is therefore not discussed further in this analysis.

4.22.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.22.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty Management on Environmental Justice

The community of Mobile is considered both a minority and low-income community. Three

landfills and three utility corridors with existing utility lines currently exist in the Mobile area.

The density of major utility lines and landfills in the Mobile area is much higher than in the

remainder of the region and areas near major utility lines and landfills typically have lower

property values and more difficulty attracting development than do areas without such facilities.

Management decisions to designate these utility corridors within the Mobile area could be a

continuing impediment to local economic development; impacts are expected to be negligible

to major, depending on the proposed actions.

Utility corridors are also located within or adjacent to several of the other minority or low-income

areas in the study area, but there is not necessarily a disproportionate effect of existing utility lines

on those communities as major utility lines are present near most population centers, regardless

of their minority or income status.

4.22.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Ajo, Globe, and Miami area are minority communities. Ajo and Miami are also low-income

communities. Should there be a resurgence in copper mining, this population would likely benefit

from some of the jobs created. However, under Alternative A, no disproportionate negative

impacts are expected due to current minerals management.

4.22.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts are identified for Alternative A for the the SDNM.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 861

4.22.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.22.4.1. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Environmental Justice

The community of Mobile would be affected by the continuation of the utility corridors as

described under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, the additional Gila Bend-Santa Rosa alternate corridor and Tucson Electric

Power, North corridor would potentially intensify the effects of corridors in the Mobile area via

reduced potential for other economic development. Impacts are expected to be minor.

Maintaining the I-8 corridor would increase the acreage of corridors near the minority and

low-income areas of Gila Bend, Casa Grande, and Stanfield, could also which could reduce

potential for other economic development. Impacts are expected to be minor.

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Impacts are likely to be similar to those described under Alternative A.

4.22.4.2. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Environmental Justice

In the SDNM, impacts would be similar to those discussed in Alternative A.

4.22.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.22.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Environmental Justice

The community of Mobile would be affected by utility corridors as described under Alternative

A. However, the requirement that utilities in the Santa Rosa-Gila Bend corridor be placed

underground in the SDNM might discourage its use. Less use of this corridor in the Monument

could concentrate uses in the Mobile area similar to Alternative B.

The effects maintaining the I-8 corridor on Gila Bend, Casa Grande, and Stanfield would be as

described for Alternative B.

The community of Mobile would be affected by utility corridors as described under Alternative

A. However, the requirement that utilities in the Santa Rosa-Gila Bend corridor be placed

underground in the SDNM might discourage its use. Less use of this corridor in the Monument

could concentrate uses in the Mobile area similar to Alternative B.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
862 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.22.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Impacts are expected to be similar to but lower intensity than described for Alternatives A and B.

4.22.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts have been identified for Alternative C for the SDNM.

4.22.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.22.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Environmental Justice

As under Alternative A, the community of Mobile would be affected by utility corridors.

Differing from the other alternatives, however, would be the removal of the Santa Rosa-Gila

Bend corridor on SDNM. Such actions would mean either that the corridor just to the east of the

Monument in the Mobile area would not be used as it would have no major utility grid connection

to its west or that uses would be concentrated in corridors outside the Monument. A portion of

the I-8 corridor east of Gila Bend and another portion west of Stanfield would also be truncated

because of the removal of the corridor from SDNM. A smaller number of potential utility lines in

the area compared to other alternatives would likely mean the least potential negative economic

development impact to the community of Mobile.

4.22.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Impacts are expected to be similar to but lower intensity than described for Alternatives A,

B and C.

4.22.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts have been identified for Alternative D for the SDNM.

4.22.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.22.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Lands & Realty on Environmental Justice

Impacts to minority and low-income populations in the Planning Area would be similar to that

described under Alternative C.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 863

4.22.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Environmental Justice

Impacts to minority and low-income populations in the Planning Area would be similar to that

described under Alternative C.

4.22.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts have been identified for Alternative C for the SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)
864 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.23. IMPACTS ON TRIBAL INTERESTS

This section presents potential impacts of the alternatives on tribal interests, specifically

archaeological, historic, and American Indian resources, as determined through changes in the

resources or access to them. As discussed in Chapter 3, Affected Environment (p. 251), the

locations of most cultural resource sites in the Planning Area are not known, which makes

analyzing impacts to such resources difficult. In general, archaeological, historic, and American

Indian resources may be impacted by unauthorized collection, vandalism, erosion, trampling,

OHV use off-road, fire, mechanized surface disturbance, and loss of access to sacred or traditional

use and gathering areas.

4.23.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.23.1.1. Indicators

No indicators were used to analyze impacts from program areas on tribal interests.

4.23.1.2. Assumptions

No assumptions were used to analyze impacts from program areas on tribal interests.

4.23.1.3. Program Areas with no Impacts on Tribal Interests

There would be no impacts to tribal interests from actions proposed under the following program

areas:

● Air Quality

● Cave Resources

● Paleontological Resources

● Soil Resources

● Water Resources

● Wild Horse & Burro Management

● Hazardous Materials & Public Safety

4.23.1.4. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Impacts on Tribal Interests August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 865

4.23.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.23.2.1. Both Decision Areas

From Wildland Fire Management on Tribal Interests

There have been minimal vegetation treatment projects in the past because fuel loads are generally

low with reduced chance of catastrophic fire. As a result, any treatments to reduce fuel load in the

Decision Area would be small scale and localized, resulting in negligible to moderate impacts.

Treatment efforts would help to stop root damage and erosion of deposits and structures from

invasive species and help to keep archaeological and historical resources intact. Impacts from

wildland fire management on American Indian resources would be moderate.

4.23.2.2. Lower Sonoran

No unique impacts are identified for the Lower Sonoran that are Common to All Alternatives.

4.23.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No unique impacts are identified for the SDNM that are Common to All Alternatives.

4.23.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.23.3.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative A, ongoing protection would be provided to archaeological and historical sites.

Maintaining designated public use sites in both Decision Areas would provide opportunities

to educate the public about past activities and allow for public enjoyment of these resources.

Cultural inventories, documentation, research, protective measures, monitoring, and Site Steward

Patrols would continue to provide information about the past in the Decision Areas and to protect

cultural resource sites. The impact to archaeological and historical resources would be minor.

Continuing to interpret and direct the public to public use sites could lead to damage and

vandalism to American Indian resources at these areas. Opportunities also would be available

to interpret and explain past and current American Indian uses of the resources and areas near

these public use sites from an American Indian perspective. The presence of the general public at

some of these sites may deter American Indian visits and activities. Impacts would be moderate

and site specific.

Unauthorized collection and vandalism to archaeological and historical sites by visitors would

also be expected to increase. Some sites would be monitored, as applicable, deterring impacts

from visitors. A substantial portion of monitoring would continue to be conducted by Site

Stewards, who would assist in providing information to apprehend vandals. Law enforcement

would continue to be used to stop the destruction of the public lands. Educational efforts would

continue to encourage protection of cultural resources and generate an appreciation of the values

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Common to All Alternatives
866 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

being protected. The impact would be detectable but it would be negligible and localized within

small areas.

From Livestock Grazing on Tribal Interests

Compaction of soil, additional erosion, and displacement of artifacts associated with livestock

grazing would continue under Alternative A. Impacts to archaeological and historic resources

would be minor and could be mostly averted by avoiding archeological and historical resources

when locating wells and other grazing related developments.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Tribal Interests

Water developments in cooperation with AGFD for wildlife on public lands would also affect

cultural resources and native habitats due to their development in areas that were used by

American Indians for habitation and gathering resources.

From Recreation Management on Tribal Interests

Recreation use in the Decision Areas would increase due to an increase in regional population, as

well as new interest in the area due to the designation of the SDNM. More intense recreational

use on lands near the communities would result in more impacts to archaeological and historical

resources. Impacts in some-specific areas near communities or on some types of archaeological

sites, such as caves, rock shelters, or rock art, could be moderate or major for specific sites.

From Special Designations on Tribal Interests

No new ACECs would be established in the Decision Areas. This would allow for continued

surface disturbance and intrusions that would affect both cultural resources and/or TCPs. The

impacts would range from landscape to site specific and would be moderate and long-term.

From Travel Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from travel management primarily stem from management actions that restrict or

increase access. Increased access to cultural sites could increase contact by visitors who could

intentionally damage sites by collecting surface artifacts, vandalizing, illegally digging. Visitors

can also unintentionally damage sites by camping on or driving across sites. In fact, studies have

shown that damage to sites is mainly concentrated within several hundred yards of roads (Sullivan

et al. 2002). Reducing such access by closing roads or restricting travel could thus protect

cultural resources. On the other hand, increased access can allow for the increased presence of

law enforcement, cultural resource personnel, and site stewards for purposes of monitoring sites

and areas. Increasing access could also increase the amount of cultural resource inventories and

research. Finally, increased access would allow for the increased presence of the public, which

can also deter vandalism.

Under Alternative A, motor vehicles would be restricted to existing or designated roads. This

would limit impacts associated with motorized vehicle use on or near sites. However, all existing

open routes would remain open, including routes that could be damaging resources. In addition,

continued route proliferation could occur due to the lack of a travel management plan. Alternative

A would designate the most miles of routes open to motorized use by the public compared to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 867

the other alternatives, which would result in moderate impacts to cultural resources. Increased

access leads to more opportunities for vandalism to occur and for continued monitoring of the

area to stop such damage. Alternative A would provide the most motorized access to TCPs and

other traditional use or sacred areas by American Indians. This type of access would make it more

likely that damage, and vandalism to American Indian TCPs and other traditional use or sacred

and archaeological sites by other visitors using motorized and mechanized vehicles would occur.

From Vegetation Resources on Tribal Interests

Lack of current public policy to protect vegetation under Alternative A would increase the

opportunity for fragmentation, loss, or alteration of these resources. This, in turn, would affect

plant resources that have strong cultural and medicinal values for American Indians. Restoration

activities, especially in the Sonoran Desert Ecological Zone, would affect archaeological and

historical resources. Eradication of noxious weeds may involve surface disturbance, which

would impact archaeological and historical sites. Any surface disturbing activity would need to

avoid sites eligible for listing on the NRHP and an agreed upon buffer would be established

around villages, as requested by the Tribes. Mitigation of some impacts would be provided

through Section 106 procedures. Conversely, restoration projects could promote the health and

sustainability of vegetation that is gathered by American Indians. Overall impacts from ecological

and biological management on American Indian resources would be moderate.

From Visual Resources on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative A, most acres would remain in VRM Classes III and IV, which would

mean that archeological and cultural resources would be less protected due to a lower level of

mitigation being required to protect the visual aspects of resources and landscapes. Traditional

use areas would similarly be affected due to visual intrusions and surface disturbance. Major

modifications to the visual landscape could be allowed under Class IV. VRM Class I and II

categories, on the other hand, would help protect cultural resource sites and landscapes from

visual intrusions and surface disturbance under Alternative A; however, such categories would

limit research excavations.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Tribal Interests

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A.

4.23.3.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Land disposals would impact archaeological and historical resources because the lands and

associated resources would leave the protection provided by Federal laws. Impacts would be long

term permanent and major.

Land use authorizations such as ROW, permits, or leases would cause long-term impacts to

archaeological and historical resources. There would also be impacts from lands and realty

authorizations due to new areas being opened through maintaining access routes that would create

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action)
868 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

new routes for motorized recreation. Other actions proposed by local communities under R&PP

leases could also impact archaeological and historical resources. These and impacts mentioned

above would be mitigated under Section 106 of the NHPA. Overall, impacts from lands and

realty would be moderate.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

Most of the Lower Sonoran would be open to mineral exploration and development under

Alternative A. Impacts to archaeological and historical resources in the Lower Sonoran from

associated ground disturbance would be moderate. Increased access due to the construction of

roadways to mines would result in an increase in the likelihood that impacts from vandalism

would occur. Impacts would be site specific and could be major, resulting in a loss of information

on the local and regional history and prehistory. Mining activities could disrupt access to TCPs

and other traditional use or sacred areas and the additional noise and disturbance associated

with active mining sites could disturb some activities at nearby TCPs and other traditional use

or sacred areas. Impacts would be major and would be site specific. Section 106 procedures

may reduce some impacts.

4.23.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

No acres would be disposed of in the SDNM.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

The SDNM would remain closed to new mineral entry under all alternatives.

4.23.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.23.4.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts from cultural resource research and other allowable uses would be the same as described

under Alternative A and remain minor. There would be no new special designations under

Alternative B for cultural resources. This would allow for a greater opportunity of resource loss

and/or damage due to increased access and disturbance in areas with TCPs and other traditional

use or sacred areas and archeological and historic resources. Impacts would be moderate and

long-term. Permitted activities such as SRPs or outfitters and guides would be educated about the

provisions of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and Native American Grave Protection

and Repatriation Act, which would help protect archaeological and historical sites. Establishments

of visitor limits, supplemental rules, or restrictions on a case-by-case basis based on various

strategies, including carrying capacity or LAC, could protect archaeological and historical sites.

From Livestock Grazing on Tribal Interests

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 869

Impacts from livestock grazing would be the same as described for Alternative A.

From Recreation Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from recreation management would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Tribal Interests

Areas and resources that have importance to American Indians would have no greater protection

than under Alternative A due to no new ACECs being established in the Decision Areas. This

would allow for continued surface disturbance and intrusions that would affect both cultural

resources and/or TCPs. The impacts would range from landscape to site specific and would

be moderate and long-term.

From Travel on Tribal Interests

In the Lower Sonoran, the types of impacts from travel management would be similar to

impacts discussed under Alternative A. Overall impacts would decrease, however, because

routes damaging cultural resources would be closed and a travel management plan intended to

control and stop proliferation of routes would be in place. Alternative B would slightly reduce

impacts to undisturbed areas by visitors and vandals. This would slightly increase the difficulty

for American Indians to access TCPs and other traditional use or sacred areas. Overall impacts

would range from minor to moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Tribal Interests

Restoration activities, especially the restoration of the Sonoran Desert Ecological Zone and the

development of wildlife waters could affect archaeological and historical resources. Eradication

of noxious weeds may involve surface disturbance, which would impact archaeological and

historical sites. Conversely, restoration projects could promote the health and sustainability

of vegetation that is gathered by American Indians. Impacts from ecological and biological

resources management on American Indian resources would be minor to moderate.

From Visual Resources on Tribal Interests

As under Alternative A large areas of the Decision Areas would primarily be allocated to VRM

Class III and IV, resulting in similar impacts. Slightly more area would be allocated to VRM Class

I and II under Alternative B, resulting in slightly more protection to archeological and cultural

resources and TCPs. Impacts from VRM would be moderate and long-term.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Tribal Interests

No areas would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics under

Alternative A.

4.23.4.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
870 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts from land disposals would be the same as described under Alternative A, although impacts

would be more widespread as more acres would be available for disposal under Alternative B.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

The impacts from mining would the same as described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

4.23.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

The impacts from mining would the same as described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

4.23.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.23.5.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Tribal Interests

Compared to Alternatives A and B, a greater emphasis would be placed on cultural resource

research and other allowable uses under Alternative, which would lead to a greater understanding

of American Indian resources in the Decision Areas, thus benefiting such resources. Impacts from

research and other allowable uses would range from minor to moderate.

From Livestock Grazing on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be the same as those describe for Alternative B.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts in Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B. The primary exception is that several

WHAs would be allocated, which would increase the protection of ecological and biological

resources in the allocated areas. In addition, no new wildlife waters would be developed,

eliminating disturbance associated with such developments that would occur under Alternative B.

From Recreation Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from recreation management would be similar to those described under Alternative A.

From Special Designations on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative C, more acres would be protected under ACEC designation than under

Alternatives A and B, which would provide greater protection to resources in these areas.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 871

From Travel Management on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative C, impacts from travel management would be similar to Alternative B;

however, fewer miles of roads would be open to the public, resulting in fewer opportunities for

vandalism and less impacts on archeological and historical resources from roads. Closing more

miles of roads under Alternative C would also make it more difficult for American Indians to

visit TCPs and other traditional use or sacred areas and for researchers to access sites. Overall

impacts would be minor.

From Vegetation Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be negligible.

From Visual Resources on Tribal Interests

Alternative C would involve acreage under VRM Class I and II standards compared to

Alternatives A and B, which would protect a greater number of American Indian resources due

to less ground disturbance and visual intrusion in resources areas and landscapes. The impacts

would be minor and long-term.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative C, 128,100 acres in the Lower Sonoran and 112,200 acres in the SDNM

would be allocated as lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics. Both TCPs and other

traditional use or sacred areas would benefit from associated management actions to protect

wilderness characteristics. Impacts would be minor.

4.23.5.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts from land tenure adjustments under Alternative C would be similar to Alternatives A

and B. However, Alternative C would make fewer acres available for disposal than Alternative

B, resulting in less impacts; however, impacts would be greater than under Alternative A due to

more acres that would be made available for disposal.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

The impacts from mining would be the same as under Alternatives A and B.

4.23.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
872 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The impacts from mining would the same as described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

4.23.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.23.6.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative D, a greater emphasis would be placed on cultural resource protection

compared to Alternatives A, B or C. Impacts from protection would be minor. Only research that

was not ground disturbing would be allowed, which would limit understanding of American

Indian resources in the Decision Areas.

From Livestock Grazing on Tribal Interests

There would be no impacts from grazing under Alternative D because public lands would

ultimately be closed to grazing.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts from ecological and biological resources under Alternative D would be similar to

Alternative B and C except that one large WHA would be allocated, which would increase the

protection of ecological and biological resources in these areas. In addition, no new wildlife waters

would be developed and all existing wildlife waters would be removed. As a result, there would

be no new disturbance related to new wildlife waters and existing disturbances would be removed.

From Recreation Management on Tribal Interests

By providing fewer points of access for recreation use, Alternative D would result in the least

amount of ground disturbance and intrusions from visitors to archeological and historical

resources, TCPs, and plant communities that are important to American Indians. Impacts would

be minor across most of the area but could be high in areas of concentrated recreation use.

From Special Designations on Tribal Interests

The greatest number of acres would be protected by ACEC designations under Alternative D.

This would provide the greatest protection to archeological and historical resources, TCPs, and

plant communities that are important to American Indians. The benefits from this alternative

would moderate and long-term.

From Travel on Tribal Interests

The least number of miles of routes would be open to the public under Alternative D, providing

the greatest protection to American Indian resources among the alternatives. There would

be less surface disturbance and intrusion into resource gathering areas and reduced impacts

on archeological and historical resources and TCPs and other traditional use or sacred areas.

However, access for American Indians into TCPs and other traditional use or sacred areas would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 873

be more difficult given that fewer routes would be open. Impacts from surface disturbance and

motorized intrusions would be negligible to minor and benefits would be moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Tribal Interests

Vegetation resources would be enhanced due to better-protected vegetative communities. On the

other hand, there would be potentially fewer areas available for gathering resources by American

Indians due to limited motorized vehicle access. Impacts from surface disturbance and motorized

intrusions would be negligible to minor while benefits would be moderate.

From Visual Resources on Tribal Interests

Alternative D proposes the most acres to be assigned to VRM Class I and II among the

alternatives. This means that the visual integrity of historic and archaeological landscapes and

resources, TCPs, and other traditional use or sacred areas and plant communities important

to American Indians in the Decision Areas would be more protected than under the other

alternatives. Impacts would be moderate.

From Wilderness Characteristics on Tribal Interests

The greatest number of acres would be allocated lands managed to protect wilderness

characteristics under Alternative D compared to the other alternatives. As a result, Alternative D

would provide less access for vandalism along routes but potentially greater opportunities for

vandalism away from routes.

4.23.6.2. Lower Sonoran

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts from land tenure adjustments would be similar to Alternatives A, B, and C. The fewest

number of acres would be available for disposal under Alternative D and would thus have the

least impact on American Indian resources.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative D, the fewest number of acres would be open to mining, which would protect

traditional cultural places and other traditional use or sacred areas from increases in access and

surface disturbance associated with active mining operations. Impacts would be minor due to

the smaller potential for destruction or damage to archaeological and historical sites during

mineral exploration or development.

4.23.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

No acres would be disposed of in the SDNM.

From Minerals Management

The impacts from mining would the same as described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
874 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.23.7. Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

4.23.7.1. Both Decision Areas

From Cultural and Heritage Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts from cultural resource management would be the same as described under Alternative C.

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts from land tenure would be the same as described under Alternatives A. Impacts from

land disposals would be similar to Alternative C due to similar acres available for disposal.

From Livestock Grazing on Tribal Interests

Impacts from grazing would be the same as described under Alternative A.

From Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from ecological and biological resources under Alternative E would be similar to

Alternative B, with the exception that one large WHA would be allocated, increasing the

protection of ecological and biological resources in these areas.

From Recreation Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from recreation would be the same as described under Alternatives C for both Decision

Areas.

From Special Designations on Tribal Interests

Impacts from designating 4 ACECs would increase the protection of ecological and biological

resources in these areas.

From Travel Management on Tribal Interests

The types of impacts from travel management decisions would be the same as described under

Alternative B. Overall, impacts would be less intense than under Alternatives B and most similar

to C due to the decrease of miles of roads that would be open to motorized public travel under

Alternative E. Overall impacts would be moderate.

From Vegetation Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be negligible.

From Visual Resources on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be negligible.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 875

From Wilderness Characteristics on Tribal Interests

Under Alternative E, impacts from allocating lands managed to protect wilderness characteristics

would be the same as under Alternatives C and D; however, impacts would be more limited as

fewer acres would be managed as such under Alternative E.

4.23.7.2. Lower Sonoran

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

Impacts from mineral development would be similar to those described under Alternative A,

with the exception that Saddle Mountain would be closed to salable mineral material disposal,

protecting American Indian resources in this area.

4.23.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

From Lands & Realty on Tribal Interests

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative D.

From Minerals Management on Tribal Interests

The impacts from mining would the same as described under Alternative A for the SDNM.

4.24. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from incremental impacts of

management direction contained in this Proposed Plan/FEIS when added to the effects of other

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal,

tribal, state, or local) or private entity undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can result

from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time

(40 CFR 1508). Analysis focuses on the cumulative impacts from actions within and outside the

Planning Area.

Potential cumulative impacts, projects, and actions in the Planning Area were determined by

examining other plans in the region, by talking with local governments and state and federal land

managers, and from information provided by the BLM staff. Projects outside the Planning Area

were only considered if they would have the potential to affect resources in the region.

4.24.1. METHODS OF ANALYSIS

4.24.1.1. Indicators

See indicators identified previously for each specific resource or resource use.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Impacts
876 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.24.1.2. Assumptions

The following assumptions were used when considering cumulative impacts:

● The timeframe for this cumulative impact analysis encompasses past activities for the past

one hundred years in the Planning Area. It also includes present activities and anticipated

future activities that may extend 20 years into the future, which is the assumed life of the

management plans.

● All of the Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenarios mentioned in Section 4.1.6,

“Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS” (p. 376) would occur over the next 20

years.

4.24.1.3. Qualitative Intensity Scale

The intensities of impacts are the same as those described in Table 4.1, “Qualitative Terms for

the Intensity of Impacts” (p. 375).

4.24.2. COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES

4.24.2.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Air Resources

Cumulative impacts on air resources would be similar under all alternatives. Cumulative air

quality impacts in the Planning Area have been addressed by air quality nonattainment plans and

air quality maintenance plans that MAG and ADEQ have been required to prepare for approval by

the EPA. These plans are required because the Phoenix area is a nonattainment area for several air

pollutants and these plans are, in reality, quantitative cumulative air quality impact assessments.

Three main factors are anticipated to contribute to the cumulative impacts on air quality:

● Anticipated population growth in the Planning Area, especially the rapid growth in the

Phoenix nonattainment areas.

● Anticipated increased emissions from additional OHV use both within and outside of the

Decision Areas.

With the continued use and development of BLM-neighboring lands, dust is likely to persist as a

problem in the Decision Areas into the foreseeable future. Air resources on public lands may be

affected by offsite use, agricultural activities, and development regardless of the RMP alternative

selected. It is assumed that offsite sources are the major contributors to dust within the Planning

Area, there would be negligible differences in cumulative impacts to air resources from the BLM

activities proposed under each RMP alternative.

Cumulative Impacts on Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. Over the next 20 years, ACEC lands will be

primarily affected by urban expansion and population growth, OHV use and nonmotorized

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 877

recreation, mineral development, and rights-of-way for roads and energy. Over the long term,

the implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives could result in direct and indirect

cumulative impacts to the relevant and important criteria for which the ACECs were designated.

On-the-other-hand, strict application of the ACEC management prescriptions and actions could

lessen or avoid the most extreme impacts.

Long-term and cumulative impacts on ACECs from urban expansion, rights-of-way, energy

development, and motorized and nonmotorized recreation uses are similar to those described for

wilderness. Mineral development could impact some of the ACEC’s cultural, recreation, geologic

or scenic values near urban areas due to demand for minerals and construction sand and gravel.

Cultural resources would be subject to increased theft or vandalism due to increasing recreation

use in areas with significant cultural resources.

Wildlife resources in the ACEC may experience the most notable cumulative impacts. Increase

human use would disrupt wildlife or modify their behavior. Rights-of-way for roads and energy

would cut or impair wildlife corridors and animal movement. In addition to traffic, recreation

activities and land uses that would contribute increased ambient noise levels, along with noise

from OHV use and other dispersed recreational activities. Several of the ACEC areas contain

noise or human activity-sensitive areas of wildlife habitat and species (e.g., desert tortoise,

Sonoran pronghorn antelope, big horn sheep for which, increased noise levels and human activity

can have a substantial impact.

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. The Anza NHT is a cultural resource of

national significance. Cumulative impacts to the trail's integrity must be considered, including

the visual impacts of land uses on the historic trail corridor. Impacts that enhance or degrade the

visual resource, recreation values and the integrity of the setting, feeling, and historic association

with trail need to be analyzed.

Trail segments within the SDNM remain once of the least disturbed landscapes along the entire

1,200 mile length of the Anza NHT. This setting is protected by national monument status, but

the Anza NHT would be impacted by increased public interest and use, growing urbanization to

the north and east outside of the monument, and fragmented land ownership and uses in other

part of the Planning Area.

The Anza NHT is primarily affected by the OHV use and the existing and proposed ROWs

for transportation, communication and energy developments. To a lesser extent, visitation and

vandalism of the NHT would also affect its integrity. Population growth and the resulting increase

in recreational use are expected to have a significant impact on the NHT and its historic landscape

setting. Additional population, particularly in the Maricopa and Pinal County areas would result

in more recreational use of the NHT, which would increase OHV traffic along the trail corridor,

the potential for vandalism, and demands for new ROWs corridor over the life of the plan.

New roads would cross the trail in potentially many areas outside the SDNM, especially to the

east. The roads would all impair or destroy the natural character of the landscape. Other state

and private lands east of the monument will become both urbanized and residential. Trail values

will be lost in these areas.

Implementation of large road or energy projects in the corridor outside of the SDNM would

forever change the landscape of this area, irreparably degrade the integrity of the Anza NHT and

it will diminish the public's experience and understanding of the historic expedition and the

cultural landscape of that period. The continuing decline in air quality and the regional haze of

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives
878 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

smog and dust in the central and southwest parts of Arizona will reduce the long-range vistas

once enjoyed by trail visitors.

Urbanization would impact the historic feel of the landscape and impact the dark night skies of

the area, which is another important experience enjoyed by visitors to the desert.

Wilderness Areas. Population growth in the Phoenix/Tucson urban corridor and the resulting

increase in recreational use are expected to have a moderate to significant impact to wilderness

areas in the Planning Area over the life of the plan. Increases in motorized and non-motorized use

during the life of this plan could have minor to potentially major impacts on the three components

of wilderness character: solitude, naturalness, and opportunities for primitive/unconfined

recreation.

In the next 20 years, designated wilderness areas will be primarily affected by the number and

proximity of adjacent motorized travel corridors, the volume and type of traffic on those corridors,

the sights and sounds of urbanizing human development near or on the borders of wilderness,

continuing human and drug smuggling impacts on the Borderlands, the intensity of military and

civilian over flights, and the quantity and type of recreational users.

The North Maricopa Mountains, South Maricopa Mountains, Sierra Estrella and Table Top

wildernesses, areas with good hiking trails and/or good paved road access will be most influenced

with increased visitation, more vehicular incursions, growing trail and off trail recreation use, and

exposure to the sights and sounds of adjacent human activities. Moreover, the North Maricopa

Mountains, South Maricopa Mountains, and Sierra Estrella wilderness areas each border federal,

private and state lands annexed into cities and slated for large scale residential development,

transportation corridors and solar energy development. Solitude opportunities and the perception

of natural landscapes may be impaired the most due to more people and visitor-to-visitor contacts,

greater noise, and more urban light impacts. The interiors of these four areas described above

should protect good to outstanding wilderness characteristics over the life of the plan.

The Woolsey Peak and Signal Mountain wilderness areas may experience moderate visitor use

increases, anticipate moderately increased amounts of motorized recreation use along their

boundaries, and be subject to increased noise and light pollution. Wilderness values, on the

whole, will remain as they are today as the two areas are rugged and remote, lack any visitor

amenities, and have no hiking or equestrian trails.

The Table Top and South Maricopa Mountains wilderness areas will continue to be subject to

ongoing levels of incursions by drug smugglers and human traffickers. Over-the-long-term

smuggling-related roads, trails, look outs and trash accumulations would continue, damaging

wilderness values and discouraging primitive recreation opportunities. This resource damage

and decline in primitive recreation opportunities, while not irreversible, is difficult to reclaim

and restore.

Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources

The cumulative impacts on water resources would be similar under all alternatives. Because

activities on both private and public lands affect water resources, the impacts of development

cumulatively affect watershed conditions. As a result, many watercourses in central Arizona have

been degraded by increased sediment load due to soil disturbance resulting from urbanization,

livestock grazing, and recreation. Furthermore, leachate from mining and tail-water drainage

from agriculture has historically degraded water quality in the region. Under Alternative A, these

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 879

activities would continue to affect water resources. However, under Alternative D, the cumulative

effects on water resources are expected to be less than under any other alternative given that

recreation and mining would be more restricted and grazing would be prohibited.

Cumulative Impacts on Soil Resources

The cumulative effects on soils would be similar under all alternatives and are expected to be

limited to a particular site. Management practices in the Planning Area and activities on private

lands have led to some detrimental soil conditions, some of which persist over the long term.

Additionally, as private lands continue to be developed, especially near the Phoenix metropolitan

area, soil becomes compacted and displaced. As a result, impacts to watershed conditions may

occur through the loss of vegetation.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources

Allocating VRM Classes establishes standards for managing the effects of surface disturbing

activities. Potential impacts of the alternatives on visual resources are based on the potential

management decisions to create visual changes in or contrasts on the landscape. The analysis

shows that the VRM Classes have a spectrum or range of potential impacts by each alternative. In

Alternative A, the visual impacts potentially come from valid and existing rights and activities.

Alternatives B, C, and E reflect differentiating impacts along with the highly protective measures

in Alternative D. During the life of the plan, population growth of the large and small communities

of this planning area will contribute and impact the natural night sky conditions as well as the

general landscape, regardless of which Alternative is implemented. The Lower Sonoran and

SDNM Decision Areas will continue to serve as undeveloped open space as the private and

State lands are developed with the SDNM potentially being surrounded by land annexed into

cities and towns in the next decade.

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

The cumulative impacts analysis area for wilderness characteristics includes Lands with

Wilderness Characteristics in the Lower Sonoran Field Office and the Sonoran Desert National

Monument, and certain lands surrounding such areas, as deemed necessary to satisfactorily assess

impacts on the resource. Past and present action within the planning area and RFD Scenarios over

the next 20 years has the potential to cause cumulative impacts on wilderness characteristics.

Wilderness characteristics in areas not managed to protect those characteristics could be lost

or impaired due to urban expansion and population growth. Simply put, more people mean

more motorized and nonmotorized recreation use, along with associated community needs like

roads, power, utilities, sand and gravel pits, and ROWs. The majority of these recreation uses

and community growth developments could occur on BLM lands and contribute to the overall

availability and quality of naturalness and non-motorized recreation settings, and associated

solitude.

Wilderness characteristics in areas not managed to protect those characteristics could be lost or

impaired due to increasing demand for ROW for utilities, renewable energy, and roads. Vast solar

developments would remove a large amount of public land from recreation-related visitor use,

contributing to greater concentrations of visitors within the SDNM and LSFO public lands.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives
880 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Greater user concentrations would detract from or decrease the quality of solitude and primitive

recreation activities.

Wilderness characteristics are primarily affected by the number and proximity of motorized

travel corridors; the volume and type of traffic on those corridors; and the quantity and type of

recreational users. Population growth and the resulting increase in recreational use are expected

to eventually impact lands with wilderness characteristics. An increase in motorized and

nonmotorized use during the life of the plan could have major impacts on solitude, naturalness,

and opportunities for primitive and unconfined recreation, mainly on lands not managed to protect

such characteristics.

Recreational developments in the Saddle Mountain SRMA and the Ajo SRMA would impair

naturalness and opportunities for primitive recreation and solitude. On-the other hand,

comprehensive travel management and recreation management planning could avoid adverse

impacts altogether in some areas through maintenance of visual standards and recreation settings.

Designation ofERMAs throughout the range of alternatives would disallow most recreation road

construction, maintenance upgrades, or new facilities, except in response to visitor health and

safety or conflicts with other resource uses. This would, in effect, globally protect or enhance

wilderness characteristics. Recreational developments within the SDNM would have no direct or

indirect impacts on wilderness characteristics.

Increased use of civilian and military airspace will add to noise from aircraft operations.

Moreover, the new F-35 military fighter, nosier than current aircraft, may be deployed over the

Decision Area’s airspace. Increased levels of noise will constrain opportunities for solitude and

quiet landscapes. Not much can be done to mitigate this impact and all areas with wilderness

character will be subject to aircraft noise to varying degrees. Noise influences are however, both

transitory and temporary, and subject to the auditory sensitivity of each individual user.

Without significant management intervention, wildlife populations and areas with special resource

values are expected to continue a downward trend over the next 20 to 25 years. Accordingly,

active wildlife management actions and ACEC prescriptions are anticipated on most Decision

Area lands, both on lands with and without wilderness characteristics. Wildlife catchments,

access roads, enclosures for owls and pronghorn, land and OHV closures and stringent Sonoran

desert tortoise habitat protection stipulations are anticipated. Mostly, these actions will protect

or even enhance wilderness characteristics. To a minor extent, wildlife management, special

designations, and recreation visitor use projects can adversely affect localized areas with

wilderness characteristics. These impacts normally come from the installation, maintenance, and

use of catchments, fences, drinkers and visitor management facilities.

Livestock grazing will not impact lands with wilderness characteristics over the long-term.

Livestock numbers and active management practices are expected to remain at or below current

levels, and potentially end in parts of the SDNM and near urban lands. To a minor extent, specific

range management projects could affect areas with wilderness characteristics. These impacts

normally come from the installation, maintenance, and use of range waters, fences, and corrals.

BLM will consider wilderness characteristics when assessing impacts from mining, which

are likely to occur when these activities are permitted to occur on lands with such wilderness

characteristics. Wilderness characteristics in some areas will be directly impaired or lost due

to development of locatable and salable minerals, with the greatest potential in the Ajo Block

and Gila Bend Mountains. About 10% of land with wilderness character, but not managed to

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 881

protect wilderness characteristics could be adversely impacted over the long term, with a loss of

naturalness, and decreased solitude and primitive recreation opportunities.

The BLM can make a variety of land use plan decisions to protect wilderness characteristics, such

as comprehensive travel management planning, application of land health standards, wildlife

habitat planning, or site-specific cultural or recreation plans. These plans normally include

application of VRM 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 and travel routes as open, closed,

or limited to OHVs, or actions initiated to achieve a desired visitor experience or setting. All

comprehensive and activity-based planning efforts and implementation of such plans can serve to

protect wilderness characteristics generally over the long term.

Air quality management and compliance issues may better protect wilderness characteristics on

lands with such character due to potential limitations and regulation of OHV travel on dirt roads

and washes. Restrictions will increase over the life of the plan due to the expansion of community

development and nonattainment areas (PM2.5 and PM10). Such restrictions will include use

limits and closures on use of dirt roads and changes in operating procedures; potentially both

directly and indirectly protect wilderness characteristics

Long-term protection of public land resources like wilderness characteristics is based, in part, on

the use of an adaptive management approach to consider the magnitude of potential impacts, and

then mitigate, implement, monitor, and adapt. Using this approach, BLM can make adjustments

to its best management practices and mitigation measures, as necessary. Adaptive management

and mitigation would be considered as follows: (1) Consider the magnitude of the potential

adverse environmental impacts, based on the environmental conditions. (2) Develop detailed best

management practices and mitigation measures in response to these adverse impacts. (3) Identify

monitoring protocols to determine the effectiveness of these practices and measures given the

outcome. (4) Consider the cost of implementation and monitoring. (5) Determine the need to

adapt or modify the best management practices and mitigation measures, based on monitoring.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

When analyzing cumulative impacts on travel management, the study area would extend beyond

the planning area so that connectivity to regional centers beyond the planning area’s boundaries

(such as Yuma, AZ and Quartzite, AZ) are analyzed. Therefore, the study area for cumulative

impacts on travel management would include Yuma, Maricopa, Pima, La Paz, and Pinal counties.

Since Arizona statehood in 1912, vehicles have been an essential part of outdoor activity and

transportation. At statehood, there were no use restrictions on the use of vehicles, as vehicle

use was just becoming popular and the State’s population was a mere 300,000 people. Vehicle

capability was improved with the advent of four wheel drive in the 1940s. Vehicular impacts were

negligible at this time, due to the fact that cross country travel was infrequent.

Widespread use of earthmoving equipment to create new roads between 1930 and 1980

accelerated the expansion of vehicle usage, creating moderate and major impacts throughout the

State. During the same timeframe, vehicular access in southwestern Arizona was counteracted

and curtailed. Since statehood, vehicle access in southwestern Arizona was largely influenced

by changes in land jurisdictions. Much of the lands in the State was portioned into wildlife

refuges and wilderness areas, military lands, state lands, linear canals, dams, wilderness areas,

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives
882 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

or conveyed to private ownership. Millions of acres in Arizona still exist for vehicle access,

however only a few percent are actually used for travel as a result of limiting travel to roads and

trails. Further reductions in the number and connectivity of the remaining roads and trails create

a major cumulative impact when taken into context the past actions limiting such use, such as

changes in land jurisdiction.

Today, the increasing pressure on transportation and access needs from population growth,

continuing changes in land tenure, new permitted mining activities and land use authorizations on

public lands (such as utility-scale renewable energy developments), and benefit based recreation

outcomes which call for access restrictions to primitive roads for resource protection management

actions have presented minor to major impacts on travel management throughout southwestern

Arizona. Considering that non-motorized hiking and equestrian travel will not be limited to roads

and trails, cumulative impact do not exist for this type of use. Bicycle use will be affected in a

similar manner as motor vehicle use due to having tires and policies which limit wheeled vehicles

to roads and trails. Mitigation measures from these cumulative actions include:

● Population: designation of long distance travel corridors from WUI to provide protections

for access corridors. This would be associated with the active collaboration with local

jurisdictions to provide managed trail experiences.

● Land Tenure: BLM would continue to create road reservation and easements for continued

access on lands that are transferred out of federal ownership.

● Mining Activities and Land Use Authorizations: designate public vehicle access within

ROWs (such as utility corridors) or around site specific uses to provide continued access.

● Resource Protections Measures (specifically from priority wildlife habitat and air

quality resources): Engineer solutions to allow for continued access such as fencing,

exclosures/enclosures, create low dust surfaces to prevent PM-10/fugitive dust closures.

● Benefits Based Recreation Outcomes and Restricted Access: acquire access in key corridors

through licenses, and limit locations of recreation sites to a sufficient distance from roads to

ensure no conflict with camping and road use.

4.24.2.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Given the expected increases in the population centered in Phoenix, Maricopa, Buckeye,

Goodyear, and Apache Junction, use of the public lands surrounding those areas would similarly

increase. Land use authorizations, minerals development, and recreation would have the most

extensive cumulative impacts on cultural resources in the Planning Area. Land use authorizations,

including rights-of-way for development of powerlines, pipelines, fiber optic lines, roads, and

solar energy would be expected to continue to increase with the public demand for services.

Studies on new proposed highway segments suggest that highway planners believe these

population centers would need additional connection to neighboring communities. This would in

turn suggest that population would further increase in those areas. Minerals development may

increase due to market forces in the region. Saleables would increase as a response to popular

demand associated with development. Recreation in the Planning Area would similarly increase,

especially in areas near population centers. The cultural resources in the Planning Area would

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 883

experience minor to major levels of impacts by the ground disturbing activities of these types of

individual projects. History has shown that many of these utility lines lie parallel to one another

and have cumulatively affected the same sites several times. The number of ground disturbing

projects is quite concentrated near the population centers. Trends suggest that a handful of sites

are threatened by damage or destruction due to these projects each year. Fortunately, many are

avoided by project redesign. The remaining sites are subject to mitigation measures that reduce or

minimize the effects of the projects to a negligible to moderate level.

Cumulative Impacts on Minerals

Minerals development is dependent on resource demand and is not constrained by local land

management decisions. If mineral deposits are removed from availability by planning decisions,

the resource will simply be developed at another location, be it local (on non-BLM lands),

regional, national, or international. Since particular environmental impacts are location specific,

the eventual cumulative impacts of necessary minerals development could be more or less than if

the resources within the decision area were developed. The economic impact of developing low

unit value minerals (sand & gravel, crushed rock, etc.) from outside the market area could be

significant since the primary expense for these commodities is usually transportation.

4.24.2.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Land Use Authorizations would be excluded in wilderness and along the Anza NHT. Utility

scale renewable energy facilities would be excluded from the SDNM. Land Use Authorizations

would be avoided in selected areas. This has a protective effect on the Monument objects and

cultural resources in the SDNM. However, these activities would be pushed over onto other land

jurisdictions and other public lands outside of the Monument. The level of intensity would be

minor to major on the cultural resources, especially if the projects require intensive ground

disturbing activities. Mitigation measures would be applied that would bring the impacts to

a minor to moderate level.

The SDNM is withdrawn from new mineral entry, which has a major protective effect on

Monument objects and cultural resources. This would have the effect of pushing mineral

exploration and development onto neighboring land jurisdictions with the effect of minor to major

levels of impact on cultural resources, where mineral potential is high.

Grazing would be unavailable south of Interstate 8, pursuant to the Proclamation. This has the

effect of pushing grazing activities over onto State and private lands, where impacts to the

cultural resources would be at a negligible to minor level. Grazing on the allotments north of the

Interstate was analyzed at an implementation level for their effects on the cultural resources and

Monument objects.

Cumulative Impacts on Minerals

Since Federal minerals within the SDNM have been withdrawn from all types of appropriation

and development and there are no prior existing mineral rights, no minerals development will

occur and impacts will result.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

common to all alternatives
884 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.24.3. ALTERNATIVE A (NO ACTION)

4.24.3.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

The cumulative adverse impacts from the No Action alternative on wilderness characteristics

would be greatest under this alternative. No lands would be managed to maintain wilderness

characteristics. Community growth, ROW, management of recreation and nonmotorized

recreation uses and mineral development each could contribute to adverse effects, both directly

and indirectly. Wilderness characteristics could be potentially lost or diminished in all areas, but

adverse affects are more likely in areas close to urban and populated rural areas, including lands

in the south part of the Ajo Block, around Saddle Mountain, and within the Gila Bend Mountains

block. Wilderness Characteristics on lands within the SDNM would be slightly diminished

in the Butterfield Stage and Margie’s Peak areas due to high public use, but altogether fully

maintained elsewhere.

Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty

Cumulative impacts to lands and realty occur through changes in the designation and development

of land resources and in changes to access of the land. Under Alternative A, access would be the

least restrictive to land use authorizations on federal land compared to any action alternatives due

to the fact that LUA and utility-scale renewable energy development avoidance and exclusion

areas would not be introduce and all ten 1-mile wide utility corridors that run through the planning

area would be maintained. As a result, future utility development would not be shifted to other

nearby private or state lands; therefore, future utility development needs would be easily met to

address the increasing energy and resource demands associated with the population growth

projected over the next 20 years. Overall cumulative impact from Alternative A to lands and

realty management would be minor.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

Potential cumulative effects of growth and development on social and economic values many

include:

● The loss of ranching and related western lifestyles;

● Changes in the social leadership structure resulting from increases in urban values and

reduced ranching. In general, the greatest effects would be related to economics because

the actions proposed in this RMP would not, in most cases, have major social impacts in

the Planning Area.

● Increased spending for recreational goods and services. Nearby communities provide local

services to recreationists and would continue to benefit from recreation under the current

management.

Under current management, 26,900 acres of BLM-managed public land would be available for

disposal by sale or exchange. The disposition of BLM land is not expected to be growth inducing

because much of the Planning Area is growing rapidly already and would continue to do so

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 885

independently of BLM land disposals. Therefore, Alternative A would have no measurable

cumulative impact on growth and development in the State, and growth in and near the Planning

Area would continue to impact resources on public lands.

4.24.3.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those in the Common to All, except for the following

items. The lack of a Transportation plan would have the effect of experiencing a proliferation

of routes within the Planning area, regardless of land ownership. This would have a minor to

moderate impact on cultural sites, especially in areas with higher site density. The lack of a

requirement to keep large scale utility lines within established utility corridors would affect

cultural resources to a minor to major level of intensity due to the line placement being allowed

in more areas and not concentrating them. Under Alternative A, a large percentage of the BLM

lands in the Planning Area would be open to mineral entry, so most saleable mineral development

would take place on BLM lands, rather than on other jurisdictions. This would impact cultural

resources more on BLM lands to a minor to moderate level. Mitigation measures would reduce

or minimize impacts to a negligible or minor level. The lack of management strategies for

recreation would allow recreation to occur randomly in a number of different areas. This lack

of management structure and amenities would allow impacts on cultural sites that would be at

a minor to moderate level.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Protected species within the decision and adjacent areas have endured both historic and recent

declines in population and distribution. The principal common factor in these declines has been

extensive loss, fragmentation, curtailment, and adverse modification of habitat. Short- and

long-term effects to protected species stem from a variety of activities including mining, livestock

grazing, OHV use, camping, military training, agriculture, road construction, and development

of utility corridors, surface water impoundments, groundwater withdrawals, and commercial,

residential, and recreational development. Fencing, canals, and vehicle routes have all limited

the ability of the Sonoran pronghorn to move across its former range to find forage and water,

contributing to increased vulnerability to drought, increased mortality (especially of fawns),

and an overall decrease in population size and range. Actions that have resulted in additive or

interactive effects that have acted to support the survival of many protected species include the

designation of national monuments, wildlife refuges, BLM administered Wilderness Areas and

the BMGR. Most important among these countervailing actions are the long-term land use and

management actions such as the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan and Desert Tortoise Range

Wide Plan that provide habitat protection and conservation for many of these species on Federal

lands, and specific recovery efforts directed at individual species. Increased human population

growth within the region will likely lead to further loss and fragmentation of habitats for protected

species from development and the increased demand for recreation. Continued surface water

impoundments and groundwater withdrawals could impact those protected species that require

riparian areas and vegetation, such as the southwestern willow flycatcher, as these areas become

drier and upland vegetation emerges.

Alternative A does not have LUP level decisions regarding special status species; however,

management of habitat is based upon existing conservation measures. Important habitats for

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action)
886 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

special status plant and animal species would be protected on a case-by-case basis to maintain

known existing populations. Additional management attention would be directed toward

populations of listed, proposed, candidate, and other special status species through inventory and

monitoring of known populations to document population levels and status. Existing populations

would be maintained or increased through protection of these species and their habitats. Measures

to ensure that species-specific plans such as the Desert Tortoise Rangewide Plan are followed,

including the no-net loss of habitat will protect habitat for tortoise and incidentally protect habitat

for other special status species.

The Coffeepot Botanical ACEC (8,900 acres) would remain under Alternative A. By continuing

the designation of this area as an ACEC, a number of special status species habitats will be

protected, including habitat for the Acuña cactus, cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, and desert

tortoise. Water developments would continue to be evaluated based on the AGFD’s wildlife

water development standards. Some special status species such as Sonoran pronghorn would

generally benefit from water developments, and thus expand their distribution into previously

unoccupied areas. Management actions under Alternative A would allow many existing land uses

and authorizations to continue and a number of new land uses and authorizations to be approved

without consideration of potential conflicts with or other impacts on special status species. All

existing and future compliance requirements for special status species would have to be met, so

these species would be afforded a similar level of protection as they would under Alternatives

C, D, and E. However, any additional additive and complimentary benefits for special status

species that could be gained from the management decisions included in the Alternatives C, D,

and E would not necessarily be realized. Overall, the long-term decline in native vegetation and

special status species habitats due to land uses, conversion to urban or agricultural uses, surface

water impoundment, and groundwater withdrawal would continue under Alternative A and

cumulatively the effects would range from minor to major for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Under Alternative A, increased demand for infrastructure will result in more on-ground projects.

Visual impacts from proposed utilities, communication sites, and energy facilities have been

primarily in lower elevation areas with low slope and allocations in the VRM III or IV resulting in

minor to moderate effects. Overall cumulative impacts to visual resources from unauthorized

causal recreational use including travel management would be minor to moderate.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts to livestock grazing are usually those that affect available forage, water,

and space. If implemented, the overall cumulative impacts from Alternative A would result in

livestock operations at or near current capacity, but with the likelihood of AUM reductions due

to loss of lands to other resource uses, and a gradual reduction of available land and forage for

other resources, such as recreation, energy development, land disposal, mineral development,

wildfires, and wildlife habitat enhancement.

Alternative A contains the least restrictions on recreation activities. Because recreational use is

expected to increase throughout the Decision Area due to an increase in the region's population,

the greatest impacts to livestock grazing would likely occur from recreation. For example, the

entire Lower Sonoran would be open to recreational target shooting. Cumulatively, impacts from

this would include soil disturbance and loss of vegetation from vehicles and human trampling,

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 887

litter from shell casings and targets that are often left behind, and potential injury and/or death of

livestock. These combined impacts could cause avoidance or displacement of cattle in affected

areas, which could negatively affect livestock distribution patterns and forage availability.

Another impact to available space for livestock is wildland fires, which are increasing with

the population growth and human expansion into public areas. Managing areas as suitable for

wildland fire and allowing naturally ignited wildland fire, prescribed fire, and treatments would

have cumulative impacts on the amount of forage and area available for livestock grazing in the

short term, but could improve vegetation condition in the long term in fire-adapted communities.

The level of impact would vary depending upon the size of the area burned. However, fire in

Sonoran Desert communities that are not fire adapted would reduce the amount of forage available

to livestock on a longer term. Suppression of wildfires in the Sonoran Desert would have short

term-impacts by removing vegetation, but would reduce overall impacts to livestock forage in

the long term by retaining the vegetative communities and stabilizing the soil. Impact intensities

could range from negligible to major, depending on the size of the burn. These impacts would be

similar under all alternatives.

Illegal immigration and smuggling will continue to impact public lands at current or increasing

levels. Impacts may shift as illegal immigrants and smugglers adapt to new border enforcement

techniques. Damage to natural and recreation resources, and related public safety concerns,

will increase as resource crime and vandalism incidents swell in the growing public land-urban

interface. The cost to repair and restore fences and water developments will grow and require

more agency resources over the life of the plan. Furthermore, the growth of metropolitan areas

will increase illegal dumping in the boundary lands. Hazardous materials and spills may also

increase in these areas. Each of these impacts cumulative affects the area of quality forage and

space for both livestock and wildlife.

Emphasis is placed on protection of the vegetative communities across the Decision Area.

Management actions, such as requiring mitigation or avoidance of vegetation removal for projects

in order to protect vegetation resources, would protect or restore vegetation communities and

would generally increase available forage for livestock grazing. Actions that would reduce,

damage, or destroy vegetation communities would generally decrease available forage for

livestock grazing. Any of these actions are likely to be negligible to minor in scale and in some

cases may be short term.

Fencing developments can cumulatively impact the amount of land and forage available to

livestock. While pasture fencing tends to be conducive to good grazing management by allowing

rotational/rest regimes, it can also be detrimental to livestock and wildlife movement across the

landscape. There is often a tenuous balance between improving rangeland resources through the

use of fencing to manage or exclude livestock, and minimizing fencing for the benefit of wildlife

movement and dispersal. This is particularly important along wildlife corridors. For instance,

restrictions on new fencing in bighorn sheep habitat that improve bighorn sheep movement

can impact livestock grazing by making livestock operations less efficient, limiting livestock

management options, or closing or restricting areas to livestock grazing. Fencing certain

important cultural resource sites to exclude grazing would result in a small decrease in forage, but

few sites would need to be fenced. Individually, activities associated with management of cultural

and paleontological resources would affect relatively small, localized areas. Even cumulatively,

the amount of acreage involved with multiple cultural sites and excavations would still remain

small. Mineral development within the 614,900 acres currently open to mineral entry could impact

livestock operations by disturbing surfaces and decreasing vegetation and add to fenced-out areas.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action)
888 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Restricting developments and ground disturbing activities from areas of significant desert

pavement, cryptogamic crust, and soils that are vulnerable to disruption or have high wind

or water erosion potential could have a minor impact by limiting the location of livestock

management facilities. Allowing projects in these areas if mitigation occurs could offset this

impact. Likewise, restrictions on placement of new water developments could impact distribution

of livestock. The intensity of these impacts would generally be minor.

Emphasis is placed on protection of the vegetative communities across the Decision Area.

Management actions, such as requiring mitigation or avoidance of vegetation removal for projects

in order to protect vegetation resources, would protect or restore vegetation communities and

would generally increase available forage for livestock grazing. Actions that would reduce,

damage, or destroy vegetation communities would generally decrease available forage for

livestock grazing. Any of these actions are likely to be negligible to minor in scale and in some

cases may be short term.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Over the life of this plan, continued population growth of the large and small communities of this

region will contribute to greater visitation to the Planning Area. The communities of Maricopa,

Goodyear, Buckeye, and Gila Bend are expected to continue expanding their boundaries through

annexation; other communities may incorporate; and the major extent of the Decision Areas

will border on or be included in incorporated cities and towns, with little county-administered

land. For the majority of Maricopa County, western Pinal County, and western Pima County,

the Lower Sonoran will continue to serve as undeveloped open space as private and State lands

are developed. Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes would be moderately less than for

the action alternatives due to custodial management of the recreation resource over 70% of the

Decision Area, combined with case-by-case management of other resource uses.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under the Common to All Alternatives section

for both decision areas. Past and present actions would not be halted or addressed (such as

pressures from population growth), as management actions would not change under Alternative

A. As a result of not having travel management assets identified and no plan to retain current

access opportunities, there would be a continual loss of access points to BLM lands. Cumulative

impacts overall would range from minor to major.

4.24.3.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those listed in the Common to All section, with

the following exceptions. The lack of a site specific Recreational SRMA with management

prescriptions for the SDNM would have the effect of allowing non-compatible uses occur on the

Monument, which would have a minor to major effect on Monument objects and cultural sites on

the SDNM. The lack of a Transportation plan would have the effect of experiencing a proliferation

of routes within the SDNM. This would have a minor to moderate impact on the 46 Monument

objects and cultural sites, in the six areas that were analyzed at an implementation level. Nineteen

of those sites may have characteristics that would make them eligible for the National Register

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 889

and would require appropriate mitigation measures. No effects to other land jurisdictions cultural

sites would be anticipated under this travel management alternative. No restrictions on target

shooting would be in place under this alternative, so direct and indirect impacts to Monument

objects and cultural sites would continue. These were analyzed at an implementation level. These

impacts include projectile strikes to features and trash and trampling on Monument objects and

cultural resources at a minor to moderate level.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Protected species within the SDNM decision and adjacent areas, and throughout their range,

have endured both historic and recent declines in population and distribution. The principal

common factor in these declines has been extensive loss, fragmentation, curtailment, and

adverse modification of habitat. Short- and long-term effects to protected species stem from a

variety of activities including mining, livestock grazing, OHV use, camping, military training,

agriculture, road construction, and development of utility corridors, surface water impoundments,

groundwater withdrawals, and commercial, residential, and recreational development. Actions

that have resulted in additive or interactive effects that have acted to support the survival

of many protected species include the designation of national monuments, wildlife refuges,

BLM-administered Wilderness Areas and the BMGR. Most important among these countervailing

actions are the long-term land use and management actions such as the Desert Tortoise Range

Wide Plan that provides habitat protection and conservation for many of these species on Federal

lands, and specific recovery efforts directed at individual species. Increased human population

growth within the region will likely lead to further loss and fragmentation of habitats for protected

species from development and the increased demand for recreation.

Water developments would continue to be evaluated based on the AGFD’s wildlife water

development standards. Some species throughout the planning area, such as Desert bighorn

sheep would generally benefit from water developments, and thus expand their distribution into

previously unoccupied areas that lack water but contain suitable habitat. Removing vegetation in

areas could assist wildlife in short term dispersal in a relatively secure manner, however could

increase predation on some species with the removal of cover for escape. Livestock grazing in

the SDNM, south of I-8, were terminated when existing grazing permits expired, as directed by

Presidential Proclamation 7397. Impacts to wildlife or priority species associated with livestock

grazing include competition for space, forage, cover, and water resources. Typically, negligible

and minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur where livestock use is in conformance with

standards and guides, as measured through rangeland health assessments. These assessments in

the monument are designed to address resources in context with monument objects.

The Vekol Valley ACEC (3,500 acres) would remain under Alternative A. Currently there are

3,500-acres of public lands within the Vekol Valley Grasslands ACEC. This ACEC was designated

to protect a grassland system. Currently, the Vekol Valley ACEC lies within the Sonoran Desert

National Monument however it was designated before the conception of the SDNM. The ACEC

has an existing decision of the previous RMP, to “close the Vekol Valley Grassland area of critical

environmental concern to off-highway vehicle use,” and remains in effect. In the SDNM, 160,700

acres are closed to motor vehicle uses. This closure includes approximately 157,600 acres for

designated wilderness and 3,500 acres for the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC. The designation of

wilderness affords the highest level of protection of unfragmented habitat. These wilderness areas

contain priority wildlife habitat for Sonoran desert tortoise, desert bighorn sheep, and potential

foraging habitat for Lesser long-nose bats. 247,700 acres are designated as limited to existing

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative a (no Action)
890 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

routes. Impacts to wildlife are expected to occur from unauthorized route expansion as they

occur. Overall, the long-term decline in native vegetation and special status species habitats due

to land uses would continue under Alternative A within the SDNM and cumulatively the effects

would range from minor to major for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Alternative A presents the greatest impact to visual resources within the SDNM, although overall

potential impacts are moderate. Cumulative impacts from transportation and access will have

the most effects due to increased OHV use, affecting vegetation and soils leading to moderate or

major impacts. Cumulative impacts from VRM Class allocation are expected to be moderate in

comparison with the Visual Resource Inventory.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A for the Lower

Sonoran, except, there would be a decrease in acres available to livestock grazing due to

incompatibility with the protection of Monument objects. Ranchers and operators may be

persuaded to transfer their operations to non-federal lands, but likelihood would be minor.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

The SDNM may be entirely surrounded by land annexed into cities or towns within ten years.

For the majority of Maricopa County, western Pinal County, and western Pima County, the

SDNM Decision Area will continue to serve as undeveloped open space as private and State

lands are developed. A greater production of public benefits from recreation experiences would

accrue from implementation of the action alternatives for management of other resources and

the recreation resource. This is due to the interaction of management of other resources with the

impact of managing the SDNM as a SRMA. However, under Alternative A, the SDNM would not

be managed as an SRMA and the opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes would be moderately

less than for the action alternatives due to custodial management of the recreation resource over

70% of the monument, combined with case-by-case management of other resource uses.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran.

4.24.4. ALTERNATIVE B

4.24.4.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

Cumulative impacts would be similar to Alternative A, but to a slightly less degree. Alternative

B has moderate levels of landscape-based protective prescriptions. Comprehensive travel

management would be the most effective tool in maintaining wilderness characteristics.

Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 891

Cumulative impacts to lands and realty under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative

A, with the exception that some federal lands within the planning area would be allocated as

avoidance and exclusion areas to LUA and utility-scale energy development. However, compared

to Alternatives C, D, and E, Alternative B would allow federal lands to accommodate the most

projected utility development due to limits in the amount of acreage allocated as an avoidance or

exclusion area and all 10 1-mile wide multiuse utility corridors would be maintained. Overall

cumulative impact from Alternative B to lands and realty management would be minor.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

Impacts from growth and development are anticipated to be the same as Alternative A. Under

this Alternative, 39,700 acres of land would be available for disposal by sale or exchange, a total

that is 47 percent greater than under Alternative A. Because the disposition of BLM-managed

public land is not expected to be a major growth-inducing action, this alternative would have no

measurable cumulative impact on growth and development.

4.24.4.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts would be the same as those described in the Common to All section except for the

following. Transportation planning would allow route designation on the BLM lands within

the Planning Area. Under Alternative B, the maximum number of routes would be available

compared to any other Alternative. This would make the BLM lands far more attractive and

access far easier than surrounding jurisdictions for vehicle based activities. Minerals would be

subject to additional segregations and withdrawals on selected areas than would be experienced

under Alternative A. Land use authorizations for large linear utility lines would have to be placed

in one of the designated utility corridors, which under Alternative B, have a wider profile. A

number of avoidance and exclusion areas would be designated under B as well. These restrictions

would have somewhat of a protective effect on cultural resources in those selected areas. The

utilities and minerals activities may shift off of BLM lands onto State and private lands where

impacts to cultural resources may be at a minor to major level.

Recreational activities would be promoted under Alternative B, due to additional opportunities

being offered. Specific marketing strategies in each SRMA may have a cumulative impact on the

area the people choose to recreate in. Under B, the strategy would draw additional motorized

recreational use from surrounding lands, which would have the effect of increasing visitation to

areas on BLM. Increased visitation in some areas may have a minor to moderate intensity on the

cultural resources present. Visitation in non-BLM lands may decrease in some areas.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described

for Alternative A. The incremental effects of Alternative B would generally be the same

as described for Alternative A except that it would establish specific goals, objectives, and

management actions that support recovery efforts for known populations of special status species.

Alternative B would also introduce wildlife movement corridors to assist wildlife in moving

from one area to another in a relatively safe manner to the tune of approximately 168,000 acres

of mixed ownership in various locations throughout the decision area. Overall, the long-term it

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
892 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

would be expected that declines in special status species habitats within the decision and adjacent

areas would continue in areas that lack protection for wildlife habitats. Cumulatively effects

would range from negligible to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Cumulative impacts from lands and realty actions such as utility and solar projects will be

moderate compared to Alternative A due to the shift from VRM Class IV into Class III. Although

recreation management will be more developed, impacts will be moderate due to the allocation

of the VRM Classes. With the reduction in roads, the route network will generally result in an

improved visual character, and impacts will be minor. Negative moderate and minor impacts to

VRM Class II and III allocation, respectively, would be similar to but more concentrated than

under Alternative A.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative A for the Lower Sonoran, except,

Alternative B identifies the greatest amount of public lands suitable for appropriate multiple uses,

with an emphasis on motorized and developed recreational opportunities. Therefore, recreation

and urban expansion are likely to cause the majority of impacts to livestock grazing. As described

for Alternative A, the cumulative effects of the individual resources would coalesce in the loss

of space, forage, and water for livestock use.

Overall cumulative impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except with an aggregate increase

in effects. The cumulative impacts would include managing livestock operations with a 40 percent

reduction in permitted AUMS; the increased impacts from recreation, including damage and/or

loss of land and forage, harassment and/or injury to cattle, and vandalism to range developments;

the likelihood of future AUM reductions due to additional loss of lands to other resource uses;

and gradual reduction of available land and forage for other resources, such as recreation, energy

development, land disposal, mineral development, wildfires, and wildlife habitat enhancement.

Individually and possibly collectively, permittees across the Lower Sonoran would likely

experience increased costs of operations for the maintenance of vandalized fences and water

developments while incurring a reduction in the value of their base properties as connected to a

reduction in their grazing preference, as well as a 40 percent reduction in their potential income

from their livestock revenues. Often livestock operators choose to run reduced numbers for a

variety of reasons (drought, fire, personal finances, etc), so impacts from reduced AUMs might

not affect overall economic impacts of Alternative B. However, all of these impacts combined

could potentially make continued livestock grazing untenable in the Decision Area, which could

encourage grazing uses to be placed on nearby state and private lands.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would accrue

cumulatively to a moderately greater degree than A, principally due to management of 70 % of

the decision area as SRMA’s together with slightly less availability of motorized travel routes.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 893

Cumulative impacts to travel management would be similar to Alternative A as a result of

continuing to limit vehicular travel to routes with the exception that designating all routes

and increasing fines for violating the designated routes policy could further create feelings

of restriction by visitors to public lands. A countervailing effect could be that routes, once

designated, have more protection from the impacts identified in Alternative A. Further limitations

placed on vehicular travel by the creation of avoidance areas for LUAs would cause additional

competition for available areas, increasing the level of impact from moderate to major. Recreation

zoning in alternative B would be the most vehicle use friendly, helping to reduce the effects of

opportunity loss occurring on other jurisdictions or other areas on BLM. Overall the effects of all

actions prior, current and foreseeable create a moderate effect on travel management.

4.24.4.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those listed in the Common to All section, with the

following exceptions. Three utility corridors would be designated within the SDNM, which

would have minor to major impacts on Monument objects and cultural resources. The increasing

population would demand services through utility lines that would apply for placement within

these corridors. Grazing under this Alternative would see a reduction in preference within the

allotments under permit to operate. This was analyzed at an implementation level. Generally,

the sites known to occur in the SDNM allotments have neglible to minor impacts due to grazing

activities. A reduction in preference may have the effect of pushing grazing activities off of the

Monument and onto other land jurisdictions, which would have a similar impact on cultural

resources on those lands. Management of recreation on the Monument would be more directed

under the designation of a SRMA and would tend to promote the SDNM as a destination with

facilities. Numbers of visiting public would increase under this strategy and would be drawn to

the amenities offered. This would have a minor impact on the Monument objects and cultural

resources on the SDNM due to the higher number of visitors expected. There would be some

draw of visitors from surrounding land jurisdictions to take advantage of the amenities offered.

This would have a protective effect on those cultural resources there. No competitive motor

sports would be allowed in the SRMA. This would push this use onto other lands and may have a

negligible to minor effect on the cultural resources there. Under Alternative B, target shooting

would be prohibited on 80 % of the SDNM. This was analyzed at an implementation level.

Indirect impacts from trampling and trash accumulation to Monument objects and cultural

resources would be expected at a minor level of intensity. The prohibition to shooting in such an

extensive area of the SDNM would have the effect of pushing some of this use onto neighboring

land jurisdictions and other public lands. The effect on the sites in those areas may experience

a minor to moderate level of impacts from direct damage and indirect impacts. Transportation

planning under Alternative B was analyzed at an implementation level. Under this alternative,

more routes would be open and 45 cultural sites and Monument objects would be affected

either directly or indirectly by the designation of these routes. Mitigation measures would be

employed to reduce or minimize the effects of this action. Additional visitation may be drawn

from neighboring jurisdictions to experience these routes. This may have a negligible to minor

effect on those cultural resources.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B
894 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described

for Alternative A. The incremental effects of Alternative B would generally be the same as

described for Alternative A, except that it would establish specific goals, objectives, and

management actions that support recovery efforts for known populations of special status species.

While similar to Alternative A, this alternative does not carry forward the 3,500 acres for the

Vekol Valley grassland ACEC. Negligible impacts to wildlife are anticipated from dropping the

ACEC designation. Managing the grassland under the monument proclamation affords a greater

protection. Overall, the long-term decline in native vegetation and special status species habitats

due to land uses would continue under Alternative B within the SDNM and cumulatively the

effects would range from negligible to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Cumulative impacts from transportation and access would range from negligible to moderate,

because the designated route network would reduce visual impacts throughout the monument.

Minor visual impacts are expected with the allocation of VRM Classes compared with Alternative

A.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those under Alternative A, except that Alternative B

identifies the greatest amount of public lands suitable for appropriate multiple uses, with an

emphasis on motorized and developed recreational opportunities. Therefore, recreation and

urban expansion are likely to cause the majority of cumulative impacts to livestock grazing. As

described for Alternative A, the cumulative effects of the individual resources would coalesce in

the loss of space, forage, and water for livestock use.

Under Alternative B, managing 8,500 fewer acres with more fence lines, fewer waters, and a

reduction of 40% in the authorized grazing preference could have a major impact by reducing the

long-term viability of some livestock operations, especially when considered with the cumulative

impacts of the closure of those areas south of I-8, as well. The reduction in livestock numbers

could leave some operators on the SDNM with herd sizes too small to support their current

operations. Operators would have to acquire additional lands outside of BLM lands in order to

support a viable operation, which, in some cases, could be cost-prohibitive. All associated range

improvement projects within and outside the fenced exclosures would have to be addressed on a

case-by-case basis. Combined impacts from this alternative would likely be minor to moderate

for allotments such as Beloat, Arnold, Hazen, and Lower Vekol, but could be moderate to major

for operators of the Bighorn and Conley Allotments.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would accrue

cumulatively to a moderately greater degree than in A, principally due to management of the

SDNM as a Destination SRMA together with management of motorized access and travel routes

for targeted benefits

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative B August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 895

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower

Sonoran, except that further limitations placed on vehicular travel by protecting Monument

objects could increase impacts to travel management raising the cumulative impact from moderate

to Major. Recreation zoning in Alternative B would be the most vehicle use friendly, helping to

reduce the effects of opportunity loss occurring on other jurisdictions or other areas on BLM.

Overall the effects of all actions prior, current and foreseeable create a moderate effect on

travel management.

4.24.5. ALTERNATIVE C

4.24.5.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

Alternative C presents an array of resource-based land use designations and prescriptions

supportive of maintaining wilderness characteristics. This is true both in lands managed and not

managed to maintain wilderness characteristics. Some areas with wilderness characteristics in the

south part of the Ajo Block and within the Gila Bend Mountains could suffer loss or diminishment

of such characteristics due to site-specific effects from urban growth, ROW, motorized recreation

use and mining. As under Alternative B, comprehensive travel management would be the most

effective tool in maintaining wilderness characteristics in areas not managed as such.

Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty

Cumulative impacts to lands and realty under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative

B, with the exception that more federal lands within the planning area would be allocated as

avoidance and exclusion areas to LUAs and utility-scale energy development. Under Alternative

C, there would only be nine multiuse utility corridors allocated in the planning area (all corridors

within the SDNM would be decreased to .5 miles wide and the TEP multiuse utility corridor

would be removed). Compared to Alternatives A and B, more utility development would be

shifted to non-federal lands, as large portions of federal lands within the planning area would be

off limits to surface disturbing activities. Federal lands would not play a large role in housing the

large demand for solar energy development projects as anticipated in the RFD Scenarios. Overall

cumulative impacts from Alternative C to lands and realty management within the planning area

over the next 20 years would be minor to moderate.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be the same as Alternative B.

4.24.5.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Impacts to cultural resources would be similar to those listed in the Common to All section, except

for the following. The Transportation planning would have slightly fewer designated routes that

that proposed under Alternative B. Minerals would experience a similar set of segregations and

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
896 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

withdrawals on special selected areas with cultural, recreation, or wildlife values, similar to those

under Alternative B. Saleable minerals would experience greater restrictions, which may have

the effect of pushing some operators over onto State and private lands in the Planning Area.

Land use authorizations would have additional avoidance and exclusion areas applied to some

areas, which also may have the effect of pushing some actions onto State or private lands. Under

Alternative C, there are fewer SRMA’s identified than Alternative B, but more than Alternative A.

These additional restrictions would have an overall protective effect on cultural resources than

that offered under Alternative A. Cumulative impacts to cultural resources within the Planning

Area would be at the minor to major level of intensity in some areas with higher site densities.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be similar to those

described for Alternative A. Alternative C would have the strongest management influence on

maintaining and promoting the conservation and enhancement of habitat for special status species

through a number of resource allocation and special area designation decisions. Under Alternative

C, approximately 425,000 acres would be allocated as WHAs, 296,000 acres of mixed ownership

for wildlife movement corridors and would introduce 63,000 acres as the Coffeepot Batamote

ACEC encompassing the Coffeepot Mountain ACEC. These allocations and their management

prescriptions would allow for the protection of large areas of intact habitat and decrease the

effects of habitat fragmentation and curtailment. Alternative C introduces a total of 425,000 acres

of mixed ownership available for WHAs. The WHAs would include portions of the following

areas: The Batamote Mountains, the Cuerda De Lena area near Ajo, the Gila Bend Mountains

and Saddle Mountain. WHAs would provide minimal protection to wildlife habitats and would

still allow many disruptive land uses to continue. Overall, the long-term decline in the quality

and quantity of special status species habitats would likely be slowed, as large areas of habitat

would be protected on BLM-administered lands. However, the loss of special status species

habitat elsewhere in the region would not be stopped, but rather these protected areas would serve

as refuges for wildlife as the surrounding lands are potentially developed. Cumulatively effects

would range from negligible to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Visual impacts due to on-ground development would be minor. Shifts from Class III to Class II

would result in greater constraints and more stringent designs. Fewer developments as well as

improved designs will reduce the impacts to the landscape. Recreation management would be

less developed in comparison to Alternative B but more than Alternative A. It is expected that

visual impacts would be negligible to moderate, because VRM Classes would lessen the impacts.

Overall impacts in comparison to Alternative A would be fewer, but moderate under Class II.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Alternative C attempts to balance resource protection with human use and influence. The

proposed combination of natural processes and "hands on" techniques would reduce the need

for intensive livestock management and mitigation efforts needed to avoid or reduce impacts to

and from livestock grazing.

If Alternative C would to be implemented, cumulative impacts would result in the continued

livestock operations at or near the current capacity, but with no supplemental ephemeral forage

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 897

allocated for perennial/ephemeral allotments (these allotments would be reclassified as perennial

only); the likelihood of future AUM reductions and season of use restrictions due to loss of lands

to other resource uses; and gradual reduction of available land and forage for other resources,

such as recreation, energy development, land disposal, mineral development, wildfires, and

wildlife habitat enhancement.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would accrue

to a moderately greater degree than from implementation of alternatives A and B, principally

due to management of 79% of the decision area as SRMA’s together with allocation of a Special

Cultural Recreation Management Area, higher VRM standards, and allocation of areas for

management of wilderness character.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Cumulative impacts to travel management would be similar to Alternative B as a result of

continuing to limit vehicular travel to routes, except that impacts would be greater due to

fewer miles of routes designated as open, due to the presence of Lands Managed to Maintain

Wilderness Characteristics and wildlife designations that would limit the designated route system.

Limitations placed on vehicular travel by the creation of avoidance areas for LUAs would cause

additional competition for available areas, maintaining the level of impact at moderate, but could

increase to major by the end of the life of the plan. Recreation zoning in Alternative C would be

less vehicle use friendly than Alternative B, thus adding to the increase in impacts to vehicular

use. Non-motorized recreation would be improved; however, few designated non-motorized trails

would be affected. The net sum of these actions creates a moderate cumulative impact on the

travel management.

4.24.5.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those listed in the Common to All section, with the

following exceptions. Two utility corridors would be designated within the SDNM, which would

have minor to major impacts on Monument objects and cultural resources. The increasing

population would demand services through utility lines that would apply for placement within

these corridors. Recreation impacts would be the same as those under Alternative B. Impacts

from Recreation would be the same as those listed under Alternative B. Under Alternative C,

target shooting would be prohibited on 99% of the SDNM, leaving only 1,000 acres open to this

activity. This was analyzed at an implementation level. Indirect impacts from trampling and trash

accumulation to Monument objects and cultural resources would be expected at a negligible level

of intensity, since no sites have been observed in that area. The prohibition to shooting in such an

extensive area of the SDNM would have the effect of pushing some of this use onto neighboring

land jurisdictions and other public lands. The effect on the sites in those areas may experience a

minor to moderate level of impacts from direct damage and indirect impacts. Under Alternative C,

transportation planning was analyzed at an implementation level. A number of routes were closed

for a better balance between all open and a large number closed. Even with this strategy, 43 sites

and Monument objects would be affected directly and indirectly by those routes designated as

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C
898 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

open. The net change in impact from Alternative B to C is negligible, as only two sites make the

difference. So the impacts under this Alternative would be nearly the same as B in terms of travel.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described for

Alternative B. The incremental effects of Alternative C would generally be the same as described

for Alternative B except that it would establish specific goals, objectives, and management

actions that support recovery efforts for known populations of special status species. Impacts to

wildlife are expected to be negligible due to the level of protection prescribed in the proclamation.

Overall, the long-term decline in native vegetation and special status species habitats due to land

uses would continue at a slower rate under Alternative C within the SDNM and cumulatively the

effects would range from negligible to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Effects would be minor with transportation by the reduction of routes and the corresponding

visible surface disturbance. Under Alternative C visual impacts would be generally similar to

Alternatives A and B, but with fewer impacts on Class II landscapes than Alternative A.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

If implemented, Alternative C would adjust livestock numbers or require more intensive

management (pasture rotations, seasonal removals, etc.), this would affect operator costs and

would likely have moderate to major cumulative impacts. For example, the closure of portions of

allotments south of I-8 has already impacted the management and finances of those permittees

affected by the Proclamation. Cumulatively, more intense management of those areas north

of I-8, including increased pasture rotations and seasonal removals, could bankrupt some

livestock operators or make future operations untenable. However, individualized consultation,

coordination, and cooperation with the effected parties would help lessen financial impacts to the

operator while also decreasing impacts of grazing on rangeland resources and Monument objects.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would accrue to

a moderately greater degree than from implementation of Alternative A and to a minor degree

greater than from implementation of Alternative B, principally due to management of the SDNM

as a SRMA together with allocation of a Special Cultural Recreation Management Area and

implementing higher VRM standards.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Cumulative impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative C August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 899

4.24.6. ALTERNATIVE D

4.24.6.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

All lands with wilderness characteristics would be managed to maintain those characteristics

under this alternative. No general or widespread cumulative adverse impacts are anticipated

from urban growth, ROW or mineral development. There will be cumulative beneficial impacts

from Decision Area management actions associated with comprehensive management of

motorized recreation, management actions delegated by wildlife habitat conservation and ACEC

designations, required comprehensive planning for travel management and livestock grazing,

and air quality prescriptions.

Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty

Under Alternative D, the most federal lands would be excluded from surface disturbing activities

compared to any other alternative and there would only be seven multiuse utility corridors

allocated in the planning area (all corridors within the SDNM would be eliminated). Most utility

development that would take place over the next 20 years would have to take place on nearby

state and private lands, as natural resources on federal lands would be protected. Federal lands

would not play a large role in housing the large demand for solar energy development projects as

anticipated in the RFD Scenarios. Overall cumulative impacts from Alternative D to lands and

realty management within the planning area over the next 20 years would be moderate.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

Impacts from growth and development are anticipated to be the same as Alternative A. Under this

Alternative, 29,600 acres of land would be available for disposal by sale or exchange, which is

47 percent greater than land available in Alternative A. Since the disposition of BLM-managed

public lands is not expected to be a major growth inducing action, since much of the Planning

Area, this alternative would have no measurable cumulative impact on growth and development.

4.24.6.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources under Alternative D are similar to those under the

Common to All, with the following exceptions. The Transportation planning would present the

most restrictive route network of any of the Alternatives. More routes would be closed or limited

use under this scenario than the other alternatives, which would have the effect of pushing more

vehicle use onto neighboring land jurisdictions, or concentrating the use onto fewer routes on

BLM lands. Access may be limited to some areas, which could have a protective effect in some

situations. Minerals would experience the same set of segregations and withdrawals, plus an

addition of all of the proposed ACECs as withdrawn from mineral entry. This would have the

effect of pushing operators onto State and private lands. The most restrictive list of avoidance

and exclusion areas for Land Use Authorizations would be experienced under Alternative D.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
900 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

This would have a profound protective effect on the cultural resources on BLM lands, but

would also expose other cultural resources on other jurisdictions to minor to major impacts. In

recreation, only two SRMAs would be proposed for a far less intensively managed use. Fewer

amenities would be offered, so this would have the effect of concentrating use where amenities

were available.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be similar to those

described for Alternative A and B. While Alternative D generally would be the most protective

of special status species, restrictive of developed uses, and would result in fewer special

status species conflicts from land use authorizations than any of the other Alternatives under

consideration for the decision area. The Gila Bend Mountains WHA (255,000 acres) would

provide for a large intact area of habitat that would begin at the Gila River Corridor and extend

west all the way to U.S. Highway 95 and south from I-10 to I-8. This large area of mostly

intact habitat and vegetation would decrease the overall effects of habitat fragmentation and

curtailment on some species. Alternative D would also contain approximately 814,000 acres as

wildlife movement corridors throughout both decision areas. Alternative D would also designate

approximately 267,000 acres as ACECs for special status species restricting land uses to protect

these habitats. Overall, Alternative D would slow the long-term decline in the quantity and

quality of some special status species habitats. Cumulatively effects would range from negligible

to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

With the VRM shifting to Class II, impacts would be negligible to minor, because of

developmental constraints and areas managed for more primitive experiences in the Decision

Area. There would be less projects being able to comply with the VRM criteria. Some areas

would be impacted to resolve resource or user conflicts, but overall visual impacts would be

negligible or minor on account of less intensive recreation management. In comparison between

the VRM and Visual Resource Inventory, cumulative impacts would be negligible and are likely

to be more beneficial.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Under Alternative D, the decision to eliminate grazing from the Lower Sonoran Decision Areas

would eliminate any impacts to or from livestock grazing. This would have major impacts on

the economic viability of cattle operations throughout the region and Planning Area because

permittees would be required to turn to other means to sustain their herds or get out of the

ranching business altogether. In turn, those towns and communities that are dependent on the

ranching industry could see moderate to major economic impacts and grazing would be heavily

dependent on private and state lands in the Planning Area. Impacts would be major.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would be

similar to A and moderately less than for B and C as recreation resources will be managed

custodially on 75% of the decision area and beneficial outcomes will not be actively produced.

Additionally, allocating cultural sites for conservation for future use; designating the least total

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 901

mileage and percentage of routes for motorized use; and managing to the highest VRM standards

would preclude easy access to facilitated recreation opportunities.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Cumulative impacts to travel management would be similar to Alternative B, except, recreation

zoning in Alternative D would be the least vehicle use friendly, thus adding to the increase in

impacts to vehicular use. Non-motorized recreation would be the best of any alternative. The sum

of these actions and regional actions creates a major impact on the travel management.

4.24.6.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those listed in the Common to All section, with the

following exceptions. In Alternative D, no utility corridors would be designated within the

SDNM. This is a major protective effect on the Monument objects and cultural resources within

the SDNM. The increasing public demand for utilities would be pushed entirely onto neighboring

BLM lands and other jurisdictions, which would have a minor to major impact on the cultural

resources of those areas. Mitigation measures would be employed to reduce or minimize those

impacts to a minor to moderate level. Under Alternative D, grazing activities would slowly be

discontinued through several management actions. This was analyzed at an implementation level.

No sites or Monument objects would be affected by this management action on the SDNM. This

would have the effect of pushing grazing activities off of the Monument completely and onto

other land jurisdictions, which would have negligible to moderate impacts on cultural resources

on those lands. Under Alternative D, the SRMA designated for the SDNM would be managed

for an undeveloped style of recreation. No facilities and very little structure would be employed

under this regime. Increasing numbers of visitors are expected to use this area, but without

proper direction and facilities. Impacts to the Monument objects and the cultural sites may

be at a negligible to moderate level due to the lack of designated facilities designed to handle

additional visitation. Trampling, vehicle travel off the routes and the accumulation of trash may

be expected to impact sites. Since target shooting would be prohibited under this alternative, no

effect to Monument objects or cultural resources would be anticipated. This was analyzed at an

implementation level. Under Alternative D, a transportation planning scheme of the maximum

number of routes would be closed or limited to use. This would have a protective effect on

Monument objects and cultural resources within the SDNM. Seventeen sites were identified as

either directly or indirectly impacted by the designation of these routes. This was analyzed at

an implementation level. Mitigation measures would be used to reduce or minimize the impacts

due to this activity which would bring the level of impact to minor to moderate. Closing such

a high number of routes would have the effect of concentrating use on the remaining routes,

and on lands outside of the SDNM. These other jurisdictions may experience additional route

proliferation which would impact sites there to a minor to moderate level. Reducing access into

some areas may have a minor protective effect.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described for

Alternative A. The incremental effects of Alternative C would generally be the same as described

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative D
902 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

for Alternative D except that it would establish specific goals, objectives, and management

actions that support recovery efforts for known populations of special status species. Impacts to

wildlife are expected to be negligible due to the level of protection prescribed in the proclamation.

Overall, the long-term decline in native vegetation and special status species habitats due to land

uses would continue at a slower rate than alternative C, under Alternative D within the SDNM and

cumulatively the effects would range from negligible to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Visual cumulative impacts from transportation and access would be negligible to minor, because

motorized routes would be reduced in Alternative D. For the most part, visual impacts would

be the same as Alternatives B and C with Alternative D having fewer impacts on Class II and

considerably less in Class III than Alternative A.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative D for the Lower

Sonoran.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Opportunities to attain beneficial outcomes produced from recreation experiences would accrue to

a minor degree greater than from implementation of Alternatives A, B, and C, principally due to

management of the SDNM as a SRMA together with allocation of cultural sites for conservation

for future use; having the least total mileage and percentage of routes available for motorized

use; and having the highest VRM standards, which, in combination, would limit easy access

to targeted recreation opportunities.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM,

except that limiting vehicular travel to only licensed drivers with a prohibition on vehicles

displaying OHV decal vehicles in the SDNM would cause additional competition for available

areas outside SDNM. Recreation zoning in Alternative D would be the least vehicle use friendly,

thus adding to the increase in impacts to vehicular use. Non-motorized recreation would be the

best of any alternative. The sum of these actions and regional actions creates a major impact

on the travel management.

4.24.7. ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

4.24.7.1. Both Decision Areas

Cumulative Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics

Cumulative impacts on wilderness characteristics would be similar to Alternative C. Alternative E

has considerable land use designations and protective prescriptions supportive of maintaining

wilderness characteristics. This is true both in lands managed and not managed to maintain

wilderness characteristics.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative e (Preferred alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 903

Cumulative Impacts on Lands and Realty

Cumulative impacts under Alternative E would be similar to those described under Alternative C,

with the exception that the cumulative impacts for the SDNM would be similar to Alternative D.

Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

Impacts from growth and development are anticipated to be the same as Alternative A. Under this

Alternative, 39,600 acres of land would be available for disposal by sale or exchange, which is

47 percent greater than land available in Alternative A. Since the disposition of BLM-managed

public lands is not expected to be a major growth inducing action, this alternative would have no

measurable cumulative impact on growth and development.

4.24.7.2. Lower Sonoran

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts to cultural resources under Alternative E are similar to those under the

Common to All, with the following exceptions. The Transportation planning and Minerals

activities would have effects similar to Alternative C. Land Use Authorizations would have a

more protective effect on cultural resources than Alternative C, because additional avoidance

and exclusions would apply for the ACEC areas. Recreation would have an effect somewhere

between Alternative B and C. Recreational opportunities would be offered across the Decision

Area, which would draw some visitors from other areas especially in the winter seasons.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described

for Alternative A, C and D. However alternative E provides a balance through multiple uses and

incorporates a better approach to manage key ecosystems and special status species habitats while

providing opportunities for resource uses that meet social and economic needs. The Gila Bend

Mountains WHA (255,000 acres) would provide for a large intact area of habitat that would

begin at the Gila River Corridor and extend west all the way to U.S. Highway 95 and south

from I-10 to I-8. This large area of mostly intact habitat and vegetation would decrease the

overall effects of habitat fragmentation and curtailment on special status species. Alternative E

would also incorporate approximately 227,000 acres of mixed ownership as wildlife movement

corridors, and approximately 250,000 acres as ACES, similar to those in Alternative D. Overall,

the long-term incremental effects of Alternative E would be similar in nature to those described

for Alternative C and D; however, the decline of special status species habitats would be slowed

to the greatest extent of the Alternatives. Cumulatively effects would range from negligible

to moderate for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

It is expected that development impacts, recreation management, and transportation and access

would be similar to Alternative C. The LSFO would have negligible to minor impacts to Classes

I and III in comparison to Alternative A and potentially major impacts to Class II landscapes.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative e (Preferred alternative)
904 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Impacts to Class IV would be similar to Alternatives A and B, but less beneficial effects to

Alternatives C and D.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the Lower

Sonoran.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Cumulative effects from the preferred alternative would be most similar to Alternative C. A

moderate level of cumulative impact would be expected. Some of BLM’s actions would help

to offset the loss of physical access by designating routes and making a commitment to acquire

access, thus stopping the slow loss of access. Furthermore, creating an Open use area near Ajo

would satisfy local OHV enthusiasts, possibly reducing their concerns over losing route mileage.

Route modeling in Alternative C preserves access to most destinations, cutting off access on spur

routes, reclaiming routes and some short cut or redundant routes. Allocation of Areas Managed

to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics would be in locations that would have minor effects on

the existing route system and thus unlikely to affect future designated routes more than minorly.

Desert Tortoise is on the Candidate Species list for becoming a T&E species. Tortoise’s effect

on a designated route system is difficult to predict, however, its listing would likely cause the

designation of large OHV closed areas in Category I areas, which have lower road densities

today. Considering these impacts to travel management and the route system, cumulative impacts

would be expected to be moderate.

4.24.7.3. Sonoran Desert National Monument

Cumulative Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those listed in the Common to All section, with the

following exceptions. Under Alternative E, Land Use Authorizations impact would be the same

as those under D for utility corridors. Under Alternative E, grazing would see a reduction in

preference and reduced use levels, which would affect fewer sites overall. This would have a

protective effect compared to Alternative A to a moderate level. Some grazing activities and use

would be pushed onto neighboring land jurisdictions and would affect cultural resources at the

same level of intensity. Recreation, under Alternative E would have the same effects as those

under Alternative C. Target shooting under Alternative E would have the same effect as that under

Alternative D: no effect. Under Alternative E, transportation planning effects on Monument

objects and cultural resources would be similar to those under Alternative C.

Cumulative Impacts on Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat Resources

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative e (Preferred alternative) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 905

Current regional conditions and threats to special status species would be the same as described

for Alternative A, C and D. However alternative E provides a balance through multiple uses and

incorporates a better approach to manage key ecosystems and special status species habitats while

providing opportunities for resource uses that meet social and economic needs. Overall, the

long-term decline in native vegetation and special status species habitats due to land uses would

continue at a slower rate than either alternative C or D under Alternative E within the SDNM and

cumulatively the effects would range from negligible to minor for wildlife species in general.

Cumulative Impacts on Visual Resources Management

Transportation and access impacts are expected to be similar to Alternative C. SDNM would have

negligible to minor impacts to Classes I in Alternatives C, B and D, and fewer impacts on Class II

landscapes than Alternatives A and B, however, more impacts than C and D. Impacts to visual

resources would be considerably less than Alternative A in Class III landscapes. Impacts on Class

IV would be the same as in Alternatives B, C and D.

Cumulative Impacts on Livestock Grazing

The Beloat and the Conley Allotments would experience the greatest cumulative impacts, which

would be slightly different under all other alternatives, but would nevertheless affect the forage,

water, and space, which would eventually impact the sustainability of livestock grazing on these

two allotments. For example, the Beloat Allotment has already seen all areas south of I-8 closed

to livestock grazing per the Proclamation when the grazing permit expired in 2008. Further,

Alternative E proposes to make the Conley Allotment within the SDNM boundaries unavailable

to livestock grazing. This could make the use of the fragmented parcels outside the Monument

boundary difficult to manage. Additionally, Alternatives B, C, and E propose to remove even

more land from livestock use. Water sources within each of the proposed exclosures would have

to be relocated outside the fenced areas and cattle would have to be monitored closely until they

become accustomed to the new changes. Recreation and public use of the Bighorn and Conley

Allotments could remove additional lands and forage, and place more restrictions on water

developments. These combined impacts could make livestock grazing on the entire allotments

unmanageable and cost-prohibitive.

Cumulative Impacts on Recreation

Cumulative impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for the SDNM.

Cumulative Impacts on Travel Management

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative E for the Lower Sonoran.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Alternative e (Preferred alternative)
906 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.25. IMPLEMENTATION LEVEL ANALYSIS

4.25.1. METHODOLOGY FOR ANALYZING IMPLEMENTATION-LEVEL DECISIONS WITHIN THE SDNM

Activity-level decisions proposed for implementation in tandem with the development of the

Lower Sonoran and SDNM RMP include:

● Designation of routes in the SDNM that are approved for motorized and nonmotorized

public use;

● AUM allocations for administering livestock grazing in the SDNM based on the findings from

the grazing compatibility analysis (which can be found in Appendix E, Draft Compatibility

Analysis: Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1039)); and

● Decisions for administering target shooting based on the findings from the target shooting

analysis within the SDNM (which can be found in Appendix G, Sonoran Desert National

Monument Recreational Target Shooting Analysis (p. 1183)).

Because all implementation and activity-level decisions take place only within the SDNM

Decision Area, only program areas that are responsible for managing Monument objects

(refer to Appendix A, Sonoran Desert National Monument Presidential Proclamation (p. ))

have analyzed these decisions in detail. Program areas that manage these objects include

cultural and heritage resources (Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on

Priority Species Monument Objects” (p. 920)), Priority Wildlife Species and Habitat resources

(Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species Monument

Objects” (p. 920)), and vegetation resources (Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on

Vegetation Monument Objects (p. 931)). Special designations also manages a Monument object

(i.e. the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT); however, impacts to the Anza NHT are discussed with

the cultural and heritage Monument objects in Table 4.31, “Impacts from Implementation Level

Decisions on Priority Species Monument Objects” (p. 920).

Impacts are quantified to the extent practical with available data. Qualitative terms have been

established to indicate the level of intensity an impact will have on a resource. These intensities

range from negligible to major. The three program areas that manage Monument objects have

further defined these terms specific to their program area, and in some cases have outlined

particular thresholds. These definitions can be found in the beginning of each program area’s

general RMP impacts analysis, while the general definitions can be found in Section 4.1.6,

“Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioS” (p. 376).

4.25.1.1. Route Designations

To assist in analyzing impacts related to designating route systems within the SDNM, the

Monument was divided into 18 site-specific sample areas. These sample areas were identified

by the BLM travel specialists as areas where there are known travel issues and public use

concerns (for a more general descriptions of each of these site specific sample areas, refer to

Table S.1, “Description of SDNM Site-Specific Sample Areas ” (p. 1314) in Appendix S, Route

Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis (p. 1311) and the detailed, large-scale SDNM Route

Designations map included on the CD version of the RMP). Each resource specialist selected

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation Level Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 907

sample areas that were representative of the related objects their program area managed, then

gathered resource data and analyzed impacts from the designation of individual routes as opened,

closed, and limited within those sample areas.

4.25.1.2. Livestock Grazing

Implementation-level analysis of impacts related to livestock grazing within the Monument was

conducted at the allotment level (refer to Maps 2-8a, 2–8b, 2–8c, 2–8d and 2–8e for allotments

within the Monument). The cultural, priority species (wildlife) and vegetation specialist gathered

resource data at the allotment level, then analyzed impacts that would take place within those

allotments from the actions presented by each individual alternative.

4.25.1.3. Target Shooting

Unlike the implementation-level impacts from route designations and livestock grazing, target

shooting impacts were not analyzed by a geographic sample area or by allotment, but rather

throughout the entire Monument. Because the management decision to allow or prohibit target

shooting in certain areas of the Monument is an activity-level action, impacts were analyzed at

the implementation level, and areas where target shooting was allowed was the focus area for

the analysis.

4.25.2. IMPLEMENTATION-LEVEL ANALYSIS FOR

CULTURAL & HISTORICAL SITES MONUMENT OBJECTS

Impacts from implementation-level decisions on cultural and historical sites Monument objects

are presented below in Table 4.30, “Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural

and Historical SitesMonument Objects” (p. 907).

Table 4.30. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Cultural and Historical

SitesMonument Objects

SDNM Monument Objects Managed by Cultural Archeological and Historical Sites

Impact Indicators

Number of disturbed or damaged Archeological and Historical Sites: rock art sites, lithic quarries, scattered

artifacts, large villages, permanent habitat sites, acres within the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, Mormon Battalion

Trail, and Butterfield Overland Stage Route. Damages to sites include:

● Damage to the arrangement or structure of features;

● Artifacts broken, missing, or rearranged;

● Site or historic trail elements re-arranged;

● Subsurface cultural and historic deposits re-arranged;

● Evidence of trampling that has disturbed deposits or accelerated processes of erosion at archaeological sites

or on historic trail attributes;

● Loss of archaeological context and associated opportunities for scientific research;

● Damage to historic sense of a particular period of time or feeling of the prehistoric site, the historic trail, or

associated site’s context;

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
908 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Changes to the historic setting, to the level that the prehistoric site, the historic trail(s), and associated site

values are diminished.

SDNM Archeological and Historical Sites

Number of Known Sites

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Area Analyzed Sites within or near Open Routes

Area 1 & 2 4 (3*) 4 (3*) 4 (3*) 4 (3*) 4 (3*)

Area 4 2 (1*) 2 (1*) 1 (1*) 0 1 (1*)

Area 7 28 (7*) 28 (7*) 28 (7*) 6 (6*) 28 (7*)

Area 8 3 (1*) 3 (1*) 3 (1*) 3 (1*) 3 (1*)

Area 9 4 (2*) 4 (2*) 4 (2*) 3 (2*) 3 (2*)

Area 10 5 (5*) 4 (5*) 3 (5*) 1 (5*) 4 (5*)

* Sites appear to have the characteristics to make them eligible for the NRHP.

Allotment Analyzed Sites within Open and Available Acres for Livestock Grazing

Arnold 0 0 0 0 0

Beloat 5 (2*) 5 (2*) 5 (2*) 0 5 (2*)

Bighorn 9 (9*) 9 (9*) 6 (6*) 0 9 (9*)

Conley 21 (9*) 20 (9*) 20 (9*) 0 0

Hazen 4 (5*) 4 (5*) 5 (5*) 0 4 (5*)

Lower Vekol 4 (3*) 4 (3*) 4 (3*) 0 4 (3*)

Area Analyzed Sites within Acres Open to Target Shooting

Entire Monument 233 47 (1*) 0 0 0

Assumptions

● The Area of Potential Effect (APE) on the SDNM for travel management impacts on cultural and heritage

resources and the Monument objects managed by this program as listed above are 0.25 mile on either side

of all routes.

● No changes in route designations within wilderness areas preclude any effects to cultural resources and

Monument objects.

● There is a higher probability that cultural resources are present within or near river corridors, spring locations,

historic trails, and high-quality arable land with access to water.

● Measures that withdraw land, restrict surface development, or reduce or eliminate heavy concentrations of

livestock to protect resources provide direct and indirect protection of historic trail and associated cultural

resources from disturbance and from incompatible and unauthorized activities.

● Natural processes such as erosion or weathering degrade the integrity of many types of historic trail and cultural

resources over time. Human visitation, recreation, OHV use, livestock grazing, fire and non-fire vegetation

treatments, and other activities can increase the rate of deterioration through natural processes. While the effect

of a few incidents may be negligible, the effect of repeated actions or visits over time will intensify impacts.

● Vandalism or unauthorized collecting will continue to destroy historic trails and associated cultural resources.

Exposure or access to areas where these resources are present will increase the risk of vandalism or unauthorized

collection of artifacts.

● Surface disturbing activities can vary in nature and include mechanical/vehicular, livestock/wildlife, and human

-caused. Ground disturbing activities from mechanical/vehicular means are assumed to have the potential to

impact cultural resources by damaging features, crushing or compacting subterranean features, rearranging

features, pushing soils to remove or excavate the original surface, and disturbing the contextual arrangement of

features and artifacts. Ground disturbing activities from wildlife and livestock can occur when an animal burrows

or wallows in soft soils and damages features. Other animal activities can disturb original subsurface cultural soil

horizons, crush or compact surface artifacts, and rearrange the context of artifacts and features. Human ground

disturbance can occur from fire contamination, trampling, digging, vandalism, and unauthorized collection.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 909

● Little of the Area has been inventoried for cultural resources, and there is no predictive modeling or sensitivity

mapping available to estimate or quantify resource density. The potential exists for cultural resources on most of

the Area, but the presence and significance of resources and impacts cannot be quantified. Most of the length of

the Anza NHT has not been inventoried for associated cultural resources.

● Site monitoring, non-project-related inventories, interpretive development, site stabilization and other proactive

management activities would continue.

● Inventory data is legacy data, collected over the course of 34 years.

Impacts on Cultural, Archeological and Historic Sites Monument Objects from SDNM Route Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Route Designation Action

● No routes would be formally designated under Alternative A; therefore, the existing routes would remain open.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 1 & 2 - - - 12.5 - - - - -

Area 4 - - - 11.8 - - - - -

Area 7 - - - 12.8 - 5.2 - - -

Area 8 - - - 0.3 - - - - -

Area 9 - - - 13.7 - - - - -

Area 10 - - - 14.9 - - - - -

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Route

Designation Actions

Areas 1 & 2

8002, 8003,

8003A, 5005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D

There are four known cultural sites in these areas; three have the

characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. Use along the routes in these

areas has been heavy, and high vehicle speeds are common, creating

gouges, high-cut bank berms, and additional route deviations. Recent trail

restorations have addressed these issues while in the temporary closure. If

current condition means a return to the former management regime before

the closure, routes will increase in high volume; vehicle damage will expand

beyond route berms and edges, leading to erosion, encroachment, and route

deviations, thus increasing the possibility of cultural sites being trampled,

disturbed, and displaced. The likelihood of sites losing their integrity would

be high. Impacts would be moderate.

Area 4

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000I, 8000K,

8000L, 8000M,

8000N, 8000O,

8000P, 8000Q,

8000R, 8000S,

8000T, 8000U,

8000X, 8000Y,

8001, 8001F,

8001G, 8002,

8002G, 8002H,

8005, 8005D,

There are two known cultural sites in this area, but only one site has

the characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. The two sites have been

impacted indirectly by the proliferation of additional routes created by the

public, which has lead to unauthorized camping, trash accumulation, and

unauthorized collection of artifacts. If this route management scheme were to

continue, impacts would be similar to those described under Areas 1 and 2

in Alternative A, and impacts would be moderate.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
910 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

8005E, 8005H,

8005I

Area 7

8008, 8008B,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8009F,

8011, 8026, 8026B

There are 28 known cultural sites in this area, and seven sites have the

characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. The routes in this area are

maintained at a primitive level. The 5.2 miles of parallel routes are primarily

in washes and receive extremely low levels of traffic. Closure of these routes,

and keeping 12.8 miles of low-use routes open in this area, would have a

negligible effect on these sites and Monument objects. These routes offer

access into otherwise remote areas, slightly increasing threats to these along

the routes. Under Alternative A, negligible impacts to the approximately 17

known cultural sites that lie within a 1⁄4 mile of the route would be anticipated.

Area 8 8011

There are three known cultural sites in this area, one of which, the Big Horn

Station historic site, has characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. The area

has low visitor use due to the lack of safe legal access; however, new illegal

routes enevitably will be created as interest in the site increases. Currently,

there is a lack of safe legal access off of I-8, so the public cannot legally

access the Big Horn Station historic site or other places within this portion

of the SDNM. Impacts are anticipated to range from negligible to moderate,

as illegal route usage could increase in high volume, vehicle damage would

expand beyond route berms and edges, leading to erosion, encroachment,

and route deviations, thus increasing the possibility of cultural sites being

trampled, disturbed, and displaced.

Area 9

8007, 8007A,

8007B, 8007C,

8007D, 8007F,

8007K, 8008,

8009F, 8010, 8026,

8043, 8044, 8045,

8046

There are five known cultural sites in this area, two of which have the

characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. Sites within this area have been

impacted from past route use and maintenance, cutting into the site and

disturbing a small portion of the substrate. Sites still retain some integrity.

Vekol Road is maintained at a class 3 level of maintenance. The existing

route in Area 9 is high volume, so all route improvements would lead to

higher speeds, which may increase the chances of vehicle encroachment onto

sites. When route maintenance is done and when speeds increase, it would

lead to soils thrown up onto adjacent site features, leading to an increase in

erosion on sites. This would occur at a minor to moderate level of intensity

and have a possibility of affecting the four known sites within 1⁄4 mile of these

routes. Impacts overall would be moderate.

Area 10

8008F, 8009C,

8009E, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8015, 8015A,

8015B, 8015C

There are five known cultural sites in this area, all of which have the

characteristics to be eligible for the NRHP. The routes within this area are

maintained at a primitive level. The cultural sites within this area have been

impacted from past route use; however, all of the sites retain their integrity.

The routes in this area offer access into remote areas, increasing the threats

of vandalism and unauthorized collection for the five known sites within 1⁄4

mile of each of the routes. While threats exist, a negligible level of effect

is expected.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 494.4 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

An additional 4.2 miles of road would be constructed and opened to motorized vehicles. Approximately

37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 1 and 2 0.2 - -

9.1

(1.9*)

- 1.4 - - -

Area 4 1.2 - - 10.4 - 0.2

Area 7 - - -

13.5

(0.4**)

- 4.1 - - -

Area 8 - - - 0.3 - - - -

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 911

Area 9 6.4 - - 7.4 - - - - -

Area 10 - - -

9.8

(1.5**)

- 3.5 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only**Limited to 50 feet

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 1 & 2 8002, 8003,

8003A, 5005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A, except, within Alternative B,

usage on 9.1miles of route would change to primitive, nonmotorized. This

would have a more protective effect on this segment than Alternative A.

Diverting traffic off the two nonmotorized route segments would lead to

slowing the speed of traffic. This would have a protective effect on the

features and Monument objects within 1⁄4 mile of these routes. Impacts would

be negligible.

Area 4 8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000I, 8000K,

8000L, 8000M,

8000N, 8000O,

8000P, 8000Q,

8000R, 8000S,

8000T, 8000U,

8000X, 8000Y,

8001, 8001F,

8001G, 8002,

8002G, 8002H,

8005, 8005D,

8005E, 8005H,

8005I

Impacts would be similar to those described in Area 4 under Alternative A,

except 0.2 miles of access routes off of the pipeline route would be closed.

This would reduce the visitation to the eligible cultural site in this area,

thus leading to a minimization of impacts compared to Alternative A and

decreasing the impacts to a negligible intensity.

Area 7 8008, 8008B,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8009F,

8011, 8026, 8026B

Impacts within Areas 7 would be the same as those described under Alterative

A.

Area 8 8011 The Bighorn Station historic site lies within this area. It is proposed that

this site would be allocated to public use for the purpose of developing

an interpretive area. This area lies in a zone where a new access route is

proposed. This access route would address the problem of a lack of safe

legal access off of I-8, so that the public could access the Big Horn Station

historic site and other places within this portion of the SDNM. This new route

would be designed to minimize impacts to undiscovered cultural resources

that may lie in the area. It is anticipated that there would be a negligible

level of impacts.

The Big Horn Station historic site currently has low visitor usage due to the

lack of safe legal access. The addition of the new route connecting a freeway

exit to the site may have the effect of increasing public visitation to the site to

a minor level of intensity. Design of the site’s interpretive facilities would

be done in a way that would minimize impacts anticipated by this change.

The installation of the interpretive facilities would be contingent upon the

development of safe, legal access.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
912 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area 9 8007, 8007A,

8007B, 8007C,

8007D, 8007F,

8007K, 8008,

8009F, 8010,

8026, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the

Monument.

Area 10 8008F, 8009C,

8009E, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8015, 8015A,

8015B, 8015C

One of the five cultural sites within 1⁄4 mile of designated routes in this area

lies on a route that would be open, so the impact for the open routes would be

moderate. By reducing the volume and type of vehicles to limited usage and

closed to all uses on 3.5 miles of the route, it is anticipated that impacts on the

site values would be less than under Alternative A. This would be a minor

level of effect. Under Alternative B, there would be an overall reduction

in numbers of visitors into more remote portions of this area, leading to a

decreasing threat of vandalism and trampling on the five known sites within

1⁄4 mile of these routes. It is anticipated that effects to the site values would

be less than under Alternative A. Impacts are anticipated to have a minor

level of intensity.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Action

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 358.1 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 1 and 2

- - -

6.1

(4.9*)

- 1.4 - - -

Area 4 1.2 - - 8.7 - 1.9 - - -

Area 7

- - -

11.5

(0.4^)

0.7 5.4 - - -

Area 8 - - - 0.3 - - - - -

Area 9 6.4 - - 6.8 0.3 0.3 - - -

Area 10 - - - 5.3 - 9.6 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only**Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 1 and 2

8002, 8003,

8003A, 5005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D

Unlike Alternative A, the 6.1 miles of routes in Alternative C would be

managed as primitive, nonmotorized routes. This would eliminate vehicle use

on these routes and therefore have a more protective effect on this segment

than Alternative A because use would be restricted to hiking and equestrian

use. North-south routes would become access to trail heads (rt. 3002, 3022,

and 3027) would require designated parking areas and staging areas at the

end of each access route for nonmotorized users to access the trail as hikers

and equestrians. Adopting this alternative would have effect of increasing

traffic on 3003, 3063, 3100, 3109, 3062, and 3002 routes, so that a loop could

be driven. There may be some increased vehicle use along the 6.1 miles of

open routes due to the removal of the east end of the trail from motorized

use. Additional unknown sites within 1⁄4 mile of these routes would be

subject to fewer threats than under Alternative A from trampling and vehicle

encroachment. Impacts are anticipated to be minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 913

Area 4

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000I, 8000K,

8000L, 8000M,

8000N, 8000O,

8000P, 8000Q,

8000R, 8000S,

8000T, 8000U,

8000X, 8000Y,

8001, 8001F,

8001G, 8002,

8002G, 8002H,

8005, 8005D,

8005E, 8005H,

8005I

Impacts would be similar to those in Alternative A for Area 4, except that

all but one access route off the pipeline route would be closed. This would

reduce visitation to the eligible cultural site, leading to a greater reduction of

impacts to the site, thus leading to a minimization of impacts compared to

Alternative A and decreasing the impacts to a negligible intensity.

Area 7

8008, 8008B,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8009F,

8011, 8026, 8026B

Impacts within Area 7 would be the same as those described under Alterative

A.

Area 8 8011 Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A.

Area 9

8007, 8007A,

8007B, 8007C,

8007D, 8007F,

8007K, 8008,

8009F, 8010,

8026, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the

Monument.

Area 10

8008F, 8009C,

8009E, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8015, 8015A,

8015B, 8015C

Unlike Alternative A, 9.6 miles of route would be “closed to all uses” under

this alternative. This would have a more protective effect than Alternative A

by eliminating vehicle use on the routes and encroachment onto the sites over

the long term. Further human visitation and the threat of vandalism would be

curbed due to the distance to any open routes. The elimination of several long

segments of route into the middle of this remote area would eliminate vehicle

access and reduce visitation considerably more than under Alternative A. This

would lead to the elimination of vehicle encroachment and the reduction of

vandalism and unauthorized collection on five known sites that exist along

the 1⁄4 mile wide area on either side of the routes. The open routes would have

impacts similar to Alternative A. Overall impacts would be decreased to

minor intensities from Alternative A.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Action

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 200 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designation

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 1 & 2 0.2 - - 1 (8.4*) - 1.6 - - -

Area 4 1.2 - - 5.6 1.0 4.0 - - -

Area 7 - - - (0.8**) - 17.2 - - -

Area 8 - - - 0.3 - - - - -

Area 9 6.4 - - 6.5 - 0.9 - - -

Area 10 - - - - 1.3 13.5 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only**Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
914 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 1 and 2

8002, 8003,

8003A, 5005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D

Unlike Alternative A, most of the route segments in these areas would be

managed as primitive, nonmotorized routes or for administrative use only.

This would eliminate vehicle use on the closed routes and limit use on the

administrative-use segment. This would have a more protective effect on

this segment than under Alternative A because use would be restricted to

hiking and equestrian use. More miles of the historic trail (the Juan Bautista

de Anza NHT) would be managed as primitive routes than under the other

alternatives. This comports well with the intent of the Juan Bautista de Anza

NHT Comprehensive Management Plan. One segment would be managed

as an “administrative use only.” This designation would limit vehicle use to

a negligible level of intensity. The designation of several long segments of

route to nonmotorized use in this area would eliminate vehicle access and

reduce visitation considerably more than under Alternative A. This would

lead to the elimination of vehicle damage and encroachment on the unknown

sites that may exist along the 1⁄4 mile wide area on either side of the routes.

Also, the designation of this alternative would lead to the development of

designated parking and camping areas at each point where access routes

intersect the nonmotorized sections of the historic trail in this area. Impacts

would be decreased to negligible to minor intensities from Alternative A.

Area 4

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000I, 8000K,

8000L, 8000M,

8000N, 8000O,

8000P, 8000Q,

8000R, 8000S,

8000T, 8000U,

8000X, 8000Y,

8001, 8001F,

8001G, 8002,

8002G, 8002H,

8005, 8005D,

8005E, 8005H,

8005I

Impacts would be negligible, as all of the access routes off the pipeline road

would be closed.

Area 7

8008, 8008B,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8009F,

8011, 8026, 8026B

Closure of 95% of the routes in this remote area would have a more protective

effect than under Alternative A on 28 known sites that lie within 1⁄4 mile of

the routes. Eliminating vehicle use would nearly eliminate visitation to all

of the sites except those in proximity to other open routes. Vehicle damage,

encroachment, and threats from unauthorized collection would be reduced or

eliminated. Impacts would be decreased to minor intensities.

Area 8 8011 Impacts would be similar to those discussed under Alternative A.

Area 9

8007, 8007A,

8007B, 8007C,

8007D, 8007F,

8007K, 8008,

8009F, 8010,

8026, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the

Monument; however, under Alternative D, feeder routes from the south, i.e.

6095 and 6010, would be closed. This would have the effect of reducing the

volume of use on the northern and middle portions of route 6001. Under

Alternative D, the volume would be reduced, which would lead to fewer

vehicle incursions into the area within 1⁄4 mile of the routes. This offers

slightly more protection than that offered under Alternative A, which would

have a minor level of intensity.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 915

Area 10

8008F, 8009C,

8009E, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8015, 8015A,

8015B, 8015C

In Alternative D, all but 1.3 mile of the 14.9 miles of route would be “closed

to all uses.” This would have a more protective effect than under Alternative

A by eliminating vehicle use on the roads and encroachment onto the sites

over the long term. In addition, visitation would be greatly reduced to all

five sites in the 1⁄4 mile area on either side of these routes because access

would be on foot. Lower visitation would lead to fewer threats of vandalism,

unauthorized collection, and vehicle encroachment. This would offer far

more protective management than under Alternative A, therefore impact

intensities would be decreased to minor.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Route Designation Action

Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 331 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 1 and 2 0.2 - - 6.1 (6*) - 0.3 - - -

Area 4 1.2 - - 10.6 - - - - -

Area 7 - - - 11.7 - 6.2 - - -

Area 8 - - - 0.3 - - - - -

Area 9 6.4 - - 6.9 - 0.5 - - -

Area 10 - - - 10.3 - 4.6 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only**Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 1 and 2 8002, 8003,

8003A, 5005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative C for these areas.

Area 4 8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000I, 8000K,

8000L, 8000M,

8000N, 8000O,

8000P, 8000Q,

8000R, 8000S,

8000T, 8000U,

8000X, 8000Y,

8001, 8001F,

8001G, 8002,

8002G, 8002H,

8005, 8005D,

8005E, 8005H,

8005I

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for Area 4.

Area 7 8008, 8008B,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8009F,

8011, 8026, 8026B

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for Area 7.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
916 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area 8 8011 Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for Area 8.

Area 9 8007, 8007A,

8007B, 8007C,

8007D, 8007F,

8007K, 8008,

8009F, 8010,

8026, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative A for Area 9.

Area 10 8008F, 8009C,

8009E, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8015, 8015A,

8015B, 8015C

Impacts would be the same as those described in Alternative B for Area 10.

Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Monument Objects from SDNM Livestock Grazing

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 776

Bighorn 2,812

Conley 3,403

Hazen 886

Lower Vekol 826

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

No sites have been recorded or inventoried within this allotment on the SDNM; therefore, there

are no known direct or indirect impacts.

Beloat

Allotment

One of the two cultural sites within the allotment lies in an area along a densely vegetated wash

with soft soils. It is likely that livestock would congregate more in an area like this and would

threaten the physical integrity of the site by disturbing the artifacts through crushing and some

displacement. Livestock congregating in the wash also may cut down the banks and reduce soil

retaining vegetation, which could lead to erosion near the site. Site features and physical integrity

may be disturbed or damaged by the ensuing erosion. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible to

the upland cultural site and potentially moderate to the site in the wash.

Bighorn

Allotment

Four of the nine cultural sites within this allotment exist along densely vegetated washes or near

an earthen livestock tank where livestock typically congregate. These four sites would experience

the same impacts as those described for the Beloat Allotment under Alternative A above. Impacts

are anticipated to be negligible for the five cultural sites in the uplands, and potentially moderate

for the sites in the washes.

Conley

Allotment

One of the ten cultural sites within the allotment lies along a densely vegetated wash with soft

soils. This site and any of the other nine sites that may lie along the densely vegetated washes

or near an earthen livestock tank would experience the same impacts as those described for the

Beloat Allotment under Alternative A. Impacts are anticipated to be negligible to moderate,

depending on the location of each site.

Hazen Allotment None of the five cultural sites within this allotment exist along densely vegetated washes, or near

an earthen livestock tank where livestock typically congregate, therefore, impacts would be

negligible.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

None of the three cultural sites within this allotment exist along densely vegetated washes or near

an earthen livestock tank where livestock typically congregate; therefore, impacts would be

negligible.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 917

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 541

Bighorn 2,301

Conley 1,572

Hazen 531

Lower Vekol 646

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

No sites have been recorded or inventoried within this allotment on the SDNM; therefore, there

are no known direct or indirect impacts.

Beloat

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Beloat

Allotment, but to a lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 235. Impacts are expected to

decrease to negligible to minor intensities.

Bighorn

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Bighorn

Allotment, but to a much lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 781 and 56,341 acres would

become unavailable to livestock (these numbers include areas south of I-8, as well). Those

objects of the Monument found to be incompatible with livestock grazing would be directly

fenced off with approximately 14 miles of proposed fenceline. . Additionally, the Happy Camp

Public Use Site proposed under this alternative, may require fencing to prevent impacts from

livestock. Cultural surveys would be conducted to ensure no cultural resources are impacted by

the installation of the fence. Additionally, salt blocks and supplements would not be permitted

within 1/4 mile of the Anza-Butterfield Trail to decrease impacts from livestock. Impacts from

livestock on cultural resources are expected to decrease to minor intensities from Alternative A.

Conley

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Conley

Allotment, but to a much lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 1,831 and 6,010 acres would

become unavailable to livestock. Those objects of the Monument found to be incompatible

with livestock grazing would be directly fenced off with approximately 69 miles of fenceline.

Additionally, approximately 10 acres around North Tank would be fenced off to prevent further

impacts from livestock. The Anza-Butterfield Interpretive Trail Area and the Christmas Camp

Public Use Site proposed under Alternative B may need to be fenced to prevent impacts from

livestock. Due to the decrease in permitted livestock and the fencing to prevent further impacts to

cultural objects within certain parts of the Monument, Cultural surveys would be conducted to

ensure no cultural resources are impacted by the installation of any proposed fences. impacts are

expected to decrease to minor intensities from Alternative A.

Hazen Allotment Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Hazen

Allotment, but to a much lesser degree, as AUMs would be cut in half (531 AUMs). Impacts are

expected to decrease to negligible to minor intensities.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Lower Vekol

Allotment, but to a much lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 180 and 54 acres would be

removed from livestock use.. Impacts are expected to decrease to negligible to minor intensities.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 936

Bighorn 2,278

Conley 2,212

Hazen 873

Lower Vekol 793

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
918 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

No sites have been recorded or inventoried within this allotment on the SDNM; therefore, there

are no known direct or indirect impacts.

Beloat

Allotment

Impacts would be similaar as those described under Alternative A for the Beloat Allotment.

Bighorn

Allotment

Impacts from livestock on the Bighorn Allotment are anticipated to be similar as those described

under Alternative A and B for the Bighorn Allotment, but to a lesser degree, as AUMs would

decrease by 534 and the area made unavailable for livestock grazing would increase to 70,565

acres. Approximately 27 miles of fencing is anticipated to be needed to prevent impacts from

livestock on portions of the Monument found to be incompatible with livestock grazing. Impacts

from livestock are expected to decrease to minor intensities due to the decrease in numbers

and the fenced exclosure. Other impacts under this alternative are expected to be the same as

Alternative B.

Conley

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Conley

Allotment, but to a lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 1,191. Fewer miles of fenceline

would be needed for this alternative, thus decreasing the potential impacts of fence installation on

cultural resources. All other impacts are similar to Alternative B for this allotment.

Hazen Allotment Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Hazen Allotment.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative A for the Lower Vekol Valley

Allotment, except that about 670 acres of unavailable lands would be fenced of with about 3 miles

of fenceline. Impacts from this would be similar to those described in Alternative B.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

● Impacts would be negligible, as all allotments currently available to grazing would be closed to grazing when

current permits expire. North Tank and other proposed interpretive sites and trail heads would not need to be

fenced because impacts from livestock to cultural and historical sites would be eliminated.

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

● Impacts would be negligible, as all allotments currently available to grazing would be closed to grazing when

current permits expire.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 552

Bighorn 1,633

Conley 0

Hazen 400

Lower Vekol 529

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM

Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

No sites have been recorded or inventoried within this allotment on the SDNM; therefore, there

are no known direct or indirect impacts.

Beloat

Allotment

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative B and C for the Beloat Allotment.

Big Horn

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Bighorn

Allotment, but to a much lesser degree, as AUMs would decrease by 868. The number of acres

made unavailable, and the miles of fenceline, would be the same as in Alternative C. Impacts

are expected to be similar to Alternative C except that fewer cattle would be present to affect

cultural resources.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 919

Conley

Allotment

This alternative would make the entire Conley Allotment inside the SDNM boundaries unavailable

for livestock grazing. Due to the fact that there are no AUMs proposed for the Conley Allotment,

impacts to cultural resources are expected to be negligible.

Hazen Allotment Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B for the Hazen Allotment.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B for the Lower Vekol Valley

Allotment.

Impacts on Cultural and Heritage Monument Objects from SDNM Target Shooting

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would remain open to recreational target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Direct impacts from firearm projectiles are negligible. BLM trailhead cultural facilities, including interpretive

signs, register boxes, and restrooms, have been and would continue to be directly impacted by firearm projectiles

to a moderate level of intensity for the long term. Vehicle damage, excessive human trampling of local

vegetation and soils, erosion, trash and target debris accumulation, alteration of site features and artifacts,

and unauthorized collection of artifacts are the kinds of disturbance and damage that would occur at minor

to moderate levels of intensity.

● Petroglyph sites have been impacted directly by firearms projectiles striking panels. If unchecked, this type of

damage would continue over the long term. This target shooting activity is associated with large accumulations

of trash, excessive human trampling and climbing over the rocks with petroglyphs, and vegetation mashing.

This activity then leads to displaced rock panels and boulders and erosion in this area, which would continue

over the long term at a minor to moderate level of intensity.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● Under Alternative B, 95,900 acres of the total 486,400 acres of the SDNM would be available for target

shooting activities.

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● The majority of cultural and archeological sites that are eligible for the NRHP lie in areas closed to target

shooting. All but one of the 47 known cultural sites within the 19.7% of the Monument that would remain open

to target shooting are archaeological in nature and would be subject to the indirect impacts of this activity

discussed in Alternative A rather than the direct impact of a projectile shot from a firearm. Impacts are expected

to be negligible to moderate in intensity.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Management Action

● Only available areas that have been identified as compatible with Monument objects without posing a safety

risk to Monument visitors (approximately 1,134 acres) would remain open to target shooting. The rest of

the Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Action

● Generally, impacts would be negligible because the areas identified as available for target shooting are small

and are widely scattered. Only 1,134 acres out of the total SDNM acreage of 486,300 would be available.

No sites have been recorded within any of the available areas. Because no cultural sites have been recorded

in these open areas, impacts would be negligible.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Action

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Management Action

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Cultural &

Historical Sites Monument Objects
920 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

4.25.3. IMPLEMENTATION-LEVEL ANALYSIS FOR

PRIORITY WILDLIFE & HABITAT SPECIES MONUMENT

OBJECTS

Impacts from implementation-level decisions on priority species Monument objects are presented

below in Table 4–31.

Table 4.31. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Priority Species Monument

Objects

Monument Objects Managed by Priority Wildlife Habitat Species

● Sand Tank Mountains,

● Diversity of Plant and Animal Species,

● Saguaro Cactus Forests,

● Wildlife,

● A Functioning Desert Ecosystem.

Impact Indicators

● Sand Tank Mountains:

○ Acres of disturbed habitat within the Sand Tank Mountains

● Diversity of Plant and Animal Species

○ Acres of disturbed palo verde-mixed cacti habitat

● Saguaro Cactus Forests:

○ Acres of disturbed palo verde-mixed cacti habitat

● Wildlife:

○ Degradation or improvement of wildlife habitat quality

○ Reduction or increases in wildlife populations in general

○ Connectivity of habitats for wildlife usage

● Functioning Desert Ecosystem

○ Acres of disturbed paloverde-mixed cacti habitat

○ Acres of disturbed creosote-bursage habitat

Wildlife includes: Sonoran desert tortoise, desert bighorn, red back whiptail, raptors, javelina, owls (elf, western

screech), mule deer, Sonoran pronghorn, mountain lion, gray fox, bobcat, lesser long-nosed bat, California

leaf-nosed bat, cave myotis bat, and Sonoran green toad.

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Acres of Potentially Disturbed Habitat

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. D

Area Analyzed Route Designations

Area 15 939 774 528 263 461

Area 16 382 242 186 108 211

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 921

Impact Indicators

Allotment Analyzed Livestock Grazing

Arnold 1,631 1,631 1,631 0 1,631

Beloat 33,797 33,797 33,797 0 33,797

Bighorn 91,687 88,795 74,784 0 88,783

Conley 77,747 71,726 50,448 0 0

Hazen 31,638 31,638 31,638 0 31,638

Lower Vekol 15,663 15,617 14,997 0 15,459

Area Analyzed Target Shooting

Entire Monument 482,334 69,500 1,134 0 0

* Sites appear to have the characteristics which would make them eligible for the NRHP.

Assumptions

● Wildlife habitat would be managed for wildlife and migratory birds with an emphasis on priority species.

● Priority species habitat would be managed for the benefit of species as a priority over other resource allocations

or uses.

● All surface-disturbing activities would include mitigation and adaptive management to reduce impacts to

priority wildlife and priority species and their habitat.

● In general, vegetative communities are considered to be in good condition but small localized impacted areas

may be present.

● Although some areas are more suitable for different classes and species of wildlife, the impacts from different

classes of wildlife would be similar and would not be discussed separately.

● Typically, negligible and minor impacts to wildlife are expected to occur where use is infrequent and human

interactions are few. Interactions are few in areas where roads and trails are infrequently used such as but not

limited to, rough roads or wilderness trails.

Impacts on Priority Species Monument Objects from SDNM Route Designations

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Route Designation Actions

● No routes would be formally designated under Alternative A. therefore, the existing routes would remain open.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area

Analyzed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 15 - - - 18.2 - - - -

Area 16 - - - 15.2 - 0.2 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM

Route Designation Actions

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects
922 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Assumptions

Area 15

8000, 8000J, 8002,

8002E, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005D, 8005E,

8005F, 8005G,

8037, 8037F,

8037G, 8037L,

8037Q, 8037R,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039H,

8039I,8039J,

8039K, 8039L

Within existing non-designated routes, 939 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts are

occurring based on the lack of control over motorized travel due to a lack of

route designation system. Even though use is infrequent on the routes within

Area 15, disturbances to some of the objects within the Monument can still

occur. Disturbance range from wildlife mortality from vehicle impact and

crushing, disturbance of viable habitat, to no disturbance at all in remote

locations where there are no routes or access. If current conditions were to be

maintained, impacts would range from negligible to moderate intensities.

Areas 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Within existing non-designated routes, 382 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts would

be similar to those described in Area 15 for Alternative A.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Action

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 494.4 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

An additional 4.2 miles of road would be constructed and opened to motorized vehicles. Approximately

37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area

Analyzed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 15 1.2 0.4 - 16.5 - - - - -

Area 16 - - - 15.2 - 0.2 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 15

8000, 8000J, 8002,

8002E

8002H, 8003

8003A, 8003B

8005, 8005A

8005B, 8005D

8005E, 8005F

8005G, 8037

8037F, 8037G

8037L, 8037Q

8037R, 8039

● Within designated routes, 774 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts

would be similar to those described in Area 15 for Alternative A, except,

the 17.7 miles of open routes would allow a greater amount of access to

areas of importance for objects and could increase unneeded traffic into

some areas that could affect the persistence of some objects. Impacts

would be expected to range from negligible to moderate on objects.

● No route closures are anticipated for this area under Alternative B.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 923

Assumptions

8039A, 8039B

8039H, 8039I

8039J, 8039K,

8039L

Areas 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

● Within designated routes, 242 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts

would be similar to those described in Area 16 for Alternative A, except,

the 15.2 miles of open routes would allow a greater amount of access to

areas of importance for objects and could increase unneeded traffic into

some areas that could affect the persistence of some objects. Impacts

would be expected to range from negligible to moderate on objects.

● The 0.2 miles of closure are in key habitats for a number of Monument

objects and could increase habitat availability and connectivity and

improve populations at a local level. However the areas that would

be closed would decrease the access for administrative purposes and

could affect the ability to conduct health and habitat assessments for

objects. Impacts from closing these 0.2 miles would be expected to range

from negligible to minor based on necessity to access some areas for

administrative use.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 358.1 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Area Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Analyzed Open Admin

Only

Closed Open Admin

Only

Closed Open Admin

Only

Closed

Area 15 1.2 0.4 - 15.5(0.7*) - 0.3 - - -

Area 16 - - - 6.1(1.3^) - 7.9 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 15

8000, 8000J, 8002,

8002E

8002H, 8003

8003A, 8003B

8005, 8005A

8005B, 8005D

8005E, 8005F

8005G, 8037

8037F, 8037G

● Within designated routes, 528 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts

would be similar to those described in Area 15 for Alternative A, except,

impact intensities would decrease to negligible to minor, as only 16.6

miles of open routes would be designated.

● Impacts related to habitat improvements from closing 0.3 miles of

primitive routes would be similar to those described in Alternative B for

Area 15, however administrative access limitations for wildlife purposes

would increase compared to Alternative B; therefore, impacts would be

minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects
924 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Assumptions

8037L, 8037Q

8037R, 8039

8039A, 8039B

8039H, 8039I

8039J, 8039K,

8039L

Areas 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

● Within designated routes, 186 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts

would be similar to those described in Area 16 for Alternative A, except,

the 6.1 miles of open routes would allow a greater amount of access to

areas of importance for objects and could increase unneeded traffic into

some areas that could affect the persistence of some objects. Similar to

Alternative B, impacts would be maintained at negligible to moderate

levels.

● The closure of 7.9 miles would be similar to those described in Alternative

B for Area 16, however administrative access limitations for wildlife

purposes would slightly increase compared to Alternative B; therefore,

impacts would remain at minor.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 200 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 15 1.2 0.4 - 7.4(0.6*) 0.5 8.1 - - -

Area 16 - - - 2.6 1.7 11 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 15

8000, 8000J, 8002,

8002E

8002H, 8003

8003A, 8003B

8005, 8005A

8005B, 8005D

8005E, 8005F

8005G, 8037

8037F, 8037G

Within designated routes, 263 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Alternative D

would close 8.1miles of route within this area. Closing large areas, with no

or limited administrative access to important habitat areas for objects, could

create new impacts by eliminating the ability to perform health and habitat

assessments as they relate to objects and could result in minor to moderate

impacts. Minor to moderate impacts could be related to but not limited to

invasive species, water sources not functioning properly, habitat degradation,

population die-offs and waste being left on the landscape without access to

address the issue. However closing the 8.1 miles to routes could increase

habitat availability, habitat connectivity and within the closed route area could

increase the population of objects at a local level.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 925

Assumptions

8037L, 8037Q

8037R, 8039

8039A, 8039B

8039H, 8039I

8039J, 8039K,

8039L

Areas 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Within designated routes, 108 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat would be disturbed. Impacts would

be similar to those described in Area 16 for Alternative A, except, the 2.6

miles of open routes is substantially less compared to any other alternative.

However, the limited amount of open routes in this area would concentrate

use only within areas that the public can legally access. Concentrated use

could cause mortality, degradation of habitat and avoidance of the area by

some objects creating minor to moderate impacts.

The closure of 11 miles closures would be similar to those described in

Alternative B for Area 16, however administrative access limitations for

wildlife purposes would increase compared to Alternative B; therefore,

impacts would be negligible to moderate.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 331 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area

Analyzed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

Area 15 1.2 0.4 - 15.9(0.6*) - - - - -

Area 16 - - - 7.1 (1.3^) - 6.9 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas 15

8000, 8000J, 8002,

8002E

8002H, 8003

8003A, 8003B

8005, 8005A

8005B, 8005D

8005E, 8005F

8005G, 8037

8037F, 8037G

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for Area

15, except, slightly less miles of routes would be open (15.9 miles) under

Alternative E for this area, equating to 461 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat being disturbed. Impacts would

still be negligible to minor.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects
926 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Assumptions

8037L, 8037Q

8037R, 8039

8039A, 8039B

8039H, 8039I

8039J, 8039K,

8039L

Areas 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative C for Area

16, except, slightly less miles of routes would be open (7.1 miles) under

Alternative E for this area, equating to 211 acres of palo-verde mixed cacti,

creosote-bursage, and xeroriparian habitat being disturbed. Impacts would

still be negligible to minor.

Impacts from route closures would be the same as Alternative C, except,

slightly less miles would be closed to motorized travel (approximately 6.9

miles), under Alternative E. Impacts would remain at minor.

Impacts on Priority Wildlife & Habitat Species Monument Objects from SDNM Livestock Grazing

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 776

Bighorn 2,812

Conley 3,403

Hazen 886

Lower Vekol 826

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

Impacts would be negligible as there are no proposed AUMs in the Arnold Allotment for

Alternative A. Interactions between wildlife and livestock would only occur when ephemeral

grazing is permitted. Additional waters for both livestock and wildlife would become available

when ephemeral use is permitted, pursuant to the Special Ephemeral Rule.

Beloat

Allotment

The Beloat Allotment consists of 23,645 acres of Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage

Desert Scrub, 10,144 acres of Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed cacti Desert Scrub habitat, and 2,053

acres of Xeroriparian habitat, which are habitats for bighorn sheep and desert tortoise. Maintaining

the current level of AUMs within this allotment could result in the loss or reductions in canopy

cover within these habitats, which in turn could cause some wildlife to avoid areas that are

needed for thermal refuge, nesting and/or foraging. These impacts to Monument objects would

generally be negligible to minor in intensity. Range improvement projects would be considered

pursuant to 43 CFR 4120-3.

Bighorn

Allotment

The Bighorn Allotment consists of 45,330 acres of Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage

Desert Scrub, 195 acres of Sonoran-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, 46,155 acres of Sonoran

Paloverde-Mixed cacti Desert Scrub, and 13,393 acres of Xeroriparian, which are habitats for

bighorn sheep, lesser long-nosed bat, and desert tortoise. Impacts would be the same as those

described for the Beloat Allotment. Impacts to objects would be expected to range from negligible

to minor.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 927

Assumptions

Conley

Allotment

The Conley Allotment consists of 1,668 acres of Sonoran-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub,

30,427 acres of Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed cacti Desert Scrub, and 1,393 acres of Xeroriparian,

which are habitats for bighorn sheep, lesser long-nosed bat, and desert tortoise. Impacts would

be the same as those described for the Beloat Allotment. Impacts to objects would be expected

to range from negligible to minor.

Hazen Allotment

The Hazen Allotment consists of 17,062 acres of Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White Bursage

Desert Scrub, 238 acres of Sonoran-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, 14,336 acres of Sonoran

Paloverde-Mixed cacti Desert Scrub, and 726 acres of Xeroriparian, which are habitats for

bighorn sheep, Tucson shovel-nosed snake, and desert tortoise. Impacts would be the same as

those described for the Beloat Allotment. Impacts to objects would be expected to range from

negligible to minor..

Lower Vekol

Allotment

The Lower Vekol Allotment consists of 5,256 acres of Sonora-Mojave Creosotebush-White

Bursage Desert Scrub, 114 acres of Sonoran-Mojave Mixed Salt Desert Scrub, 10,285 acres of

Sonoran Paloverde-Mixed cacti Desert Scrub, and 197 acres of Xeroriparian, which are habitats

for bighorn sheep, Tucson shovel-nosed snake, and lesser long-nosed bat. Impacts would be the

same as those described for the Beloat Allotment. Impacts to objects would be expected to range

from negligible to minor.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 541

Bighorn 2,031

Conley 1,572

Hazen 531

Lower Vekol 646

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

Impacts would be negligible and similar to Alternative A.

Beloat

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those described under Alternative A for the Beloat

Allotment, just to a lesser degree, as AUMs would be decrease by 235. This increase in available

forage for wildlife is expected to be negligible to minor. Ungulates such as mule deer and bighorn

sheep travelling the corridor between the North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area and the

Sierra Estrells Wilderness Area could encounter approximately 20 fewer cattle, an impact that is

likely negligible to minor.

Bighorn

Allotment

Impacts on important vegetation communities and wildlife habitat are anticipated to be the same

as those described under Alternative A for the Bighorn Allotment, just to a much lesser degree, as

AUMs would be decrease by 781. This increase in available forage is expected to be minor to

moderate. On the Bighorn Allotment, approximately 2,974 acres of the creosote bush/ bursage

vegetative community were found to be incompatible with livestock grazing. Therefore, under

Alternative B, approximately 14 miles of wildlife-friendly fence is proposed to exclude livestock

from these areas. Maintenance of water facilities within these exclosures would become the

responsibility of State and Federal agencies for the continued benefit of wildlife. The proposed

fenceline may impact some ungulate movement along known wildlife corridors in the South

Maricopa Mountain Wilderness Area and beyond (see Map 2-2b). However, fencing would

adhere to BLM stipulations, with the top and bottom strands smooth wire so as not to restrict

wildlife movement. Fencing should have negligible impacts on the Tucson shovel-nosed snake,

the lesser long-nosed bat, or the Sonoran desert tortoise. Impacts are expected to be negligible to

minor and are to the benefit of wildlife.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects
928 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Assumptions

Conley

Allotment

On the Conley Allotment, approximately 5,552 acres of various vegetative communities were

found to be incompatible with livestock grazing. Under Alternative B, approximately miles of

fencing would be needed to prevent further impacts from livestock on this vegetation/habitat.

However, no known wildlife corridors would be directly or indirectly impacted by the fencing

proposed in this alternative. Additionally, under Alternative B, AUMs would be decreased

by 1,831 (or approximately 153 cows yearlong) from Alternative A . The combination of

increased forage and habitat availability is expected to offset the impacts from increased fencing.

Maintenance of water sources inside the exclosures would become the responsibility of Federal

and State agencies for the benefit of wildlife. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor and

are to the benefit of wildlife.

Hazen Allotment

There were no areas of the Hazen Allotment found to be incompatible with Monument objects.

However, because of the important wildlife habitat and travel corridors for bighorn sheep in the

North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness Area and the Sierra Estrella Wilderness Area, a decrease

of 531 AUMs is proposed under this alternative. Impacts are anticipated to be the same as those

described under Alternative A for the Hazen Allotment, just to a much lesser degree. No additional

fencing is proposed. Impacts to priority wildlife species are expected to be negligible to minor.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Approximately 2 miles (or 7 acres) of Sandy Wash ecological sites were found to be incompatible

with livestock grazing on the Lower Vekol Allotment. Impacts are anticipated to be the same as

those described under Alternative A for the Lower Vekol Allotment, just to a much lesser degree,

as AUMs would be decreased by 180. Impacts are expected to be negligible to minor.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 936

Bighorn 2,278

Conley 2,212

Hazen 873

Lower Vekol 793

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

Alternative C does not apply to allotments designated as ephemeral only. Impacts would be the

same as described for Alternative A.

Beloat

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be similar tos those described under Alternative B for the Beloat

Allotment, just to a lesser degree, as AUMs would be decrease d by 384. Impacts to wildlife from

livestock are expected to be negligible to minor.

Bighorn

Allotment

Impacts in forage availability are anticipated to be similar to those described under Alternative

A for the Bighorn Allotment, just to a much greater degree, as 534AUMs originally allocated

for livestock would become available for wildlife. More acres would be fenced off under this

alternative than under Alternative B, but because fencing would incorporate existing fences and

topographic barriers, only 27 miles of new fenceline is proposed. The topographic barriers (e.g,

cliffs, rocky outcrops, gorges) make it difficult for cattle to navigate, but would not affect mule

deer or bighorn sheep movement. Water sources within the exclosed areas would become the

responsibility of State and Federal agencies. The combination of increased habitat and increase

forage would have minor to moderate beneficial impacts to priority wildlife species.

Conley

Allotment

Under Alterntative C, nearly half of the Conley Alltoment would be fenced off, using a

combination of 18 miles of new fence, as well as existing fences and natural topographic features.

Impacts are anticipated to be similar to those described under Alternative B for the Conley

Allotment, with an AUM decrease of 1,191. Impacts would be similar to those described for the

Bighorn Allotment, Alternative C. Water sources within the exclosed areas would become the

responsibility of State and Federal agencies. The combination of increased habitat and increased

forage would have minor to moderate beneficial impacts to priority wildlife species.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 929

Assumptions

Hazen Allotment

Under Alternative C, there would be a decrease of only 13 AUMs (or 1 cow grazing yearlong).

Therefore, impacts would be very similar as those described under Alternative A for the Hazen

Allotment.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative A and B for the Lower Vekol Valley

Allotment except that approximately 3 miles of fence would be built to eliminate impacts of

livestock on the xeroriparian vegetative resources found to be incompatible with livestock grazing.

This wildlife-friendly fencing is expected to have negligible impacts on priority wildlife species.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

All allotments currently allocated for livestock grazing would become unavailable for

grazing when current permits expire.

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Livestock Grazing Actions

Implementation of Alternative D would result in the cessation of livestock grazing through the management action

to close all currently open grazing allotments. This decision would remove any livestock grazing impacts on the

vegetative resources and Monument objects. Approximately 8,703 AUMs of forage would become available

to wildlife. However, the expectation is that the impacts on the creosote bush/ bursage communities and the

palo-verde-mixed cactus communities from the cessation of grazing would generally be small, and only slightly

noticeable changes to vegetative resources would occur. Where the impacts from livestock grazing on vegetation

are more noticeable (such as in the xeroriparian areas), the results of removing livestock would be more apparent

(i.e. regrowth of heavily utilized vegetation, some reestablishment of vegetation around watering facilities and

heavily used livestock trails). During years of increased winter rainfall the fuel load created from the growth of

annual species (up to 2000lbs./ acre + air dry weight) would not be subject reduction from livestock grazing, which

could result in increased frequency and/or intensity of fire in these non-fire adapted ecosystems. Approximately 130

miles of fenceline throughout the SDNM would be removed after permits expire. The burden of removing fences

would fall on State and Federal wildlife managers. Fences along rights-of-way, such as highways, roads, railways,

and utility corridors, would remain in place. A total of 14 wildlife catchments are located north of I-8 and would be

maintained by Federal and State wildlife managers. In addition a total of 9 corrals, approximately 236 miles of

fence would be considered for removal. The removal of the corrals and the fences would assist wildlife’s ability to

move across the landscape without impediments to objects as related to fencing. Impacts from removing the fences

and corrals would be expected to be negligible to moderate depending on the areas of fence to be removed. The

burden of maintaining of 1 fenced reservoir, 16 unfenced reservoirs, 4 storage tanks, 2 troughs, 5 wells, 5 miles of

pipeline, and 1 windmill would fall on State and Federal wildlife managers. The combination of increased forage

availability, fewer fences restricting movement, and no competition with livestock at water sources on the entire

Monument would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Livestock Grazing Action

SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Proposed Permitted Livestock Grazing Animal

Unit Months (AUMs)

Arnold 0

Beloat 552

Bighorn 1,633

Conley 0

Hazen 400

Lower Vekol 529

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM

Livestock Grazing Actions

Arnold

Allotment

Impacts would be similar to Alternative A. The Arnold Allotment would continue to be considered

for ephemeral use pursuant to the Special Ephemeral Rule.

Beloat

Allotment

Under Alternative E, there would be a reduction of AUMs from the current 776 to 552 AUMs.

Proposed actions and subsequent impacts would be similar to those described under Alternative B

for the Beloat Allotment and would benefit wildlife species.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects
930 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Assumptions

Big Horn

Allotment

Impacts are anticipated to be similar to those described under Alternative B for the Bighorn

Allotment, except that AUMs would decrease from the existing 2,812 to 1,633, a reduction of

42% that would become available wildlife forage. Impacts of this alternative are expected to be

negligible to minor and to the benefit of wildlife.

Conley

Allotment

Under this alternative, the entire portion of the Conley Allotment that falls within the Monument

boundaries would become unavailable for grazing. Additionally, rather than the fencing proposed

under Alternative B or C, pasture fences within the Monument would be removed, and a fence

separating the SDNM and LS portions of the allotment would be considered. Conley's 3,403

AUMs within SDNM would become available forage for wildlife. However, much of the Conley

consists of a creosote bush/bursage community; therefore, impacts from this decision would

likely not be noticeable for many years. In contrast, the xeroriparian areas, particularly along

Waterman Wash, are expected to experience minor to moderate improvements in forage and

habitat availability. Impacts are expected to be to the benefit of wildlife species.

Hazen Allotment

Impacts would be similar to those described for Alternative A for the Hazen Allotment, except

that 294 AUMs of forage would become available to wildlife. Impacts to wildlife from this

difference are expected to be negligible to minor.

Lower Vekol

Allotment

Impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative B for the Lower Vekol Valley

Allotment, except that 297 AUMs would become available for wildlife. Impacts to wildlife from

this difference are expected to be negligible to minor.

Impacts on Priority Wildlife & Habitat Species Monument Objects from SDNM Target Shooting

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would remain open to recreational target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Retaining target shooting throughout the entire Monument would act to disperse the impacts of recreational

target shooting throughout the Monument and, target shooting would continue in areas that are known to be

unsuitable for this activity. Due to observed increases in recreational target shooting activity since designation

of the SDNM, the BLM would expect to see impacts to Monument objects, to include wildlife, spread over

an increasingly larger area of the SDNM as new target shooting sites are established and existing sites grow

in extent. Impacts could include but are not limited to the direct loss, mortality or injury of individual animal

species and avoidance of traditional habitats while target shooting is taking place. Impacts would be expected to

range from negligible to moderate depending on the location and duration of target shooting and impacts to

wildlife in the immediate area.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● Under Alternative B, 95,900 acres of the total 486,400 acres of the SDNM would be available for target

shooting activities.

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Recreational target shooting would be prohibited on approximately 390,500 acres, or 80.3%, of the SDNM

determined to be unsuitable for this activity due to a prevalence of Monument objects. Recreational target

shooting would continue on approximately 95,900 acres, or 19.7%, of the SDNM where Monument objects

are not prevalent. Impacts to wildlife would be expected to decrease as compared to Alternative A. Wildlife

would be afforded the opportunity to remain in traditional habitats with relatively few interruptions from

human disturbance associated with target shooting. Mortality and harassment form target shooting and human

disturbance would be expected to decrease, as compared to Alternative A, as the amount of open areas for target

shooting are limited to 19.7% of the Monument. Most mobile wildlife species, would avoid target shooting areas

and human interactions to a certain degree. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to moderate.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● Only sites (totaling less than 1,134 acres) that have been identified as being compatible with Monument objects

and do not pose a safety risk to Monument visitors would remain open to target shooting, while the rest of

the Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Action

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Priority Wildlife

& Habitat Species Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 931

Assumptions

● Impacts to wildlife would be expected to decrease as compared to Alternative A and B. Wildlife would be

afforded the opportunity to remain in traditional habitats with very few interruptions from human disturbance

associated with target shooting. Mortality form target shooting and harassment would be expected to

dramatically decline, as compared to Alternative A and B, as the amount of open areas are for target shooting are

restricted to 0.2% of the Monument. Most mobile wildlife species, would avoid target shooting areas and human

interactions to a certain degree. Impacts would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Action

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

4.25.4. IMPLEMENTATION-LEVEL ANALYSIS FOR

VEGETATION MONUMENT OBJECTS

Impacts from implementation-level decisions on vegetation Monument objects are

presented below in Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931).

Table 4.32. Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument Objects

Monument Objects Managed by Vegetation

● Sand Tank Mountains

● Diversity of Plant and Animal Species

● Saguaro Cactus Forests

● Vegetation Communities: Creosote-Bursage, Desert Grassland, and Washes

● Functioning Desert Ecosystem

Impact Indicators

● Sand Tank Mountains

○ Acres of disturbed paloverde-mixed Cacti Vegetation Community.

● Diversity of Plant and Animal Species

○ Acres of woodland assemblages, paloverde-mixed cacti vegetation communities.

● Saguaro Cactus Forests

○ Acres of disturbed saguaro cacti and nurse plant areas.

● Vegetation Communities: Creosote-Bursage, Desert Grassland, and Washes

○ Acres of creosote-bursage, desert grassland, and wash areas.

● Functioning Desert Ecosystem

○ Acres of disturbed vegetation communities.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
932 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

SDNM Monument Object Indicators

Acres of Potentially Disturbed Vegetation Communities

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E

Area Analyzed Route Designations

Areas 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,

12, 14, 16, and 17

310 283.3 190.4 89.8 192.5

Areas 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,

12, 14, 15, 16, and

17

259.9 239.8 173.3 126.3 154.7

Areas 5, 7, 11, 12,

16, and 17 (miles in

wash)

21.5

miles

21.5 miles 7.4 miles 1.5 miles 1.3 miles

Area 13 0 7.8 725 0 725

Area 16 48 29.6 20.1 7.8 22.8

Allotment Analyzed Livestock Grazing

Arnold 1,631 1,631 1,631 0 1,631

Beloat 33,797 33,797 33,797 0 33,797

Bighorn 91,687 88,795 74,784 0 88,783

Conley 77,747 71,726 50,448 0 0

Hazen 31,638 31,638 31,638 0 31,638

Lower Vekol 15,663 15,617 14,997 0 15,459

Area Analyzed Target Shooting

Entire Monument 482,334 69,500 1,134 0 0

* Sites appear to have the characteristics which would make them eligible for the NRHP.

Assumptions

● All surface-disturbing activities would include mitigation and adaptive management to reduce impacts to

priority wildlife and priority species and their habitat.

● In general, vegetative communities are considered to be in good condition but small localized impacted areas

may be present

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Route Designation Actions

● No routes would be formally designated under Alternative A, therefore; the existing routes would remain open.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

ClosedOpen

Admin

Only

ClosedOpen

Admin

Only

Closed

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 16, and 17

- - - 98.4 - 3.8 34.3 - -

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12,

14, 15, 16, and 17

- - -

104

.5

- 0.2 34.3 - -

5, 7, 11, 12, 16,

and 17

- - - 67.3 - 3.8 - - -

13 - - - - - 4.7 - - -

16 - - - 8.2 - 0.2 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM

Route Designation Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 933

Areas: 6, 7, 9,

10, 11, 12, 14,

16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001G, 8001H,

8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007,

8007A, 8007B,

8007C, 8007D,

8007F, 8007K,

8008, 8008B,

8008C, 8008D,

8008E, 8008F,

8008H, 8008I,

8008K, 8009C,

8009E, 8009F,

8010, 8011, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8015,

8015A, 8015B,

8015C, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8026, 8037,

8037A, 8037B,

8037C, 8037E,

8037F, 8037G,

8037H, 8037K,

8037O, 8037P,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039K,

8039C, 8039D,

8039M, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

These areas represent the paloverde-mixed cacti, saguaro cactus forest

and the woodland communities. Approximately 310 acres of the 303,300

acres of this community would be potentially disturbed by designated open

routes in these areas. The direct loss of individual plants and saguaros and

potential increased soil erosion in areas surrounding the routes, resulting

from soil compaction on the routes, could lead to conditions that do not

support a functioning and healthy community. In addition there could be an

increase in potential for the spread of noxious/invasive weeds from vehicle

traffic. Impacts would be expected to be negligible due to the small acreage

impacted and that the paloverde-mixed cacti community generally consists

of rocky, shallow soils that are well armored with gravels and rock or

exposed bedrock. This results in less susceptibility to impacts from vehicle

use. The majority of these acres within this community, which includes the

largest portion of the saguaro cactus forest, are additionally protected within

existing wilderness areas which has few routes.

Areas: 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 12, 14, 15,

16, and 17

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000J, 8000I,

8000K, 8000L,

8000M, 8000N,

8000O, 8000P,

8000Q, 8000R,

8000S, 8000T,

8000U, 8000V,

8000W, 8000X,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8002E,

These areas represent the creosote bush-bursage community. Approximately

259.9 acres of the 179,600 acres of this community would be potentially

disturbed by designated open routes in these areas. This community is

the most susceptible to impacts from vehicle use due to the more erosive

nature of the soils. Impacts would generally be negligible, but could reach

minor or moderate if route proliferation leads to direct loss of vegetation

and conditions leading to severe erosion particularly during wet periods

when the roads are difficult to travel. Impacts can be minimized in this

community by road closures, route limitations or stabilization of routes.

The direct loss of individual plants and potential increased soil erosion in

areas surrounding the routes, resulting from soil compaction on the routes,

could lead to conditions that do not support a functioning and healthy

community. In addition there could be an increase in potential for the spread

of noxious/invasive weeds from vehicle traffic.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
934 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

8002G, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8004,

8004E, 8004F,

8004H, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D,

8005E, 8005F,

8005H, 8005I,

8006H, 8006I,

8007C, 8007K,

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8009K,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8018, 8019,

8021, 8037, 8037A,

8037B, 8037C,

8037E, 8037F,

8037G, 8037H,

8037K, 8037L,

8037O, 8037P,

8037Q, 8037R,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039H,

8039I, 8039J,

8039K, 8039L,

8039M

Areas: 5, 7, 11,

12, 16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007C,

8007K, 8008,

8008B, 8008C,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8008K,

8009F, 8011, 8012,

8013, 8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039M

These areas represent the desert wash community 21.5 miles of the 970

total miles of the desert wash community would be potentially disturbed

by designated open routes in these areas. This community is susceptible

to impacts from vehicle use due to the direct loss of vegetation, channel

alteration and/or bank alteration. In most cases the vegetated bank soils

are associated with the creosote bush-bursage community and are more

susceptible to erosion. Impacts would generally be negligible, but could

reach minor if route proliferation leads to additional loss of vegetation

and severe erosion along the banks and vegetated channel sand bars in the

larger braided washes. Impacts can be minimized in this community by

road closures or route limitations.

Area 13

8007, 8007E,

8007G

Under Alternative A, no miles of routes within Area 13 are designated as

“open” to motorized vehicles; therefore, there would be no impacts. This

area represents the desert grassland community.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 935

Area 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

This area represents the Sand Tank Mountains. Approximately 48 acres

of the area would be potentially disturbed by designated open routes.

Several vegetation communities are located within the Sand Tank Mountains

area (paloverde-mixed cacti community and saguaro cactus forest,

creosotebush-bursage and desert washes). The potential impacts to these

communities are due to the direct loss of vegetation, channel alteration

and/or bank alteration. Impacts would generally be negligible, but could

reach minor or moderate if route proliferation leads to additional loss of

vegetation and severe erosion. Impacts can be minimized in this community

by road closures or route limitations.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 494.4 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

An additional 4.2 miles of road would be constructed and opened to motorized vehicles. Approximately

37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area

Analyzed Open

Admin

Only

ClosedOpenAdmin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

6, 7, 9, 10,

11, 12, 14, 16,

and 17

6.6 - - 94.7 - 0.8 34.3 - -

1, 3, 4, 5, 6,

12, 14, 15, 16,

and 17

7.0 0.4 -

93.9

(3.1

*)

- 0.2

34.3

(1.4*)

- -

5, 7, 11, 12,

16, and 17

3.5 - - 67.6 - - - - -

13 - - - 4.7 - - - - -

16 - - - 8.4 - - - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas: 6, 7, 9,

10, 11, 12, 14,

16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001G, 8001H,

8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007,

8007A, 8007B,

8007C, 8007D,

8007F, 8007K,

8008, 8008B,

8008C, 8008D,

8008E, 8008F,

8008H, 8008I,

8008K, 8009C,

8009E, 8009F,

8010, 8011, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

Approximately 283.3 acres of the paloverde-mixed cacti community and

saguaro cactus forest would be potentially disturbed by designated open

routes in these areas. The impacts would be the same intensity as Alternative

A for these areas, negligible, however slightly minimized with 26.7 fewer

acres impacted due to road closures.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
936 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8015,

8015A, 8015B,

8015C, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8026, 8037,

8037A, 8037B,

8037C, 8037E,

8037F, 8037G,

8037H, 8037K,

8037O, 8037P,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039K,

8039C, 8039D,

8039M, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Areas: 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 12, 14, 15,

16, and 17

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000J, 8000I,

8000K, 8000L,

8000M, 8000N,

8000O, 8000P,

8000Q, 8000R,

8000S, 8000T,

8000U, 8000V,

8000W, 8000X,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8002E,

8002G, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8004,

8004E, 8004F,

8004H, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D,

8005E, 8005F,

8005H, 8005I,

8006H, 8006I,

8007C, 8007K,

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8009K,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8018, 8019,

8021, 8037, 8037A,

8037B, 8037C,

8037E, 8037F,

8037G, 8037H,

8037K, 8037L,

Approximately 239.8 acres of this community would be potentially disturbed

by designated open and administrative use only routes in these areas.

Impacts would be negligible and similar to Alternative A, but could increase

if route proliferation occurs.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 937

8037O, 8037P,

8037Q, 8037R,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039H,

8039I, 8039J,

8039K, 8039L,

8039M

Areas: 5, 7, 11,

12, 16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007C,

8007K, 8008,

8008B, 8008C,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8008K,

8009F, 8011, 8012,

8013, 8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039M

Impacts would generally be negligible, and the same as Alternative A

Area 13

8007, 8007E,

8007G

7.8 acres of the grassland community would be potentially disturbed

by designated open routes in the Vekol Valley Grassland ACEC. This

community is susceptible to impacts from vehicle use due to the more

erosive nature of the soil. Impacts from routes would be the direct loss of

individual plants and potential increased soil erosion in areas surrounding

the routes, leading to conditions that do not support a functioning and

healthy vegetation community. Impacts would generally be minor, but could

reach moderate if mitigation of routes does not occur resulting in conditions

leading to severe erosion. Impacts can be minimized in this community

by road closures, route limitations or stabilization of routes which would

minimize the level of impact to vegetation. This would result in improved

conditions for these sites to reclaim and revegetate.

Area 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Approximately 29.6 acres of the area would be potentially disturbed by

designated open routes. Impacts would be the same as those described under

Alternative A and generally would be negligible.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Actions

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
938 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 358.1 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 16, and 17

6.6 - -

55.7

(31.3

^)

- 8.5 34.3 - -

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12,

14, 15, 16, and 17

7.0 0.4 -

67.3

(6.7*)

(17.7

^)

- 5.4

34.3

(1.4*)

- -

5, 7, 11, 12, 16,

and 17

3.5 - -

33.0

(31.3

^)

- 3.3 - - -

13 - - - - 4.7 - - - -

16 - - -

6.1

(1.3^)

- 0.9 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas: 6, 7, 9,

10, 11, 12, 14,

16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001G, 8001H,

8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007,

8007A, 8007B,

8007C, 8007D,

8007F, 8007K,

8008, 8008B,

8008C, 8008D,

8008E, 8008F,

8008H, 8008I,

8008K, 8009C,

8009E, 8009F,

8010, 8011, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8015,

8015A, 8015B,

8015C, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8026, 8037,

8037A, 8037B,

8037C, 8037E,

The impacts would be the same intensity as Alternative B for these areas,

negligible, however minimized with 92.9 fewer acres impacted due to road

closures.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 939

8037F, 8037G,

8037H, 8037K,

8037O, 8037P,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039K,

8039C, 8039D,

8039M, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Areas: 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 12, 14, 15,

16, and 17

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000J, 8000I,

8000K, 8000L,

8000M, 8000N,

8000O, 8000P,

8000Q, 8000R,

8000S, 8000T,

8000U, 8000V,

8000W, 8000X,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8002E,

8002G, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8004,

8004E, 8004F,

8004H, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D,

8005E, 8005F,

8005H, 8005I,

8006H, 8006I,

8007C, 8007K,

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8009K,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8018, 8019,

8021, 8037, 8037A,

8037B, 8037C,

8037E, 8037F,

8037G, 8037H,

8037K, 8037L,

8037O, 8037P,

8037Q, 8037R,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039H,

8039I, 8039J,

8039K, 8039L,

8039M

The impacts would be the same intensity as Alternative B for these areas,

negligible, however minimized with 66.5 fewer acres impacted due to road

closures.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
940 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Areas: 5, 7, 11,

12, 16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007C,

8007K, 8008,

8008B, 8008C,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8008K,

8009F, 8011, 8012,

8013, 8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039M

Impacts would generally be the same as those described under Alternative

A, just substantially decreased, as only 7.4 miles of routes would be open in

wash areas. Impacts would be negligible.

Area 13

8007, 8007E,

8007G

Impacts from routes could potentially be the same as Alternative A, although

somewhat reduced since public use would not be allowed. Impacts would

likely be negligible.

Area 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, just

substantially decreased. Impacts would be negligible.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 200 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 16, and 17

6.6 - -

22.5

(1.8*)

6.1 65.2 - - -

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12,

14, 15, 16, and 17

7.0 0.4 -

37.2

(8.4*)

7.3 44.2

34.3

(1.4

*)

- -

5, 7, 11, 12, 16,

and 17

3.5 - -

11.0

(1.7*)

0.3 50.1 - - -

13 - - - - - 4.7 - - -

16 - - - 2.6 1.7 4.1 - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Route Designation Actions

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 941

Areas: 6, 7, 9,

10, 11, 12, 14,

16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001G, 8001H,

8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007,

8007A, 8007B,

8007C, 8007D,

8007F, 8007K,

8008, 8008B,

8008C, 8008D,

8008E, 8008F,

8008H, 8008I,

8008K, 8009C,

8009E, 8009F,

8010, 8011, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8015,

8015A, 8015B,

8015C, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8026, 8037,

8037A, 8037B,

8037C, 8037E,

8037F, 8037G,

8037H, 8037K,

8037O, 8037P,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039K,

8039C, 8039D,

8039M, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C for these areas, negligible,

however minimized with 100.6 fewer acres impacted due to road closures.

Areas: 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 12, 14, 15,

16, and 17

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000J, 8000I,

8000K, 8000L,

8000M, 8000N,

8000O, 8000P,

8000Q, 8000R,

8000S, 8000T,

8000U, 8000V,

8000W, 8000X,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8002E,

The impacts would be the same intensity as Alternative C for these areas,

negligible, however minimized with 47 fewer acres impacted due to road

closures.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
942 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

8002G, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8004,

8004E, 8004F,

8004H, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D,

8005E, 8005F,

8005H, 8005I,

8006H, 8006I,

8007C, 8007K,

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8009K,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8018, 8019,

8021, 8037, 8037A,

8037B, 8037C,

8037E, 8037F,

8037G, 8037H,

8037K, 8037L,

8037O, 8037P,

8037Q, 8037R,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039H,

8039I, 8039J,

8039K, 8039L,

8039M

Areas: 5, 7, 11,

12, 16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007C,

8007K, 8008,

8008B, 8008C,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8008K,

8009F, 8011, 8012,

8013, 8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039M

Impacts would generally be the same as those described under Alternative

A, just substantially decreased, as only 1.5 miles of routes would be open in

wash areas. Impacts would be negligible.

13

8007, 8007E,

8007G

Impacts are the same as those described under Alternative A.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 943

Area 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, just

substantially decreased by 12.3 acres of disturbance. Impacts would be

negligible.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Route Designation Actions

● Approximately 24.2 miles of road and 331 miles of primitive road would be open to motorized vehicles.

Approximately 37 miles of trail would be allocated as open to nonmotorized and non-mechanical vehicles.

SDNM Route Designations

Roads Primitive Roads Trails

Area Analyzed

Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed Open

Admin

Only

Closed

6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 16, and 17

6.6 - -

63.9

(31.3^)

0.3 - 34.3 - -

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14,

15, 16, and 17

7.0 0.4 -

72.5

(6.7*)

(17.7^)

0.3 -

34.3

(1.4*)

- -

5, 7, 11, 12, 16,

and 17

3.5 - -

35.9

(31.3^)

0.3 - - - -

13 - - - 4.7 - - - - -

16 - - -

7.1

(7.1^)

- - - - -

*Open to nonmotorized use only, **Limited to 50 feet, ^ Seasonally Closed

Site Specific

Area (Refer to

Map 4-1)

BLM Routes

in Site Specific

Area (maps only

available on CD

version of DLUP

– EIS)

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

SDNM Route Designation Actions

Areas: 6, 7, 9,

10, 11, 12, 14,

16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001G, 8001H,

8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007,

8007A, 8007B,

8007C, 8007D,

8007F, 8007K,

8008, 8008B,

8008C, 8008D,

8008E, 8008F,

8008H, 8008I,

8008K, 8009C,

8009E, 8009F,

8010, 8011, 8011A,

8011C, 8011D,

8011F, 8011G,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8015,

8015A, 8015B,

8015C, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

The impacts would be the same as Alternative C for these areas.

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
944 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8026, 8037,

8037A, 8037B,

8037C, 8037E,

8037F, 8037G,

8037H, 8037K,

8037O, 8037P,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039K,

8039C, 8039D,

8039M, 8043, 8044,

8045, 8046

Areas: 1, 3, 4,

5, 6, 12, 14, 15,

16, and 17

8000, 8000A,

8000B, 8000C,

8000D, 8000E,

8000F, 8000G,

8000J, 8000I,

8000K, 8000L,

8000M, 8000N,

8000O, 8000P,

8000Q, 8000R,

8000S, 8000T,

8000U, 8000V,

8000W, 8000X,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8002E,

8002G, 8002H,

8003, 8003A,

8003B, 8004,

8004E, 8004F,

8004H, 8005,

8005A, 8005B,

8005C, 8005D,

8005E, 8005F,

8005H, 8005I,

8006H, 8006I,

8007C, 8007K,

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8009K,

8012, 8013, 8013A,

8014, 8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8018, 8019,

8021, 8037, 8037A,

8037B, 8037C,

8037E, 8037F,

8037G, 8037H,

8037K, 8037L,

8037O, 8037P,

8037Q, 8037R,

8038B, 8038E,

8039, 8039A,

8039B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039H,

The impacts would be the same intensity as Alternative C for these areas,

negligible, however minimized with 18.6 fewer acres impacted due to road

closures.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 945

8039I, 8039J,

8039K, 8039L,

8039M

Areas: 5, 7, 11,

12, 16, and 17

8000V, 8000W,

8000Y, 8001,

8001A, 8001B,

8001C, 8001D,

8001E, 8001F,

8001G, 8001H,

8001I, 8001J, 8002,

8002B, 8002C,

8002D, 8003, 8004,

8004F, 8006H,

8006I, 8007C,

8007K, 8008,

8008B, 8008C,

8008D, 8008E,

8008F, 8008H,

8008I, 8008K,

8009F, 8011, 8012,

8013, 8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016A, 8016B,

8016D, 8017, 8018,

8019, 8021, 8026,

8026B, 8039C,

8039D, 8039M

Impacts would be the same as Alternative D.

Area 13

8007, 8007E,

8007G

Impacts would be the same as Alternative C.

Area 16

8008, 8008C,

8008K, 8013,

8013A, 8014,

8014A, 8016,

8016D, 8021

Impacts would be the same as those described under Alternative A, just

substantially decreased by 25.2 acres of disturbance. Impacts would be

negligible.

Impacts on Vegetation Monument Objects from SDNM Livestock Grazing

● Impacts on vegetation Monument objects from SDNM livestock grazing AUM allocations would be the

same as those described under Impacts from Implementation Level Decisions on Vegetation Monument

Objects (p. 931) from Livestock Grazing, because the actions that address wildlife habitat likewise address

vegetation characteristics and impacts from livestock grazing as well.

Impacts on Vegetation Monument Objects from SDNM Target Shooting

Alternative A (No Action)

Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would remain open to recreational target shooting.

● Impact Analysis from Alternative A (No Action) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Target shooting primarily occurs within the Creosote Bush–Bursage community and to a lesser extent the Palo

Verde-Mixed Cacti community (including the Saguaro Cactus Forests) and the Desert Washes within those

communities. The majority of the acres within the Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti community, which includes the

largest portion of the saguaro cactus forest, are generally protected within existing wilderness areas and larger

tracts of roadless areas due to steeper rocky terrain. Impacts from target shooting would be expected to be minor.

Alternative B

Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● Under Alternative B, 95,900 acres of the total 486,400 acres of the SDNM would be available for target

shooting activities.

Impact Analysis from Alternative B SDNM Target Shooting Actions

August 2011

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

Implementation-Level Analysis for Vegetation

Monument Objects
946 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A, except at a lesser extent, as 80.3% of the

Monument would be closed to target shooting. Limiting target shooting to designated sites, which primarily

occur within the Creosote Bush–Bursage, Desert Grassland and the Desert Washes within those areas, could

limit potential direct loss of vegetation and allow for continued vegetative diversity and a functioning desert

ecosystem. Areas excluded from shooting include the Sand Tank Mountains, the Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

community (including the Saguaro Cactus Forests) and the majority of the Desert Washes within the Monument.

Impacts to vegetation would be expected to decrease as compared to Alternative A. Impacts from target shooting

would be expected to range from negligible to minor.

Alternative C

Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● Only sites (totaling less than 1,134 acres) that have been identified as being compatible with Monument objects

and do not pose a safety risk to Monument visitors would remain open to target shooting, while the rest of

the Monument would be closed to target shooring.

Impact Analysis from Alternative C SDNM Target Shooting Action

● Impacts would be the same as described under Alternative A and B, except at a much lesser extent, as 99.8% of

the Monument would be closed to target shooting. Limiting target shooting to designated sites, which only

occurs within the Creosote Bush–Bursage and the Desert Washes within those areas, could limit potential

direct loss of vegetation and allow for continued vegetative diversity and a functioning desert ecosystem.

Areas excluded from shooting include the Sand Tank Mountains, the Desert Grassland, the Palo Verde-Mixed

Cacti community (including the Saguaro Cactus Forests) and the majority of the Desert Washes within the

Monument. Impacts to vegetation would be expected to decrease as compared to Alternative A and B. Impacts

on vegetation would be expected to be negligible.

Alternative D

Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative D SDNM Target Shooting Action

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Management Actions

● The entire Monument would be closed to target shooting.

Impact Analysis from Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) SDNM Target Shooting Actions

● Impacts would be negligible, as the SDNM would be closed to target shooting.

Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 947

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 (p. 951).

ACCELERATED 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 (p. 977)

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.

ACTIVE USE:

The current authorized use, including livestock grazing and conservation use. Active use may

constitute a portion of or all permitted use. Active use does not include temporary nonuse or

suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment.

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 decisions. An

activity plan is prepared for specific areas to reach specific resource management objectives

within stated timeframes. (See STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) (p. 989).) An

activity plan usually describes multiple projects and applies best management practices

to meet resource-management plan objectives. Examples of activity plans include

interdisciplinary management plans, habitat management plans, recreation area management

plans, and allotment management plans.

August 2011 Glossary
948 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

ACTUAL USE:

Describes how many and what kind of livestock graze, as well as where they graze, on an

allotment or on a portion or pasture of an allotment.

ADJUDICATION:

Refers to a judicial process whereby water rights are determined or decreed by a court of law.

AGGREGATE (adj.):

Constituting or amounting to the whole and complete Alternative resource prescriptions

effects, not just the individual resource effect. The total aggregate effect of an Alternative in

the RMP considers every resource prescriptions’ effect on an individual resource.

AGGREGATE (n.):

Any combination of sand, gravel, and crushed stone in its natural or processed state.

AIR QUALITY RATING:

See CLASS I AIR QUALITY RATING (p. 953) and CLASS II AIR QUALITY

RATING (p. 953).

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 land designated and managed for the grazing of livestock where one or more

operators are authorized to graze their livestock. An allotment generally consists of Federal

rangelands but may include intermingled parcels of private, State, or Federal lands. The BLM

stipulates the number of livestock and season of use for each allotment.

ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (AMP):

A livestock grazing management plan dealing with a specific unit of rangeland and based

on multiple use resource management objectives. The AMP considers livestock grazing

in relation to other uses of rangelands and in relation to renewable resources-watershed,

vegetation, and wildlife. An AMP establishes the seasons of use, the number of livestock to

be permitted on rangelands, and the rangeland 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 AMS 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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 949

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM):

The amount of forage needed to sustain one cow, five sheep, or five goats for one month.

ANNUAL PLANT:

A plant that completes its life cycle and dies in 1 year or less. Also see PERENNIAL

PLANT (p. 974).

APPROPRIATE MANAGEMENT LEVEL (AML):

The number of adult horses or burros (expressed as a range with an upper and lower limit) to

be managed within an HMA. Forage for wild horses and burros (AUMs) is allocated based on

the AML upper limit. Excess Animals – Wild, free-roaming horses or burros which have been

removed or which must be removed from in order to preserve and maintain a thriving natural

ecological balance and multiple-use relationship in an area.

AQUATIC HABITATS (COMPONENTS):

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.

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.

AUTHORIZED OFFICER:

Any employee of the BLM who has been delegated the authority to perform duties related to

public lands, public purposes, conveyances, hazardous substances, and solid wastes.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
950 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

BACK COUNTRY SETTING:

Areas with undeveloped, primitive, and self-directed visitor experience without provisions for

motorized or mechanized access, except for identified routes.

BAJADA:

A broad continuous slope extending along and from the base of a mountain range and formed

by coalescing alluvial fans.

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 (CARRYING

CAPACITY) (p. 963).

BASE METAL:

A metal inferior in value to gold and silver; a term generally applied to the commercial metals

such as copper and lead.

BASE PROPERTY:

1) Land that has the capability to produce crops or forage that can be used to support

authorized livestock for a specified period of the year, or 2) water that is suitable for

consumption by livestock and is available and accessible to the authorized livestock when the

public lands are used for livestock grazing.

BASIN:

A broad, structural lowland between mountain ranges, commonly elongated and many miles

across.

BENEFIT (RECREATION/SOCIETAL):

A benefit is defined as an improved condition or the prevention of a worse condition. Benefits

of leisure and recreation engagements can be realized by individuals (e.g., improved physical

and psychological well-being), groups of individuals (strengthened bonds among family

and friends), communities (economic gain from tourism), society (the cumulative effects of

individual and group benefits), and the environment (a result of a stronger environmental

ethic among individuals).

BENEFITS-BASED MANAGEMENT (RECREATION/SOCIETAL):

Benefits-based management is an approach to park and recreation management that focuses

on the positive outcomes of engaging in recreational experiences.

BIG GAME:

Large species of wildlife that are hunted, such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn

antelope.

BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT:

Area is open to non-vehicular traffic year around (e.g., hiking, biking, and equestrian).

Restrictions vary by location and are listed in RMP. Typically, roads are closed during lambing

season (January 1–June 30).

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 951

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT:

Information prepared by or under the direction of a Federal agency to determine whether

a proposed action is likely to (1) harm threatened or endangered species or designated

critical habitat, (2) jeopardize the existence of species that are proposed for listing, or

(3) adversely modify proposed critical habitat. Biological assessments must be prepared

for major construction activities. The outcome of a biological assessment determines

whether formal Section 7 consultation or a conference is needed. Also see BIOLOGICAL

OPINION (p. 951).

BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (BIODIVERSITY):

The full range of variability within and among living organisms and the ecological complexes

in which they occur. Biological diversity encompasses ecosystem or community diversity,

species diversity, and genetic diversity.

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION:

The gathering and evaluation of information on proposed endangered and threatened

species and critical and proposed critical habitat for actions that do not require a biological

assessment. Also see BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (p. 951).

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 (p. 947).

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.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
952 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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.

BROWSE:

The part of leaf and twig growth of shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal

consumption.

BUREAU (BLM) SENSITIVE SPECIES:

All species that are under status review, have small or declining populations, live in unique

habitats, or need special management to reduce the likelihood and need for future listing

under the ESA.

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)

CANAMEX:

Canada to Mexico highway authorized through the North American Free Trade Agreement of

1994, designed to facilitate trade between Mexico, Canada, and the US.

CANCELLED/CANCELLATION:

A permanent termination of a grazing permit, grazing lease, grazing preference, free-use

grazing permit, or other grazing authorization in whole or in part.

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.

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 (CARRYING

CAPACITY) (p. 963).

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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 953

CASUAL USE (RECREATION):

Non-commercial or non-organized group or individual activities on public land that do the

following: Comply with land use decisions and designations (i.e. special area designations),

do not award cash prizes; are not publicly advertised; pose minimal risk for damage to public

land or related water resources; and generally require 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 actions (identified in agency guidance) that do not individually or cumulatively

have a significant effect on the human environment and for which neither an environmental

assessment nor an EIS is required (40 CFR 1508.4).

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.

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:

Relating to the form and structure of channels.

CHARCO (DIRT CHARCO):

A slight depression on the ground that holds water after a rain (from the Spanish word for

“puddle”). In general, charcos are smaller than stock tanks or dirt tanks.

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.

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.

COLLUVIUM:

Any loose, heterogeneous and incoherent mass of soil and/or rock fragments moved down

slope by gravity-driven processes (like creep or sheet wash) and deposited at the base of

the slope or hillside.

August 2011 Glossary
954 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

COMMUNICATION FACILITY:

A building and/or tower, or other physical improvement that is built, installed, or established

to house and support authorized communications uses.

COMMUNICATION SITE:

An area of Public Land or National Forest System lands designated for communications use

through the land and resource management planning process.

COMMUNITY:

A collective term used to describe an assemblage of organisms living together; an association

of living organisms having mutual relationships among themselves and with their environment

and thus functioning at least to some degree as an ecological unit.

COMMUNITY INTERFACE:

Community Interface represents public lands bordering or surrounded by communities and

their associated urban infrastructure. This setting will also include lands projected to be

influenced by the increasing urbanization of the planning area over the next 15 to 20 years.

The setting can be natural in appearance, but the landscape is subject to change from intensive

recreation activities and other land use authorizations.

COMMUNITY RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET:

A community or communities dependent on public lands recreation and/or related tourism

use, growth, and/or development. Major investments in facilities and visitor assistance are

authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target demonstrated community

recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are geared toward

meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, experience, and

benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through maintenance of prescribed

natural resource and/or community setting character and by structuring and implementing

management, marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly.

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.

COMPOSITION:

The proportions of various plant species in relation to the total on a given area. It may be

expressed in terms of cover, density, weight, etc.

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.

COOPERATING AGENCY:

Assists the lead Federal agency in developing an EA or EIS. The CEQ regulations

implementing NEPA define a cooperating agency as any agency that has jurisdiction by law

or special expertise for proposals covered by NEPA (40 CFR 1501.6). Any Federal, state,

local government jurisdiction with such qualifications may become a cooperating agency by

agreement with the lead agency.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 955

COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT:

A document that describes agreements made between BLM and the public on adjusting certain

uses. 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 MULTIUSE UTILITY CORRIDOR (p. 958).

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 non-productive cows and bulls.

CREEPING PLANT:

A plant that spreads over the ground or other surface.

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.

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.

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.”

August 2011 Glossary
956 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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

prehistoric period, or its expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of

time.

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY (SURVEY):

A descriptive listing and documentation, including photographs and maps of cultural

resources. Included in an inventory are the processes of locating, identifying, and recording

sites, structures, buildings, objects, and districts through library and archival research,

information from persons knowledgeable about cultural resources, and on-the-ground surveys

of varying intensity.

● Class I: A professionally prepared study that compiles, analyzes, and synthesizes all

available data on an area’s cultural resources. Information sources for this study include

published and unpublished documents, BLM inventory records, institutional site files, and

state and National Register files. Class I inventories may have prehistoric, historic, and

ethnological and sociological elements. These inventories are periodically updated to

include new data from other studies and Class II and III inventories.

● Class II: A professionally conducted, statistically based sample survey designed to

describe the probable density, diversity, and distribution of cultural properties in a large

area. This survey is achieved by projecting the results of an intensive survey carried

out over limited parts of the target area. Within individual sample units, survey aims,

methods, and intensities are the same as those applied in Class III inventories. To improve

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 957

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 (p. 956).

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 ???.

DEFERRED ROTATION GRAZING:

Moving grazing animals to various parts of a range in succeeding years or seasons to provide

for seed production, plant vigor, and seedling growth.

DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT CLASSIFICATIONS:

Three categories of desert tortoise habitat based on population, viability, size, density, and

manageability and derived from BLM inventories of desert tortoise habitat throughout the

planning areas between 1989 and 1999. The categories are as follows:

Category 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.

August 2011 Glossary
958 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

DESIGNATED MULTIUSE UTILITY CORRIDOR:

See MULTIUSE UTILITY CORRIDOR (p. 970)

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION:

A detailed description of the particular resource condition to be achieved sometime in the

future. These serve as resource standards which management is intended to achieve. These

are analogous to resource objectives.

DESIRED OUTCOMES:

A type of land use plan decision expressed as a goal or objective.

DESIRED PLANT COMMUNITY (DPC):

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.

DESTINATION RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET:

National or regional recreation-tourism visitors and other constituents who value public lands

as recreation-tourism destinations. Major investments in facilities and visitor assistance

are authorized within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target demonstrated destination

recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are geared toward

meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand for specific activity, experience, and

benefit opportunities. These opportunities are produced through maintenance of prescribed

natural resource setting character and by structuring and implementing management,

marketing, monitoring, and administrative actions accordingly.

DEVELOPED RECREATION SITES AND AREAS:

Those sites and areas that contain structures or capital improvements primarily used by the

public for recreation purposes. Such sites or areas may include such features as: delineated

spaces for parking, camping, or boat launching; sanitary facilities; potable water; grills or fire

rings; or controlled access.

DIKE:

(1) An upright or steeply dipping sheet of igneous rock that has solidified in a crack or fissure

in the earth’s crust; (2) a human-made structure used to control stream flow.

DISPERSED RECREATION:

Recreation that does not require developed sites or facilities.

DISPOSAL:

See LAND DISPOSAL (p. 967).

DRAINAGE AREA:

Area or watershed that drains naturally to a particular point on a river, stream, or creek.

DRAINAGE BASIN:

Drainage system that consists of a surface stream or body of impounded surface water

together with all tributary surface streams and bodies of impounded surface water.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 959

EASEMENT:

The right to use land in a certain way granted by a landowner to a second party.

ECOLOGICAL CONDITION:

See ECOLOGICAL SITE RATING (ECOLOGICAL CONDITION/ ECOLOGICAL

STATUS) (p. 959).

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 (p. 972).

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 characteristic natural plant community.

ECOLOGICAL SITE DESCRIPTIONS:

Descriptions of the following characteristics of an ecological site- soils, physical features,

climatic features, associated hydrologic features, plant communities possible on the site, plant

community dynamics, annual production estimates and distribution of production throughout

the year, associated animal communities, associated and similar sites, and interpretations

for management.

ECOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY:

The basic inventory of present and potential vegetation on BLM rangeland.

ECOLOGICAL SITE RATING (ECOLOGICAL CONDITION/ ECOLOGICAL STATUS):

The present state of vegetation of an ecological site in relation to the potential natural

community for the site. Independent of the site’s use, the ecological site rating is an

expression of the relative degree to which the kinds, proportions, and amounts of plants

in a community resemble those of the potential natural community. The four ecological

status classes correspond to 0-25 percent, 25-50 percent, 51-75 percent, or 76-100 percent

similarity to the potential natural community and are called early-seral, mid-seral, late-seral,

and potential natural community, respectively.

ECOSYSTEM:

Organisms, together with their abiotic environment, forming an interacting system and

inhabiting an identifiable space.

ECOTOURISM:

Tourism that essentially focuses on natural rather than developed attractions with the goal

of enhancing the visitor’s understanding and appreciation of nature and natural features.

Such tourism often attempts to be environmentally sound and to contribute economically to

the local community.

ELIGIBLE RIVER SEGMENT:

Qualification 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.

August 2011 Glossary
960 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

EMERGENT VEGETATION:

Aquatic plant species that are rooted in wetlands but extend above the water’s surface.

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.

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 to:

1. 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.”

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS):

(40 CFR 1508.11) “means a detailed written statement as required by section 102 (2) (C) of

the Act” (referring to the National Environmental Policy Act.)

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ):

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national

origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group of people,

including racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group should bear a disproportionate share of the

negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial

operations or the execution of Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and policies (see

Executive Order 12898).

EPHEMERAL RANGELAND:

Areas of the hot desert biome (region) that do not consistently produce enough forage to

sustain a livestock operation but may briefly produce unusual volumes of forage that may be

utilized by livestock.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 961

EPHEMERAL STREAM:

A stream or portion of a stream that (1) flows only in direct response to precipitation, (2)

receives little or no water from springs or no long continued supply from snow or other

sources, and (3) has a channel that is always above the water table.

EXCAVATION:

The scientific examination of an archaeological site through layer-by-layer removal and study

of the contents within prescribed surface units, e.g. square meters.

EXCLOSURE:

An area fenced to exclude animals.

EXISTING PARKING, STAGING, AND CAMPING AREAS AND DISTURBED AREAS:

Sites and areas previously used for overnight stays, parking and staging. Existing sites

must have bare mineral earth areas clear of vegetation, other indications include tent pads,

camp fire rings, camper and vehicle pullouts, rock alignments and other signs of overnight

and long-term use and occupation.

EXOTIC:

An organism or species that is not native to the region in which it is found.

EXTENSIVE RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREA (ERMA):

A public lands unit identified in land use plans containing all acreage not identified as a

SRMA. Recreation management actions within an ERMA are limited to only those of a

custodial nature.

EXTIRPATED SPECIES:

A locally extinct species; a species that is no longer found in a locality but exists elsewhere.

EXTIRPATION:

See EXTIRPATED SPECIES (p. 961).

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.

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT (FLPMA):

The act that (1) set out, for the Bureau of Land Management, standards for managing the

public lands including land use planning, sales, withdrawals, acquisitions, and exchanges;

(2) authorized the setting up of local advisory councils representing major citizens groups

interested in land use planning and management, (3) established criteria for reviewing

proposed wilderness areas, and (4) provided guidelines for other aspects of public land

management such as grazing.

FEE SIMPLE TITLE:

Unrestricted ownership of real property (i.e. land and whatever is erected or growing on it).

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI):

A document that is prepared by a federal agency and that briefly explains why an action not

otherwise excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS)

would not significantly affect the human environment and not require an EIS.

August 2011 Glossary
962 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5):

Particulate matter that is less than 2.5 microns in diameter.

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.

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 mineral materials from public lands free of charge to any

Federal, State, or territorial agency, unit, or subdivision.

FRONT COUNTRY SETTING:

Front Country offers the main setting and locations for intensive resource-dependent

recreation uses and facilities. Motorized and mechanized vehicles must remain on existing

or designated routes. The lands are generally natural in appearance and may see minor

to moderate alterations over the life of the LUP due to land use authorizations and BLM

management actions.

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 (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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 963

FUGITIVE DUST:

Dust particles that are introduced into the air through certain actions such as soil cultivation or

vehicles crossing open fields or driving on dirt roads or trails.

FUNCTIONING WATERS (WILDLIFE):

A well, catchment, spring, reservoir, or other feature (human made or natural) that provides

a reliable source of potable water on a year-long basis. For such a source of water to be

considered functional, the quality and quantity of water must be sufficient to sustain native

wildlife populations in the local area. For example, a reservoir that fills up during monsoon

rains but goes dry in a few weeks is not functional from a wildlife standpoint.

FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH:

As Described in 43 CFR 4180, the conditions in which (1) rangelands are in proper functioning

physical condition, (2) ecological process are supporting healthy biotic populations and

communities, (3) water quality is meeting state standards and BLM objectives, and (4) special

status species habitat is being restored or maintained.

GAUGING STATION:

Particular site on a stream, canal, lake, or reservoir where systematic observations of height

or discharge are obtained.

GENETIC DIVERSITY:

The variation in genes in a population pool that contributes to the ability of organisms to

evolve and adapt to new conditions.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS):

An information system that integrates, stores, edits, analyzes, shares, and displays geographic

information for informing decision making.

GOAL:

The desired state or condition that a resource management policy or program is designed to

achieve. Broader and less specific than objectives, goals are usually not measurable and may

not have specific dates by which they must be reached. Objectives are developed by first

understanding one's goals.

GRADIENT:

Rate of regular or graded ascent or descent.

GRANT:

A document authorizing the use of public or Federal lands for the construction, operation,

maintenance, and termination of a project.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
964 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

GRAZING DISTRICT:

The specific area within which the public lands are administered under section 3 of the Taylor

Grazing Act of June 1934, as amended (43 USC 315). Public lands outside grazing district

boundaries are administered under section 15 of the Act.

GRAZING PERMIT/LICENSE/LEASE:

A written document authorizing use of the public lands within an established grazing district.

Grazing permits specify all authorized use, including livestock grazing, suspended use, and

conservation use. Permits also specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area

authorized for grazing use, or both.

GRAZING PREFERENCE:

A superior or priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or

lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee.

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 non-use of an allotment to meet multiple use goals

by improving the quality and amount of vegetation.

GROUND COVER:

See COVER (p. 955).

GROUND LITTER:

See LITTER (p. 968).

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.

GROUNDWATER 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.

GULLIES:

A furrow, channel or miniature valley cut by concentrated runoff, usually with steep sides

through which water commonly flows during and immediately after rains or snow melt.

HABITAT:

An area that provides an animal or plant with adequate food, water, shelter, and living space.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 965

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.

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.

HERBACEOUS:

Of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a vascular plant that does not develop woody

tissue.

HERD AREA (HA):

Geographic areas of the public lands identified as habitat used by wild horses and/or wild

burros at the time the WFRHBA was enacted (12/15/1971).

HERD MANAGEMENT AREA PLAN (HMAP):

A plan for the management of a geographic area used by wild horses or burros. It outlines

details of a burro or horse capture plan, adoption program and long-term management of

populations.

HERD MANAGEMENT AREA (HMA):

May be established in those HAs within which wild horses and burros can be managed for the

long term. HMAs are designated through the land use planning process for the maintenance of

wild horse and burro herds. In delineating each HMA, the authorized officer shall consider the

appropriate management level (AML) for the herd, the habitat requirements of the animals,

the relationships with other uses of the public and adjacent private lands, and the constraints

contained in 43 CFR 4710.4.

HERITAGE TOURISM:

Programs that seek to stimulate economic development by promoting the use of historic

properties. Management concerns include ensuring the long-term preservation and sustainable

use of properties. Best-management practices also encourage economic partnerships between

the BLM and the State, tribal and local tourism programs.

HIGH POTENTIAL HISTORIC SITE:

Those historic sites related to the route of the National Historic Trail, or sites in close

proximity thereto, which provide opportunity to interpret the historic significance of the

trail during the period of its major use. Criteria for consideration as high potential sites

include historic significance, presence of visible historic remnants, scenic quality, and relative

freedom from intrusion. (From Section 12 of The National Trails System Act).

HIGH POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENT:

Those segments of a trail which would afford high quality recreation experience in a

portion of the route having greater than average scenic values or affording an opportunity to

August 2011 Glossary
966 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

vicariously share the experience of the original users of a historic route. (From Section 12 of

The National Trails System Act).

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.

HOME RANGE:

The area in which an animal travels in the scope of natural activities.

HYDRIC:

Characterized by, relating to, or requiring an abundance of moisture.

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE:

The circuit of water movement from the atmosphere to the earth and its return to the

atmosphere through various stages or processes, such as precipitation, interception, runoff,

infiltration, percolation, storage, evaporation, and transpiration.

IGNEOUS ROCK:

Rock, such as granite and basalt, which has solidified from a molten or partially molten state.

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS:

Decisions that take action to implement land use plan decisions; generally appealable to

IBLA under 43 CFR 4.410.

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.

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.

INHOLDING:

Parcels of land owned or managed by someone other than BLM but surrounded in part or

entirely by BLM-administered land.

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM:

A team of varied land use and resource specialists formed to provide a coordinated, integrated

information base for overall land use planning and management.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 967

INTERESTED PUBLIC:

An individual, group or organization that has submitted a written request to the authorized

officer to be provided an opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process for the

management of livestock grazing on specific grazing allotments or has submitted written

comments to the authorized officer regarding the management of livestock grazing on a

specific allotment.

INTERMITTENT STREAM:

A stream which flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs,

rainfall or from surface sources such as melting snow.

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.

LAND DISPOSAL:

A transaction which leads to the transfer of title to public lands from the Federal Government.

LANDFORM:

A discernible natural landscape that exists as a result of geological activity such as a plateau,

plain, basin, or mountain.

LANDS MANAGED TO MAINTAIN WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS:

An allocation resulting from a land use plan management decision for the purpose of

protecting lands with wilderness characteristics. A wider range of actions and activities may

be allowed than can occur in designated wilderness.

LAND TENURE ADJUSTMENT:

The transfer of land or interest in land (e.g., easement) between the United States and private

individuals, entities, State or local governments.

LAND USE ALLOCATION:

The identification in a land use plan of the activities and foreseeable development that are

allowed, restricted, or excluded for all or part of the planning area, based on desired future

conditions.

LAND USE AUTHORIZATION (LUA):

BLM’s authorizing through leases, permits, and easements of uses of the public land. Land

use authorizations may allow occupancy, recreational residences and cabin sites, farming,

manufacturing, outdoor recreation concessions, National Guard maneuvers, and many other

uses.

LAND USE PLAN:

A set of decisions that establish management direction for land within an administrative area

as prescribed under the planning provisions of FLPMA; an assimilation of land-use-plan-level

decisions developed through the planning process outlined in 43 CFR 1600, regardless of the

scale at which the decisions were developed. The term includes both Resource Management

Plans and Management Framework Plans.

August 2011 Glossary
968 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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.

LEASE:

An authorization to possess and use public lands for a fixed period of time.

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.

LENTIC:

Standing water riparian-wetland areas such as lakes, ponds, seeps, bogs, and meadows. See

also LOTIC (p. 968).

LITTER:

The uppermost layer of organic debris on the soil surface, essentially freshly fallen or slightly

decomposed vegetal material.

LIVESTOCK/KIND OF LIVESTOCK:

The species of domestic livestock, ie. cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and goats.

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.

LOTIC:

Running water riparian-wetland areas such as rivers, streams and springs. See also

LENTIC (p. 968).

LUA AVOIDANCE AREA:

Areas with sensitive resource values where minor linear and non-linear land use authorizations

would be strongly discouraged and therefore “avoided.”

LUA EXCLUSION AREAS:

Areas with sensitive resource values where minor linear and non-linear land use authorizations

would not be authorized.

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

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 969

of condition assessment, maintenance could also be construed as (c) allowing road or trail to

remain in present state for regular and continuous use.

MAJOR LINEAR LAND USE AUTHORIZATION:

Land use authorizations that include transmission lines (consisting of 115kV or higher),

water and gas pipelines (greater than 10 inches in diameter), roads (wider than 200 feet), as

well as significant canals.

MANAGEMENT ACTIONS/PRACTICES (FROM RANGELAND STANDARDS &

GUIDES):

Actions or practices that improve or maintain basic soil and vegetation resources. Rangeland

practices typically consist of watershed treatments (planting, seeding, burning, rest, vegetation

manipulation, grazing management) in an attempt to establish desired vegetation species

or communities.

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.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
970 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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.

MINOR LINEAR LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS:

Land use authorizations which consist of transmission lines (consisting of 115kV or less),

water and gas pipelines (less than 10 inches in diameter), roads (less than 200 feet wide),

and other minor utility systems.

MONITORING:

The periodic observation and orderly collection of information to determine (1) the effects of

resource management actions by tracking changing resource trends, needs, and conditions;

and (2) the effectiveness of actions in meeting management objectives.

MOSAIC:

A pattern of vegetation in which two or more kinds of communities are interspersed in patches.

MOTORIZED TRAIL:

A designated route which allows 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.

MULTIUSE UTILITY CORRIDOR:

BLM’s preferred route for placing MAJOR LINEAR LAND USE AUTHORIZATION (p. 969) for utilities (i.e. pipelines and power lines) and transportation (i.e. highways

and railroads).

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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 971

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 decision-making, 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.

NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAIL:

One of the three categories of national trails defined in the National Trails System Act of 1968

that can only be established by act of Congress and are administered by Federal agencies,

although part or all of their land base may be owned and managed by others. National

historic trails are generally more than 100 miles long and follow as closely as possible and

practicable the original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance. Their

purpose is identifying and protecting the historic route and its remnants and artifacts for

public use and enjoyment.

NATIONAL MONUMENT:

An area designated to protect objects of scientific and historic interest by public proclamation

of the President under the Antiquities Act of 1906, or by Congress for historic landmarks,

historic and prehistoric structures, or other objects of historic or scientific interest on public

lands. Designation also provides for the management of these features and values.

NATIONAL RECREATION TRAIL:

One of the three categories of national trails defined in the National Trails System Act of 1968

that can only be established by act of Congress and are administered by federal agencies,

although part or all of their land base may be owned and managed by others. National

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.

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,

August 2011 Glossary
972 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 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.

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.

NICHE:

The role of an organism in the environment, its activities and relationships to the biotic and

abiotic environment.

NITROGEN OXIDES (OXIDES OF NITROGEN, NO2):

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.

NON-ATTAINMENT 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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 973

NON-FUNCTIONAL:

Riparian-wetland areas are considered to be in nonfunctioning condition when they don't

provide adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris to dissipate stream energy

associated with high flows and thus are not reducing erosion, improving water quality, or other

normal characteristics of riparian areas. The absence of certain physical attributes, such as a

flood plain where one should be, is indicators of nonfunctioning conditions.

NON-LINEAR LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS:

LUAs that are not linear in fashion and do not exceed 5 acres of total surface disturbance.

These LUAs do not produce or store more than 100MW of power.

NON-POINT 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.

NON-REPRODUCING WILD HORSES:

An HMA composed, in whole or in part, of sterilized wild horses (either stallions or mares) to

aid in controlling on the range population numbers.

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:

The process of use, release and reuse of elements by plants and animals through uptake by

incorporation into and decomposition of organisms. Elements involved in nutrient cycling

remain in the vicinity of the earth's surface.

OBJECTIVES:

The planned results to be achieved within a stated time period. Objectives are subordinate to

goals, more narrow in scope, and shorter in range. Objectives must specify time periods for

completion, and products or achievements that are measurable. See also GOAL (p. 963).

OBLIGATE:

Essential, necessary, unable to exist in any other state, mode, or relationship.

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV):

Any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or immediately over land,

water, or other natural terrain, excluding: (1) any nonamphibious registered motorboat; (2)

any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for emergency

purposes; (3) any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or

otherwise officially approved; (4) vehicles in official use; and (5) any combat or combat

support vehicle when used for national defense.

OFF-ROAD VEHICLE (ORV):

See OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE (OHV) (p. 973).

August 2011 Glossary
974 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

OUTSTANDING NATURAL AREA (ONA):

ACECswhich contain unusual natural characteristics and are managed primarily for

educational and recreational purposes.

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES:

The remains of plants and animals preserved in soils and sedimentary rock. Paleontological

resources are important for understanding past environments, environmental change, and

the evolution of life.

PALEOZOIC ERA:

An era of geologic time (600 million to 280 million years ago) between the Late Precambrian

and the Mesozoic eras and comprising the Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian,

Missippian, Pennsylvanian, and Permian periods.

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 PM2.5

PARTICULATES (p. 976)and PM10 PARTICULATES (p. 975).

PASSAGE SETTING:

Passage setting provides a motorized travel corridor traversing the Back Country setting.

This corridor is 200 feet wide (100 feet each side), centered on a motorized travel route

designated for public use, and is available for management infrastructure in response to

resource concerns and visitor demand. The lands are generally natural in appearance and may

see minor to moderate alterations over the life of the LUP due to land use authorizations and

BLM management actions.

PASTURE:

A grazing area that is separated from other areas by fencing or natural barriers.

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.

PEDESTALLING:

The removal of soil from the base of a plant, exposing the roots. Pedestalling is often a result

of wind and stream bank erosion.

PERENNIAL PLANT:

A plant that has a life cycle of 3 or more years. Also see ANNUAL PLANT (p. 949).

PERENNIAL STREAM:

A stream that flows from source to mouth throughout the year; a stream that normally has

water in its channel at all times.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 975

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.

PERMIT:

A short-term revocable authorization to use public lands for specified purposes.

PERMITTED USE:

The forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable resource-management plan

for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in animal unit

months (AUMs).

PERMITTEE:

A person or company permitted to graze livestock or conduct commercial recreation on

public land.

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 (PILT) (p. 974).

PITHOUSE:

A type of house built partly underground by prehistoric people.

PLACER CLAIM:

A mining claim located on surface or bedded deposits, particularly for gold, located in

stream gravels.

PLANNING CRITERIA:

The standards, rules, and other factors developed by managers and interdisciplinary teams for

their use in forming judgments about decision making, analysis and data collection during

planning. Planning criteria streamline and simplify the resource management planning actions.

PLAN OF OPERATIONS:

See MINING PLAN OF OPERATIONS (p. 970).

PLANT SUCCESSION:

The process of vegetation 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.

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

August 2011 Glossary
976 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

may be deposited in have adverse health effects. These particles include dust, soot, and

other tiny bits of solid materials in the air.

PM2.5 PARTICULATES:

Tiny particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less. These particles penetrate

most deeply into the lungs.

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.

POTENTIAL NATURAL COMMUNITY (PNC) :

The stable biotic community that would become established on an ecological site if all

succession 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 & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983).

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.

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.

PRIORITY HABITAT:

Includes fish and wildlife habitats requiring protective measures and/or management

guidelines to ensure habitat availability.

PRIORITY WILDLIFE SPECIES:

Includes fish and wildlife species requiring protective measures and/or management guidelines

to ensure their perpetuation. Moreover, priority wildlife species includes State Endangered,

Threatened, Sensitive, and Candidate species; animal aggregations considered vulnerable; and

those species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 977

PROPAGULES:

A structure (as a cutting, a seed, or a spore) that propagates a plant.

PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CONDITION:

• Riparian-wetland areas are functioning properly when enough vegetation, landform, or

large woody debris is present to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflows,

thereby reducing erosion and improving water quality; filter sediment, capture bedload, and

aid floodplain development; improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge; develop

root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; develop diverse ponding and

channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the water depth, duration, and temperature

necessary for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other uses; and support greater

biodiversity. The functioning condition of riparian-wetland areas is influenced by geomorphic

features, soil, water, and vegetation.

• Uplands function properly when the existing vegetation and ground cover maintain soil

conditions capable of sustaining natural biotic communities. The functioning condition of

uplands is influenced by geographic features, soil, water, and vegetation.

PUBLIC DOMAIN:

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.

PUBLIC LANDS:

Land or interest in land owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of

the Interior through the BLM without regard to how the United States acquired ownership,

except lands located on the Outer Continental Shelf, and land held for the benefit of Indians,

Aleuts, and Eskimos.

RANGE IMPROVEMENT:

An authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed to improve production of

forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water; stabilize soil

and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the condition of rangeland ecosystems to

benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish 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 cattle guards.

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, grass like plants, forbs, or shrubs. Rangeland includes lands

revegetated naturally or artificially to provide a plant cover that is managed like native

vegetation. Rangelands may consist of natural grasslands, savannas, shrub lands, moist

deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes, and wet meadows.

August 2011 Glossary
978 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

RANGELAND STUDIES:

Any study methods accepted by the authorized officer for collecting data on actual use,

utilization, climatic conditions, other special events, and trends to determine whether

management objectives are being met.

RAPTORS:

Birds of prey.

REACH (CHANNEL):

A relatively homogeneous section of a stream having a repetitious sequence of physical

characteristics and habitat types.

RECLAIMING OR RECLAIMED (ROUTE): :

See ROAD & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983)

RECORD OF DECISION:

A document signed by a responsible official recording a decision that was preceded by the

preparing of an environmental impact statement.

RECREATIONAL TARGET SHOOTING:

The discharge of any firearm for any lawful, recreational purpose other than the lawful taking

of a game animal. Recreational target shooting does not include firearms use employed in

accordance with state hunting regulations and policy regarding recreational target shooting

does not apply to hunters in pursuit of game with firearms that are being employed in

accordance with such regulations.

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 EXPERIENCES:

Psychological outcomes realized either by recreation-tourism participants as a direct result

of their onsite leisure engagements and recreation-tourism activity participation or by

non-participating community residents as a result of their interaction with visitors and guests

within their community and/or interaction with the BLM and other public and private

recreation-tourism providers and their actions.

RECREATION MANAGEMENT ZONES (RMZs):

Subunits within a SRMA managed for distinctly different recreation products. Recreation

products are comprised of recreation opportunities, the natural resource and community

settings within which they occur, and the administrative and service environment created by

all affecting recreation-tourism providers, within which recreation participation occurs.

RECREATION NICHE:

The place or position within the strategically targeted recreation-tourism market for each

SRMA that is most suitable (i.e., capable of producing certain specific kinds of recreation

opportunities) and appropriate (i.e., most responsive to identified visitor or resident

customers), given available supply and current demand, for the production of specific

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 979

recreation opportunities and the sustainable maintenance of accompanying natural resource

and/or community setting character.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES:

Favorable circumstances enabling visitors’ engagement in a leisure activity to realize

immediate psychological experiences and attain more lasting, value-added beneficial

outcomes.

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (ROS):

One of the existing tools for classifying recreation environments (existing and desired) along

a continuum ranging from primitive, low-use, and inconspicuous administration to urban,

high-use, and a highly visible administrative presence. This continuum recognizes variation

among various components of any landscape’s physical, social and administrative attributes;

and resulting descriptions (of existing conditions) and prescriptions (of desired future

conditions) define recreation setting character. Descriptions of settings follow:

Primitive:

● 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 semi-primitive 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.

August 2011 Glossary
980 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Little or no evidence of primitive roads and the motorized use of trails and primitive roads.

● Structures are rare and isolated.

● Social: Usually 6-15 parties per day encountered on trails and six or fewer parties visible

from campsite.

● Managerial: Onsite regimentation and controls present but subtle.

Semi-Primitive Motorized:

● Remoteness: An area designed by a line generally 1/2 mile from open better than primitive

roads. (The guideline for applying the 1/2 mile criterion is to consistently use 1/2 mile

where topographic or physical features closer than 1/2 mile adequately screen out the

sights and sounds of humans, e.g. a ridge 1/4 mile from the road).

● Contains open primitive roads that are not maintained for the use of standard

passenger-type vehicles, normally OHVs and high-clearance 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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 981

● 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 wild landscapes, or utility corridors. Pedestrian or other slow-moving

observers are constantly within view of culturally changed landscape.

● There is strong evidence of designed roads, highways, or both.

● Structures are readily apparent and may range from scattered to small dominant clusters,

including utility corridors, farm buildings, microwave installations, and recreation sites.

● Social: Frequency of contact is: Moderate to High developed sites, on roads and trails,

and water surfaces; Moderate away from developed sites.

● Managerial: Regimentation and controls obvious and numerous, largely in harmony with

the human-made environment.

Urban:

● Remoteness: No criteria.

● Evidence of Humans: Setting is strongly structure dominated. Natural or natural appearing

elements may play an important role but be visually subordinate. Pedestrian and other

slow moving observers are constantly within view of artificial enclosure of spaces.

● There is strong evidence of designed roads and/or highways and streets.

● Structures and structure complexes are dominant.

● Social: Large numbers of users onsite and in nearby areas.

● Managerial: Regimentation and controls obvious and numerous.

RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET:

Recreation-tourism visitors, affected community residents, affecting local governments and

private sector businesses, or other constituents and the communities or other places where

these customers originate (local, regional, national, or international). Based on analysis of

supply and demand, land use plans strategically identify primary recreation-tourism markets

for each SRMA: destination, community, or undeveloped.

RECRUITMENT:

The increase in population caused by natural reproduction or immigration.

August 2011 Glossary
982 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

REFUGIUM:

An area that has remained unaffected by adverse environmental changes to the surrounding

area, allowing a population to survive where others have perished.

RENEWABLE ENERGY:

Energy which comes from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal

heat, which are renewable (naturally replenished).

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.

RESILIENT SITES:

Sites with bare mineral earth clear of vegetation, that do not have crust that can be broken

through or other characteristics that will cause permanent or long-term changes to the site

due to activities.

RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAC):

A citizen-based group of 10 to 15 members chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act and appointed by the secretary of the interior to forward advice on public land planning

and management issues to the BLM. Council membership reflects a balance of various

interests concerned with the management of the public lands and users of the public lands.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AREA (RCA):

A citizen-based group of 10 to 15 members chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee

Act and appointed by the secretary of the interior to forward advice on public land planning

and management issues to the BLM. Council membership reflects a balance of various

interests concerned with the management of the public lands and users of the public lands.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP):

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 CFR 1601.0-5 (k)) details the form and

contents of an RMP. It generally establishes that the document will provide guidance on:

● Land areas for limited, restricted or exclusive use; designation, including ACEC

designation; and transfer from Bureau of Land Management Administration;

● Allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination) and related levels of production

or use to be maintained;

● Resource condition goals and objectives to be attained;

● Program constraints and general management practices needed to achieve the above items;

● Need for an area to be covered by more detailed and specific plans;

● Support action, including such measures as resource protection, access development,

realty action, cadastral survey, etc., as necessary to achieve the above;

● General implementation sequences, where carrying out a planned action is dependent

upon prior accomplishment of another planned action; and

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 983

● 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 (p. 964)

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 power lines.

RILL:

A narrow, very shallow (a few centimeters deep), intermittent water course having steep sides

and formed as a result of erosion.

RILL EROSION:

Removal of soil by running water forming shallow channels that can be smoothed out by

normal cultivation.

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 & ROUTE TYPES:

From BLM Manual 9100, revised 2008:

● Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for used by low-clearance

vehicles having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

● Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance

vehicles. Primitive roads do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.

● Trails: See TRAIL (p. 991)

August 2011 Glossary
984 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Terminology used before BLM Manual 9100 2008 revision:

● Primary 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.

● Motorized Trail: TRAIL (p. 991)

● 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.

ROADSIDE:

A general term denoting the area adjoining the outer edge of the road.

ROCK CRAWLING:

The use of specialized motor vehicles for crossing difficult terrain. Also known as extreme

technical trail driving.

ROUTE:

Any motorized, non-motorized, or mechanized transportation corridor. Corridor may either be

terrestrial or waterway. “Roads” and “Trails” are considered routes.

RUNOFF:

Precipitation, snow melt or irrigation water that appears in uncontrolled surface streams

or rivers.

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.

SALEABLE 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.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 985

SCIENTIFIC DATA RECOVERY:

See CULTURAL RESOURCE DATA RECOVERY (p. 956)

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.

SEASON OF USE:

The time period when livestock grazing is permitted on a given range area as specified in

the grazing permit.

SECONDARY ROAD:

See ROAD & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983).

SECTION:

640 acres, 1 mile square.

SECTION 2920 PERMIT:

Revocable authorizations, for up to three years to permit land uses that involve either little

or no land improvement or construction, or investment which can be amortized within the

terms of the permit. A permit conveys no possessory interest. The authorized officer may

renew it at his/her discretion or revoke it in accordance with its terms or the provisions of

43 CFR 2920.9-3. There are no limitations on the amount of land that maybe included in a

permit; however, the area should be limited to the size justified.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
986 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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, acre-feet, or cubic yards of sediment per unit of drainage area per year.

SEEPS:

Wet areas, normally not flowing, arising from an underground water source.

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.

SELF-SUSTAINING:

The ability of reproducing herds of wild horses and burros to maintain themselves in a healthy

condition and to produce healthy foals.

SENSITIVE SHEEP HABITAT:

Habitat identified by BLM and AZGFD that provides one or more essential biological elements

including: lambing areas, migration routes, mineral licks, water source, and foraging areas.

SHARED USE TRAIL:

A trail shared for a variety of uses such as motorized and non-motorized 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 four-wheel-drive vehicles.

SHOULDER:

The portion of the roadway contiguous to the travel way 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.

SINGLE TRACK ROUTE:

See ROAD & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983).

SINUOSITY:

The ratio of stream length between two points divided by the valley length between the

same two points.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 987

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.

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 STORAGE:

The water content stored in a soil.

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.

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 RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS (SRMAs):

A public lands unit identified in land use plans to direct recreation funding and personnel

to fulfill commitments made to provide specific, structured recreation opportunities (i.e.,

activity, experience, and benefit opportunities). Both land use plan decisions and subsequent

implementing actions for recreation in each SRMA are geared to a strategically identified

primary market: destination, community, or are undeveloped.

SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT (SRP):

An authorization that allows for specific nonexclusive permitted recreational uses of the

public lands and related waters. SRPs are issued to control visitor use, protect recreational and

natural resources, provide for the health and safety of visitors, and accommodate commercial

recreational uses.

SPECIAL RECREATION PERMIT TYPES AND DEFINITIONS:

Commercial Use: . The activity, service, or use is commercial if:

August 2011 Glossary
988 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● 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;

● 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.

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES:

Plant or animal species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive by Federal

or State governments. By policy, the BLM has certain responsibilities for all special status

species. BLM sensitive species are not covered by any other “safety net” of status designation;

therefore, the Arizona BLM Sensitive Species List does not include species that are already

Federally listed or State listed.

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 mud-mortared masonry walls with concrete mortar is an example of a

stabilization technique. Also see RESTORATION (CULTURAL RESOURCE) (p. 983).

STABILIZATION (SOIL):

Chemical or mechanical treatment to increase or maintain the stability of a mass of soil or

otherwise improve its engineering properties.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 989

STAGING AREA:

An area where participants in an activity gather and make final preparations for the activity.

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR RANGELAND HEALTH:

See ARIZONA STANDARDS FOR RANGELAND HEALTH AND GUIDELINES FOR

GRAZING ADMINISTRATION (p. 949).

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 OF 1966, AS AMENDED (NHPA) (p. 971).

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP):

Strategic document, prepared by a state (or other authorized air quality regulatory agency)

and approved by the EPA, that thoroughly describes how requirements of the Clean Air Act

will be implemented (including standards to be achieved, control measures to be applied,

enforcement actions in case of violation, etc.).

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 stream bank’s gradient often exceeds 45° and exhibits a distinct break in slope

from the stream bottom.

STREAMBANK STABILITY:

A stream bank’s relative resistance to erosion, which is measured as a percentage of alteration

to stream banks.

STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY:

The diversity of the composition, abundance, spacing, and other attributes of plants in a

community.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
990 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

SUBSURFACE:

Of or pertaining to rock or mineral deposits which generally are found below the ground

surface.

SUCCESSION:

See PLANT SUCCESSION (p. 975).

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.

SURFACE-DISTURBING ACTIVITY:

Surface-disturbing activities are those that normally result in more than negligible disturbance

to public lands and accelerate the natural erosive process. Surface disturbance may, but does

not always, require reclamation. These activities normally involve use or occupancy of the

surface, cause disturbance to soils and vegetation, and are usually caused by motorized or

mechanical actions. They include, but are not limited to: the use of mechanized earth-moving

equipment; truck-mounted drilling and seismic exploration equipment; off-road vehicle

travel in areas designated as limited or closed to off-road vehicle use; vegetation treatments;

construction of facilities such as power lines, pipelines, oil and gas wells; recreation sites,

improvements for range and wildlife; new road construction; and use of pyrotechnics and

explosives. Surface disturbance is not normally caused by casual-use activities. Activities

that are not considered surface-disturbing include, but are not limited to: livestock grazing,

crosscountry hiking, minimum impact filming, and vehicular travel on designated routes.

SUSPENSION:

The temporary withholding from active use through a decision issued by the authorized officer

or by agreement of part or all of the permitted use in a grazing permit or lease.

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.

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.

TEMPORARY NONUSE:

The authorized withholding, on an annual basis, of all or a portion of permitted livestock use

in response to a request of the permittee or lessee.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 991

TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Stipulations contained in livestock grazing permits and leases as determined by the authorized

officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives for the

public lands and other lands administered by BLM and to achieve standards for rangeland

health and ensure conformance with guidelines for grazing administration.

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 & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983).

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 (p. 960).

THRIVING NATURAL ECOLOGICAL BALANCE (TNEB):

Wild horses and burros are managed in a manner that assures significant progress is made

toward achieving the Land Health Standards for upland vegetation and riparian plant

communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, as well as other

site-specific or landscape-level objectives, including those necessary to protect and manage

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species.

TINAJA:

A small pool in a rocky hollow, usually along an ephemeral water course where it runs

through exposed bedrock, that holds water into the dry season.

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.

TRAIL DEFINITIONS:

Interagency definition for public lands outside the Sonoran Desert National Monument:

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.

Sonoran Desert National Monument: Linear route managed for human powered, stock,

non-motorized and non-mechanized transportation and travel modes.

Designated wilderness areas: Linear route managed for travel by foot, horseback and pack

stock. Mechanized forms of travel (e.g. mountain bikes, wheeled game carriers, handcarts,

and hang gliders) are prohibited in wilderness areas.

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.

August 2011 Glossary
992 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

TRANSFER PAYMENT:

A government grant to an individual of money that represents a gift without anything being

received or required in return. Examples of transfer payments include student scholarship

grants, welfare checks, and social security benefits.

TRANSITIONAL PATHWAYS:

The processes that cause a shift from one vegetation state to another.

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AREAS:

Polygons or delineated areas where a rational approach has been taken to classify areas open,

closed, or limited, and have identified and/or designated network of roads, trails, ways, and

other routes that provide for public access and travel across the planning area. All designated

travel routes within travel management areas should have a clearly identified need and

purpose as well as clearly defined activity types, modes of travel, and seasons or timeframes

for allowable access or other limitations.

TREAD LIGHTLY!TM:

A not-for-profit organization whose mission is to increase awareness of ways to enjoy the

great outdoors while minimizing human impacts.

TREND:

The direction of change, over time, either toward or away from desired management

objectives.

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/sediment

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.

UNDEVELOPED RECREATION-TOURISM MARKET:

National, regional, and/or local recreation-tourism visitors, communities, or other constituents

who value public lands for the distinctive kinds of dispersed recreation produced by the

vast size and largely open, undeveloped character of their recreation settings. Major

investments in facilities are excluded within SRMAs where BLM’s strategy is to target

demonstrated undeveloped recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management

actions are geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demand to sustain

distinctive recreation setting characteristics; however, major investments in visitor services

are authorized both to sustain those distinctive setting characteristics and to maintain visitor

freedom to choose where to go and what to do—all in response to demonstrated demand

for undeveloped recreation.

UPLANDS:

Lands at higher elevations than the alluvial plain or low stream terrace; all lands outside the

riparian-wetland and aquatic zones.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 993

URBAN INTERFACE (WILDLAND-URBAN 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.

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.

UTILITY CORRIDOR:

BLM’s preferred route for placing land use authorizations for major linear utilities

(i.e. pipelines and power lines). See also DESIGNATED MULTIUSE UTILITY

CORRIDOR (p. 958).

UTILITY-SCALE RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT:

Utility-scale renewable energy facilities (managed as a land use authorization), where the

proponent has signed a purchase power agreement with a utility company to sell power. These

facilities typically produce more than 100MW of power.

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 or land use authorizations that existed when the Federal

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) was enacted on October 21, 1976. Some areas

are segregated from entry and location under the Mining Law to protect certain values or

allow certain uses. Mining claims that existed as of the effective date of the segregation may

still be valid if they can meet the test of discovery of a valuable mineral required under the

Mining Law. Determining the validity of mining claims located on segregated lands requires

BLM to conduct a valid existing rights determination.

VANDALISM (CULTURAL RESOURCE):

Malicious damage or the unauthorized collecting, excavating, or defacing of cultural

resources. Section 6 of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act states that “no person

may excavate, remove, damage, 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.”

VEGETATION STRUCTURE:

The composition of an area’s vegetation--plant species, growth forms, abundance, vegetation

types, and spatial arrangement.

VEGETATION TREATMENTS:

Treatments 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.

August 2011 Glossary
994 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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:

Categories assigned to public lands based on scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance

zones. There are four classes. Each class has an objective which prescribes the amount of

change allowed in the characteristic landscape.

● 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 MATERIALS:

Carbon-containing compounds that with few exceptions evaporate into the air. Often having

odors, they contribute to the forming of smog and may be toxic. Some examples are gasoline,

alcohol, and solvents used in paints.

WATER DEVELOPMENTS:

Construction of artificial, or modification of natural water sources to provide reliable,

accessible water for livestock, wildlife, or people.

WATER QUALITY:

Term used to describe the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of water in respect

to its suitability for a particular purpose.

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 995

WATER RIGHT:

The right to use a specific quantity of water occurring in a water supply, on a specific time

schedule, at a specific place and putting it to a specific beneficial use.

WATERSHED (CATCHMENT):

A topographically delineated area that is drained by a stream system, that is, the total land

area above some point on a stream or river that drains water past that point. The watershed is

a hydrologic unit often used as a physical-biological unit and a socioeconomic-political unit

for planning and managing natural resources.

WATERSHED CONDITION (WATERSHED HEALTH):

The comparison of watershed processes to normal or expected measurements of properties

such as soil cover, erosion rate, runoff rate, and groundwater table elevation; an

assessment or categorization of an area by erosion conditions, erosion hazards, and the soil

moisture/temperature regime.

WATERSHED FUNCTION:

The combination of processes attributed to watersheds as part of the hydrologic cycle,

including interception of rain by plants, rocks, and litter; surface storage by the soil;

groundwater storage; stream channel storage; soil evaporation; plant transpiration; and runoff.

These processes affect the following properties of the watershed: runoff rate, water infiltration

rate, soil building rate, soil erosion rate, groundwater recharge rate, groundwater discharge

rate, water table elevation, and surface water discharge. These properties in turn affect

plant communities through soil attributes, including soil parent material, soil moisture, and

nutrients; stream and rivers through flooding duration and magnitude, 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 & ROUTE TYPES (p. 983).

WEED:

Any plant that interferes with management objectives. A weed may be native or non-native,

invasive or passive, or non-noxious.

WETLANDS:

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.

WIDTH/DEPTH RATIO:

Bank-to-bank, full-stream width divided by average depth.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVER CORRIDOR:

See NATIONAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM (p. 972).

WILDCAT ROAD:

A non-permitted road on federally managed land.

August 2011 Glossary
996 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS:

Attributes defined in Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act, including the area’s size, its apparent

naturalness, and its outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined

type of recreation. Wilderness characteristics may also include supplemental values such as

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value

that may be present but are not required.

● Naturalness: The degree to which an area generally appears to have been affected

primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of people’s work substantially

unnoticeable.

● Solitude: The state of being alone or remote from others; isolation. A lonely or secluded

place.

● Primitive and Unconfined Recreation: Non-motorized, non-mechanized (except as

provided by law), and undeveloped types of recreation activities.

WILDFIRE:

Any wildland fire that is not meeting management objectives and therefore requires a

suppression response.

WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS:

Wild horses and burros are managed in a manner that assures significant progress is made

toward achieving the Land Health Standards for upland vegetation and riparian plant

communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, as well as other

site-specific or landscape-level objectives, including those necessary to protect and manage

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species.

WILDLAND FIRE:

Any non-structure fire, other than prescribed fire, that occurs in the wildland.

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE (WUI):

Areas where human structures and natural fuels interface or intermix with each other. 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 non-domesticated mammals.

WILDLIFE HABITAT AREAS (WHAs):

An area that offers feeding, roosting, breeding, nesting, and refuge areas for a variety of

wildlife species native to an area. Referred to as Wildlife Management Areas in prior plans.

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. See also SEGREGATION (p. 986).

Glossary August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 997

XERORIPARIAN:

An area in a drainage that supports plant species more characteristic of uplands than wetlands,

but that is more densely vegetated than areas removed from the drainage. Any flows in these

channels are characteristically ephemeral but water may also be subsurface and the drainage

may not flow.

August 2011 Glossary
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 999

Appendix A. Sonoran Desert National

Monument Presidential Proclamation

Sonoran Desert National Monument Proclamation

Proclamation 7397 of January 17, 2001

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation

The Sonoran Desert National Monument is a magnificent example of untrammeled Sonoran

desert landscape. The area encompasses a functioning desert ecosystem with an extraordinary

array of biological, scientific, and historic resources. The most biologically diverse of the North

American deserts, the Monument consists of distinct mountain ranges separated by wide valleys,

and includes large saguaro cactus forest communities that provide excellent habitat for a wide

range of wildlife species.

The Monument's biological resources include a spectacular diversity of plant and animal species.

The higher peaks include unique woodland assemblages, while the lower elevation lands offer

one of the most structurally complex examples of palo verde/mixed cacti association in the

Sonoran Desert. The dense stands of leguminous trees and cacti are dominated by saguaros,

palo verde trees, ironwood, prickly pear, and cholla. Important natural water holes, known as

tinajas, exist throughout the Monument. The endangered acuna pineapple cactus is also found in

the Monument.

The most striking aspect of the plant communities within the Monument are the abundant saguaro

cactus forests. The saguaro is a signature plant of the Sonoran Desert. Individual saguaro

plants are indeed magnificent, but a forest of these plants, together with the wide variety of

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants that make up the forest community, is an impressive site to

behold. The saguaro cactus forests within the Monument are a national treasure, rivaling those

within the Saguaro National Park.

The rich diversity, density, and distribution of plants in the Sand Tank Mountains area of the

Monument is especially striking and can be attributed to the management regime in place since

the area was withdrawn for military purposes in 1941. In particular, while some public access

to the area is allowed, no livestock grazing has occurred for nearly 50 years. To extend the

extraordinary diversity and overall ecological health of the Sand Tank Mountains area, land

adjacent and with biological resources similar to the area withdrawn for military purposes should

be subject to a similar management regime to the fullest extent possible.

The Monument contains an abundance of packrat middens, allowing for scientific analysis of

plant species and climates in past eras. Scientific analysis of the midden shows that the area

received far more precipitation 20,000 years ago, and slowly became more arid. Vegetation for

the area changed from juniper oak pinion pine woodland to the vegetation found today in the

Sonoran Desert, although a few plants from the more mesic period, including the Kola Mountain

barberry, Arizona rosewood, and junipers, remain on higher elevations of north facing slopes.

The lower elevations and flatter areas of the Monument contain the creosote bursage plant

community. This plant community thrives in the open expanses between the mountain ranges,

and connects the other plant communities together. Rare patches of desert grassland can also be

August 2011

Appendix A Sonoran Desert National Monument

Presidential Proclamation
1000 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

found throughout the Monument, especially in the Sand Tank Mountains. The washes in the area

support a much denser vegetation community than the surrounding desert, including mesquite,

ironwood, paloverde, desert honeysuckle, chuperosa, and desert willow, as well as a variety of

herbaceous plants. This vegetation offers the dense cover bird species need for successful nesting,

foraging, and escape, and birds heavily use the washes during migration.

The diverse plant communities present in the Monument support a wide variety of wildlife,

including the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, a robust population of desert bighorn sheep,

especially in the Maricopa Mountains area, and other mammalian species such as mule deer,

javelina, mountain lion, gray fox, and bobcat. Bat species within the Monument include the

endangered lesser long nosed bat, the California leaf nosed bat, and the cave myotis. Over 200

species of birds are found in the Monument, including 59 species known to nest in the Vekol

Valley area. Numerous species of raptors and owls inhabit the Monument, including the elf

owl and the western screech owl. The Monument also supports a diverse array of reptiles and

amphibians, including the Sonoran desert tortoise and the red backed whiptail. The Bureau of

Land Management has designated approximately 25,000 acres of land in the Maricopa Mountains

area as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The Vekol Valley and Sand Tank Mountains

contain especially diverse and robust populations of amphibians. During summer rainfall events,

thousands of Sonoran green toads in the Vekol Valley can be heard moving around and calling out.

The Monument also contains many significant archaeological and historic sites, including rock art

sites, lithic quarries, and scattered artifacts. Vekol Wash is believed to have been an important

prehistoric travel and trade corridor between the Hohokam and tribes located in what is now

Mexico. Signs of large villages and permanent habitat sites occur throughout the area, and

particularly along the bajadas of the Table Top Mountains. Occupants of these villages were the

ancestors of today's O'odham, Quechan, Cocopah, Maricopa, and other tribes. The Monument

also contains a much used trail corridor 23 miles long in which are found remnants of several

important historic trails, including the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, the Mormon

Battalion Trail, and the Butterfield Overland Stage Route.

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 Sonoran Desert 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 Sonoran Desert National Monument,

for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all lands and interest in lands owned or

controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area described on the map entitled

"Sonoran Desert National Monument" attached to and forming a part of this proclamation. The

Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 486,149 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.

Appendix A Sonoran Desert National Monument

Presidential Proclamation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1001

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State

of Arizona with respect to fish and wildlife management.

The establishment of this Monument is subject to valid existing rights.

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this Monument are hereby

appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or 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 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.

This proclamation does not reserve water as a matter of Federal law nor relinquish any water

rights held by the Federal Government existing on this date. The Federal land management

agencies shall work with appropriate State authorities to ensure that water resources needed for

Monument purposes are available.

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. That portion identified as Area A on the map, however, shall be managed under the

management arrangement established by section 3 of Public Law No. 99 606, 100 Stat. 3460 61,

until November 6, 2001, at which time, pursuant to section 5(a) of Public Law No. 99 606, 100

Stat. 3462 63, the military withdrawal terminates. At that time, the Secretary of the Interior shall

assume management responsibility for Area A through the Bureau of Land Management.

The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a management plan that addresses the actions, including

road closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects identified in this proclamation.

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and

administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply

with regard to the lands in the Monument; provided, however, that grazing permits on Federal

lands within the Monument south of Interstate Highway 8 shall not be renewed at the end of their

current term; and provided further, that grazing on Federal lands north of Interstate 8 shall be

allowed to continue only to the extent that the Bureau of Land Management determines that

grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects identified in this

proclamation.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or

appropriation; however, the national Monument shall be the dominant reservation.

Nothing in this proclamation shall preclude low level overflights of military aircraft, the

designation of new units of special use airspace, or the use or establishment of military flight

training routes over the lands included in this proclamation.

In order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent Barry M. Goldwater Range, and

to continue management practices that have resulted in an exceptionally well preserved natural

resource, the current procedures for public access to the portion of the Monument depicted as

Area A on the attached map shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent that the

United States Air Force agrees to different procedures which the Bureau of Land Management

determines are compatible with the protection of the objects identified in this proclamation.

August 2011

Appendix A Sonoran Desert National Monument

Presidential Proclamation
1002 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 seventeenth day of January, in the

year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America

the two hundred and twenty fifth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

Appendix A Sonoran Desert National Monument

Presidential Proclamation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1003

Appendix B. Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

The BLM must comply with the mandate and intent of many laws, executive orders (EOs),

regulations, policies and court cases that apply to BLM-administered public land and resources

in the Planning Area. The Lower Sonoran Field Office (LSFO) manages public lands in the

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert National Monument Decision Areas according to applicable

regulations found at Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations and according to applicable U.S.

Department of the Interior (USDOI) and BLM manuals, handbooks, and instruction memoranda

(IMs).

General planning criteria that guide and direct the plan and determine how the planning team

approaches the development of alternatives, and ultimately the selection of a preferred alternative,

are detailed in Chapter 1, Purpose & Need for the RMP (p. 1).

B.1. General Laws, Regulations & Policies

B.1.1. Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) of 1979

The Archaeological Resource Protection Act (ARPA) (16 USC 470) protects archaeological

resources on public and Indian lands. It provides felony-level penalties for unauthorized

excavation, removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of any archaeological resource, which is

defined as material remains of past human life or activities that 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.

B.1.2. BLM Land Use Planning Handbook

The BLM Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) provides detailed instructions on how to

carry out policy and direction described in the manual sections (MS). Handbooks are considered

part of the BLM Manual. They have the same force of authority as the MS. The Land Use

Planning Handbook outlines specific techniques, procedures, practices, and processes used to

create and organize resource-management plans (RMPs) and their component sections.

B.1.3. BLM Manual

The BLM Manual contains BLM policy and program direction. It provides policy, procedures,

and instructions to manage programs. Each handbook is controlled by a manual section (MS),

which sets out the basic authority for performing tasks, and states who is responsible for seeing

that these tasks are accomplished.

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

General Laws, Regulations & Policies
1004 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

B.1.4. Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 & Amendments of 1977 and

1990

The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 , as amended 1977 & 1990 (42 USC 7401 et seq.) recognizes

that air pollution endangers 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) that 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 attainment or nonattainment

areas based on 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, i.e. during project construction, as well as long-term increases, i.e. those resulting

from changes in traffic patterns. For actions in attainment areas, a Federal agency may also be

subject to the EPA's prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations. These regulations

apply to major new stationary sources and modifications to such sources. Although few agency

facilities will actually emit pollutants, increases in pollution can result from changes in traffic

patterns or volume. Section 118 of the CAA waives Federal immunity from complying with the

CAA and states that all Federal agencies will comply with Federal and State requirements.

B.1.5. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of

1980 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 cleanup 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. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 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 cleanup as the property owner/operator. A Federal

agency also can incur liability if it leases a property, as the courts have found lessees liable as

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 & Amendments of 1977

and 1990 August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1005

“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. To use this

defense, , the current owner/operator must show that 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, according to Title 42 United States Code (USC) 9601(35).

B.1.6. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531 et seq.) 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 using their authority to

conserve threatened and endangered species. All Federal agencies must ensure that no action

they authorize, fund, or carry out is 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 endangered species may be obtained

from the Endangered Species Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (703-358-2171). States

may also have their own lists of threatened and endangered species, which may be obtained by

calling the appropriate State fish and wildlife office. Some species, such as the bald eagle, also

have laws specifically for their protection (e.g., Bald Eagle Protection Act).

B.1.7. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (EO 12898,

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 environmental effects their

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 rulemakings related to human health or the environment that

should be revised to promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes in areas with

minority populations and low-income populations, ensure greater public participation, improve

research and data collection relating to the health 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.

B.1.8. Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of

1976

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC 1701) and the

regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 1600 govern the BLM 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,

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973
1006 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological

values; preserves and protects, where appropriate, 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, 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.

B.1.9. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) sets 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 offices, 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 BLM 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 the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1972 where appropriate. However, NEPA and

NHPA are separate statutes, and compliance with one does not constitute compliance with the

other. For example, actions that qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA, may still

require Section 106 review under NHPA. It is the responsibility of the agency official to identify

properties in the area of potential effects and decide whether they are included or eligible for

inclusion in the NRHP. Section 110 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to identify, evaluate,

and nominate historic property under agency control to the NRHP.

B.1.10. Sikes Act of 1960

The Sikes Act (16 USC 670 et seq.) authorizes the USDOI, in cooperation with State agencies

responsible for administering fish and game laws, to plan, develop, maintain, and coordinate

programs for conserving and rehabilitating wildlife, fish, and game on public lands within its

jurisdiction. The plans must conform to overall land-use and management plans for the lands

involved. The plans could include habitat improvement projects and related activities and

adequate protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants considered endangered or threatened.

The BLM also must coordinate with suitable State agencies in managing State-listed plant and

animal species when the State has formally made such designations.

B.1.11. Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented

The Taylor Grazing Act (43 USC 315 et seq.) was the Federal government’s first effort to regulate

grazing on Federal public land. The act established grazing districts of vacant, unappropriated,

and unreserved land from the public domain, excluding Alaska, which were not national forests,

parks, or monuments, Indian reservations, railroad grant lands, revested Coos Bay Wagon Road

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1007

grant lands, or land that was 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 (Standards) and guidelines for grazing

management (Guidelines). The Standards and Guidelines are approved through the BLM

planning and NEPA processes.

B.1.12. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968

By recognizing the remarkable values of specific rivers of the Nation, the Wild & Scenic Rivers

Act (WSRA) of 1968 (16 USC 1271-1287) provides for a wild and scenic river system. These

selected rivers and their immediate environment are preserved in a free-flowing condition, without

dams or other construction. The policy not only protects the water quality of the selected rivers

but also provides for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Any river in a free-flowing

condition 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.

B.2. Program-Specific Laws, Regulations & Policies

B.2.1. Resources

Air Quality Management

The objective of the air resource program is to maintain or improve air quality as established

by the NAAQS, achieve State Implementation Plan (SIP) goals for nonattainment areas, and

reduce emissions from point and non-point sources. Proposed decisions within the influence zone

of the planning project that may affect nonattainment areas, including the Maricopa County

nonattainment areas for particulate matter of 10 microns (PM10) and particulate matter less than

2.5 microns (PM2.5), will be assessed for conformance with air quality standards.

Under the CAA, the BLM administered lands were given a class II air-quality classification

unless reclassified by the State. Wilderness areas and national monuments must be classified as

class I or class II. This classification allows moderate deterioration associated with moderate,

well-controlled industrial and population growth.

Cave Resources

● Cave and Karst Resources Management (Manual Section [MS]-8380)

● Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988 (16 USC 4301-4310)

Climate Change

● Climate Change and the Department of the Interior (Secretarial Order [SO] 3226, January

16, 2009)

Cultural and Heritage Resource Management

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968
1008 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Cultural resources will be managed to maintain or enhance significant scientific, educational,

cultural heritage, and other public values. Cultural resources will be conserved and protected

for future generations. Cultural sites that meet NRHP criteria will be protected and nominated

for inclusion on the register.

● American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978 (42 USC 1996

● Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433)

● Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (16 USC 469)

● Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 469)

● BLM Manual 8100 – The Foundation for Managing Cultural Resources (MS-8100)

● BLM Manual 8110 – Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources (MS-8110)

● BLM Manual 8120 – Tribal Consultation Under Cultural Resources (MS-8120)

● BLM Manual 8130 – Planning for Use of Cultural Resources (MS-8130)

● BLM Manual 8140 – Protecting Cultural Resources (MS-8140)

● BLM Manual 8150 – Permitting Uses of Cultural Resources (MS-8150)

● BLM Manual 8170 – Interpreting Cultural Resources for the Public (MS-8170)

● Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461)

● Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources (MS-8110)

● Indian Sacred Sites (EO 13007, May 24, 1996)

● National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.)

● National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 USC 1241-1249)

● Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 (25 USC 3001)

● Preserve America (EO 13287, March 3, 2003)

● Protection and Accommodation of Access to Indian Sacred Sites (EO 13007, May 24, 1996)

● Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment (EO 11593, May 13, 1971)

● Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960

● The Foundation for Managing Cultural Resources (MS-8100)

Geological Resources

● None

Paleontological Resources

● General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management (H-8270-1)

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1009

● Issuance of Archaeological and Paleontological Permits (Secretarial Order [SO] 3104,

September 28, 1984)

● Paleontological Resource Management Manual (MS-8270)

● Paleontological Resources Preservation Act — Title VI, Subtitle D of the Omnibus Public

Land Management Act of 2009 (PL 111–11)

Priority Wildlife Habitat & Species

Management decisions will be designed to enhance and maintain habitat for threatened and

endangered species. Management actions authorized, funded, or implemented by the BLM will

not jeopardize the continued existence of Federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Species proposed for

Federal listing and proposed critical habitat will be given the same consideration as listed species.

BLM candidate and special-status species and Arizona species of greatest conservation need will

be managed so as not to contribute to the need to list as threatened or endangered. The intent is to

recover listed species and maintain healthy populations of all other species, therefore avoiding the

need for further listing of any species as threatened or endangered. Terms and conditions and

conservation measures from the biological opinion will be incorporated into the plans.

Relevant Laws, Policies & Regulations

● Animal Damage Control Act (7 USC 426)

● Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668)

● BLM Manual 6840 – Special Status Species Management (MS-6840)

● Conservation of Migratory Birds (EO 13186, January 10, 2001)

● Exotic Organisms (EO 11987, May 24, 1977)

● Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (16 USC 2901-2911)

● Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667)

● Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife, and Plants

(MS-1745)

● Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended in 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978,

1986, and 1989 (16 USC 703-712)

● Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended (16 USC 715)

● Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (PL 106-247)

● Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901)

● Recreational Fisheries (EO 12962, June 7, 1995)

● Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (EO 13186, January 10, 2001)

● Special Status Species Management (MS-6840)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Resources
1010 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Soil Resource Management

Proposed decisions will be measured against the Arizona Standard for Rangeland Health Standard

1; upland soils will exhibit infiltration, permeability and erosion rates that are appropriate

to soil type, climate, and land form (ecological site) to ensure long-term soil productivity.

Best management practices will be incorporated into programs to minimize soil erosion and

compaction resulting from management actions.

Relevant Laws, Policies & Regulations

● Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977 (16 USC 2001-2009)

● Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1935 (16 USC 590)

● Soil Resource Management (MS-7100)

● Soil, Water, and Air Management (MS-7000)

Visual Resources Management

A visual resource management (VRM) classification will be conducted to address the public’s

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

protect resources or reduce conflicts among uses.

The monument will be managed to protect the viewshed and other visual resources that are

compatible with the purposes for which the monument was established.

● Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (PL 105-178)

● 43 USC 1701, Section 102 (a) (8)

● Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 43 USC 4321, Section 101 (b)

● Visual Resource Inventory Handbook (H-8410-1)

Vegetation Resource Management

Vegetation and Habitat Management

Proposed decisions will be measured against the Arizona Standard for Rangeland Health for

desired plant communities that provide for biodiversity and protection and restoration of native

species. Vegetation will be managed to achieve desired plant communities (considering the

ecological site potential) that provide for biodiversity as well as protection and restoration

of native species. The plant communities will be managed to protect, improve, and restore

communities to provide wildlife habitat and non-consumptive uses including plant protection,

visual quality, watershed protection and stability, and water quality. Provisions may be made for

hazardous fuels reduction and habitat restoration.

In SDNM, desired plant community descriptions will be developed that emphasize the protection

of the diversity natural communities specified in the Proclamation. Monument plan decisions will

prioritize achieving or maintaining these desired plant communities.

Invasive Species and Noxious Weed Control

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1011

The BLM will work with county, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies, individuals, and Weed

Management Areas to monitor, manage, and control noxious weeds and invasive species.

Invasive species and noxious weed control will be considered in the plans in accordance with

the integrated weed management guidelines and design features identified in National, State,

and local BLM programs and policies. Invasive species and noxious weed infestations will be

prevented, contained, or reduced on BLM-administered public land using an integrated pest

management approach. Proposed decisions will be assessed to determine whether or not they

would contribute to the introduction or spread of noxious weeds or invasive species in accordance

with the Federal Noxious Weed Act and Executive Order 13112. Management practices that

prevent and control invasive species will be emphasized.

Riparian Areas, Floodplains, and Wetlands

Proposed decisions will be measured against the Arizona Standard for Rangeland Health

for riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands that provide for biodiversity and protection and

restoration of native species. Riparian areas, floodplains, and wetlands will be managed to protect,

improve, and restore their natural functions to benefit water storage, groundwater recharge, water

quality, and fish and wildlife values. All management practices will be designed to maintain or

improve the integrity of these high-priority values, in accordance with the Clean Water Act

and Arizona's Standards for Rangeland Health. Management activities in floodplains will be

consistent with Executive Order 11988 and management activities for wetlands and riparian areas

will be consistent with Executive Order 11990.

Relevant Laws, Regulations & Policies

● Range Management Grazing Administration Regulations (43 CFR 4100)

● Arizona Native Plant Law of 1993 (Arizona Revised Statutes [ARS] 3-901 et seq.)

● Arizona Standards as developed from Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

(43 CFR 4180.2)

● Chemical Pest Control (MS-9011)

● Federal Advisory Committee Act

● Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 USC 2801 et seq.)

● Floodplain Management (EO 11988, May 24, 1977)

● Invasive Species Control (EO 13112, February 3, 1999)

● Noxious Plant Control Act (43 USC 1241-43)

● Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990, May 24, 1977)

● Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978

● Rangeland Health Standards (MS-4180)

● Renewable Resource Improvements and Treatments (MS-1740)

● Special Status Species Management (MS-6840)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Resources
1012 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Wildlife and Fisheries Management (MS-6500)

● Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management, TR-1730-2, Interagency, 2001

● Interpreting Indicators for Rangeland Health, Version 4, TR 1734-6, Interagency, 2005

● Inventory and Monitoring, Ecological Site Inventory, TR-1737-7, BLM, 2001

● Measuring and Monitoring Plant Populations, TR-1730-1, 1998

● National Range Handbook, Handbook, H-4410-01, 1990

● Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation, TR-4400-1, BLM 1988

● Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation Handbook, BLM Handbook H-4400-01, 1990

● Rangeland Monitoring: Actual Use Studies, TR-4400-2, BLM, 1984)

● Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring: Supplemental Studies, TR-4400-5, BLM, 1992

● Rangeland Monitoring: Analysis, Interpretation, and Evaluation, TR-4400-7, BLM, 1984

● Riparian Area Management, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition, TR-1737-9,

Interagency, 1990

● Riparian Area Management, Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic

Riparian-Wetland Areas, TR-1737-11, Interagency, 1990

● Sampling Vegetation Attributes, TR-1734-4, 1996

● Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements, TR-1734-3, Interagency, 1996

Water Resources Management

Water Quality

Section 319 of the CAA obligates Federal agencies to be consistent with State non-point

source management program plans and relevant water-quality standards. Section 313 requires

compliance with State Water Quality Standards. The BLM will coordinate with ADEQ regarding

their Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program and other relevant water quality programs.

The BLM will incorporate applicable best management practices or other conservation measures

for specific programs and activities into the RMP. Water quality will be maintained or improved

in accordance with State and Federal standards. Proposed decisions within the Planning Area

will be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Federal and State water quality standards, and

BLM/ADEQ agreements.

Water Rights

Where the need for water rights is identified on the public lands, the BLM will file for water rights

in accordance with State Law and in accordance with the SDNM Proclamation. The BLM will

continue to quantify and notify the State of its Federal reserved water rights in the designated

wilderness areas, in accordance with the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990.

Relevant Laws, Policies & Regulations

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1013

● Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) Title 45, Waters and Title 49, The Environment

● Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 USC 1501-1556)

● Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 USC 1571-1599)

● Colorado River Floodway Protection Act (100 Stat. 1129)

● Colorado River Storage Project Act (43 USC 620)

● Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.)

● Flood Control Act (16 USC 460 et seq.)

● Floodplain Management (EO 11988, May 24, 1977)

● Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300h)

● Soil, Water, and Air Management (MS-7000)

● Water Quality Act (PL 100-4)

● Water Resources Planning Act (42 USC 1962)

● Water Rights Act (43 USC 666)

● Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180.1)

Wild Horses and Burros Management

In 1971, Congress passed The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA, or "The

Act," Public Law 92-195). The Act gave BLM the honor and the responsibility to manage wild

horse and burro populations on BLM-administered lands and facilities. The Painted Rock Herd

Area (PRHA) is the only location in the Planning Area that has is an established wild horse

and burro herd area or herd management area.

Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policies

● The Act of September 8, 1959 (18 U.S.C. 47), commonly known as the Wild Horse Annie Act

● The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340), as amended.

● Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations 4700.

● Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Management, 2010 (BLM Manual 4700-1, Rel 4-111).

● Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook, 2010 (BLM Handbook – 66 – Rel. 4-116)

● Conducting Compliance Checks for BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Adoptions (BLM

Handbook 4760-1)

● Adoption of Wild Horses and Burros Handbook (BLM Handbook 4750-2)

Wildland Fire and Management

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Resources
1014 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Fire decisions made in the Arizona Statewide LUP Amendment for Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality

EA, initiated in 2003, will be incorporated into the Lower Sonoran and SDNM plans. Adjustments

to the fire decisions, if required, will be consistent with the Federal Wildland Fire Policy, the

National Fire Plan, and all other BLM policy, including current Zone Fire Management Plans.

Fire suppression will be accomplished with the least amount of surface disturbance and to protect

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

rehabilitated in accordance with the objectives identified for the affected area, subject to BLM

policies and available funding.

Relevant Laws, Regulations & Policies

● BLM Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1)

● BLM Fire Business Management Manual (MS-1111)

● BLM Prescribed Fire Management Handbook (H-9214-1)

● Timber Protection Act (16 USC 594)

B.2.2. Resource Uses

Lands and Realty Management

Land Tenure Adjustment and Withdrawal

Public lands will be retained in public ownership unless determined that disposal of a particular

parcel(s) will serve the public interest. Decisions to acquire lands will be based on public benefits,

management considerations, and public access needs. Land tenure adjustments are made through

both acquisitions and disposals. Land tenure adjustments may include only the surface, only the

mineral estate, or both. Acquisitions may occur by land purchase, donation, exchange, or transfer

of jurisdiction from another Federal agency. Disposals occur by sale, exchange, transfer of

jurisdiction to another Federal agency, or by infrequent sales or transfers under legal authorities.

All land tenure adjustments will consider the effect on the mineral estate.

Conditions will be identified that warrant the removal or withdrawal of certain public lands from

multiple use, such as for public safety or protection of special uses and resources. Withdrawals

designate public lands for a particular project, purpose or use. Normally, the land is closed to

entry under all or some of the public land laws including the mining law. Criteria for identifying

lands available or not available for land entry, including under the Desert Land Entry Act, will be

developed.

In SDNM, all lands and interest in lands within the monument will be retained in public ownership.

The RMP will evaluate the opportunity for acquiring non-Federal lands within or adjacent to the

monument that could protect or enhance management of monument resources. Acquired lands

and interests within the monument boundary will be added to the monument. The Proclamation

withdrew the monument from all form of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other

disposition under 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.

Corridors, Communications Sites, and Renewable Energy Sites

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resource Uses August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1015

Existing corridors and communication sites from previous plans may be modified, removed, or

carried forward. Additional corridors and communication sites, and new renewable energy sites,

including wind and solar energy, will be considered based on established criteria, procedures, and

policy, in association with industry demand and resource protection objectives. New locations

for corridors, communication sites, and renewable energy sites will also consider environmental

quality, economic efficiency, security, safety, and good engineering and technological practices.

Decisions will consider preferred locations and exclusion areas to protect significant resource

values.

In SDNM, existing and proposed corridors, communication sites, and renewable energy sites will

be evaluated for compatibility with protecting the monument resources. Additional corridors and

communication sites, and new renewable energy sites, including wind and solar energy, will be

considered based on consideration of monument resource protection, along with established

criteria, procedures, and policy, and in association with industry demand and resource protection

objectives.

Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policies

● Airport and Airway Improvement Act (49 USC 2215)

● BLM Acquisition Handbook (H-2100-1)

● BLM Land Exchange Handbook (H-2200-1)

● BLM Preacquisition Environmental Site Assessment Handbook (H-2101-4

● BLM Recreation and Public Purposes Handbook (H-2740-1)

● BLM Manual 9310 – Appraisals of Real Property (MS-9310)

● BLM Manual 2200 – Land Exchanges (MS-2200)

● BLM Manual 2880 – Oil and Natural Gas Pipelines (MS-2880)

● BLM Manual 379 – Payment in Lieu of Taxes (MS-379)

● Desert Land Entry Act (43 USC 321 et seq.)

● Energy Policy Act (42 USC 15801)

● Exchanges of Public Land for Non-Federal Land (43 USC 1716)

● Federal Highway Acts (23 USC 17 & 317)

● Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1988 (43 USC 1716)

● Federal Land Transfer Facilitation Act of 2000 (PL 106-248)

● Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (40 USC 472)

● Indian General Allotment Act (24 Stat. 388)

● Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended (43 USC 869 et seq.)

● Telecommunications Act of 1996 (PL 104-104)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Resource Uses
1016 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Livestock Grazing Management

The BLM will manage grazing through existing laws, regulations, and policies, including the

Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration. The BLM

will provide for livestock management in an environmentally sensitive manner consistent with

resource management objectives, including achieving desired plant communities, and land use

conditions. Proposed decisions will determine if allotments are open or closed to grazing in

accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act and, if open, in what manner. Decisions will include

a strategy for ensuring that proper grazing practices are followed while preserving habitats for

sensitive plant and wildlife species. Appropriate 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.

In SDNM, consistent with the monument Proclamation, grazing permits on Federal lands within

the monument south of I-8 shall not be renewed at the end of their current term and grazing on

Federal lands north of I-8 shall be allowed to continue only to the extent that the BLM determines

that grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects identified in the

Proclamation. A priority will be placed on protecting the monument resources, including the

diversity of plant communities identified in the Presidential Proclamation.

Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policies

● BLM Rangeland Health Standards Handbook (H-4180)

● BLM Manual 4180 – Rangeland Health Standards (MS-4180)

● Grazing Administration – Exclusive of Alaska (43 CFR 4100)Public Rangelands Improvement

Act of 1978 (43 USC 1901)

● Process for Setting Priorities for Issuing Grazing Permits and Leases (WO-IM-2009-018)

Minerals Management

Identify exploration and development opportunities and areas for lease, including geothermal

resources, saleable, and locatable minerals. 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. Withdrawals from the mining laws may

be considered to achieve resource management objectives. Where the plan identifies lands as

open to mineral leasing, it also will define any constraints to surface use.

In SDNM, public lands are closed to mineral development (subject to valid existing rights)

by the Proclamation.

Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policies

● Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects (EO 13212, May 18, 2001)

● Building Stone Placer Act of 1892 (30 USC 161)

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resource Uses August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1017

● Bureau of Land Management — Energy and Materials Policy (Aug. 26, 2008)

● Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (43 USC 1701 et seq.)

● Domestic Minerals Program Extension Act of 1953 (50 USC 2181)

● Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PL 109-58)

● Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (PL 110-140)

● Energy and Mineral Resource Assessment (MS-3031)

● Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 USC 13201)

● Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1976 (30 USC 201)

● Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-579)

● Federal Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 USC 21a)

● General Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 USC 21)

● Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 USC 1001-1027)

● Materials Sale Act of 1947 (30 USC 601-604)

● Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 USC 181 et seq.)

● Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 1947 (30 USC 351 et seq., PL 382)

● Mineral Materials Act (30 USC 601 et seq.)

● Mineral materials rules (42 CFR 3600)

● Mineral Reports – Preparation and Review (MS-3060)

● Mining & Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 USC21)

● Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of 1955 (69 USC 681, PL 359)

● Mining in the Parks Act (16 USC 1901 et seq.)

● Multiple Mineral Development Act of 1954 (68 USC 708, PL 585)

● Multiple Surface Use Act of 1955, with Petrified Wood Amendment (69 USC 367, PL 167)

● National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 (30 USC 28)

● Oil and Gas Leasing (43 CFR 3100-3800)

● Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (67 USC 462)

● Placer Act of 1870 (16 Stat. 217)

● Placer Claim Millsite Act of 1960 (74 USC 7)

● Solid materials leasing rules (43 CFR 3500)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Resource Uses
1018 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Stock Raising Homestead Act (43 USC 291-299)

● Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act (30 USC 1201 et seq.)

Recreation Management

A range of landscape settings and associated recreation opportunities will be provided that

contribute to meeting projected recreation demand within the Planning Area. Recreation

management objectives will be defined based on recreational opportunities and compatibility with

other resource management objectives, including Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health.

Public lands will be identified as being within either special recreation management areas or

extensive recreation management areas.

A range of developed and dispersed recreation experiences, including both motorized and

non-motorized recreation opportunities, will be provided.

In SDNM, a range of landscape settings and associated recreation opportunities will be provided

that contribute to meeting projected recreation demands in the SDNM Planning Area, while

meeting the overriding purpose of protecting monument resources and the Arizona Standards

for Rangeland Health.

Consistent with the Proclamation, in order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent

Barry M. Goldwater Range, and to continue management practices that have resulted in an

exceptionally well preserved natural resource, the current procedures for public access to the Sand

Tank portion of the national monument (formerly Area A), shall remain in effect, except to the

extent that the Air Force agrees to different procedures which the BLM determines are compatible

with protection of monument resources.

Applicable Laws, Regulations & Policies

● BLM National Mountain Bicycling Strategic Action Plan (2002)

● BLM Recreation Permit Administration Handbook (H-2930-1)

● Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (USC 4601-1 et seq.)

● Recreational Fisheries (EO 12962)

Travel Management

The plan will include transportation and access needs for motorized and non-motorized uses.

Based upon Executive Order 11644 and subsequent regulations in 43 CFR 8340, all public lands

will be designated as open, limited, or closed to motorized vehicles. The plans may designate a

network of vehicle routes. Public safety, resource protection, current and future user access needs

and conflict resolution will be considered in making these decisions. The BLM route inventory

will provide a basis for considering route management.

In SDNM, consistent with the Proclamation, all motorized and mechanized vehicle use off-road

will be prohibited, except for emergency or authorized administrative purposes. The plan will

designate a network of routes for motorized and mechanized vehicle use. Protection of the

monument resources, public safety, current and future user access needs, and conflict resolution

will be considered in making these decisions.

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Resource Uses August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1019

Relevant Laws, Policies & Regulations

● Arizona Off-Highway Vehicle Law (ARS 28-1171.4)

● Off-Road Vehicles (43 CFR 8340-8344)

● Clarification of Cultural Resource Considerations for Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV)

Designation and Travel Management (WO-IM-2007-030)

● Clarification of Guidance and Integration of Comprehensive Travel and Transportation

Management Planning into the Land Use Planning (WO-IM-2008-014)

● Implementation of Roads and Trails Terminology Report – Classification of Primitive Roads;

DD: 07/31/2009 (WO-IM 2009-132)

● Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (EO 11644, February 8, 1972; EO 11989, May

24, 1977)

● Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (PL 105-178)

B.2.3. Special Designation Management

The BLM will review, through this planning process, lands within the Planning Area that may

possess remote or primitive characteristics. Consistent with BLM policy, the secretary of the

interior letter to Sen. Robert Bennett (dated April 11, 2003), and the settlement in the case of

Utah v. Norton (dated April 14, 2003), the BLM has the authority to discuss and incorporate

wilderness values into the land use plan, in accordance with the public process incorporated in all

land use planning efforts. Thus, the BLM is committed to listening to public input through the

land use planning process and, where appropriate, managing specified areas of land for wilderness

values. However, the BLM has no authority to establish new wilderness study areas (WSAs) or

to report such areas to Congress. The BLM can protect areas in their natural state using a wide

range of land use tools other than the WSA designation process.

Current congressionally designated wilderness areas will be managed according to the 1990

Arizona Desert Wilderness Act, the Wilderness Act regulations for wilderness management at

43 CFR 6300, interim management plans for wildlife and fire management in wilderness, and

applicable wilderness management plans. The RMPs will not address reducing or eliminating

existing wilderness areas, nor will the RMPs address changing existing boundaries or allowing

mechanized or motorized access in any area within them.

Special areas on public lands include wildernesses, WSAs, areas of critical environmental concern

(ACECs), national trails, wild and scenic rivers, national conservation areas, and backcountry

byways. Special areas that may be considered in this plan include ACECs, national trails, national

conservation areas, and backcountry byways as consistent with federal law as well as policies and

procedures. Management requirements for designated special areas will be identified in the plan.

Congressional Designations

National Byways

● BLM Byways Handbook (H-8357-1)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Special Designation Management
1020 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 USC 101)

● Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (PL 105-178)

National Historic Trails

● National Trails System Act (PL 90-543, as amended through PL 109-418)

● BLM National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy (2006)

Wilderness Areas

● Arizona Desert Wilderness Act (PL 101-628)

● BLM Management of Designated Wilderness Areas Handbook (H-8560)

● BLM Interim Management Policy & Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review

Handbook (H-8550-1)

● Wilderness Act (16 USC 1131 et seq.)

● Wilderness Management (43 CFR 6300 & 8560)

Administrative Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ACECs

● Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (43 CFR 1610.7-2)

Resource Conservation Area

● Reserving Public Lands in Connection with Gila River Waterfowl Area Project (Public Land

Order [PLO] 1015, October 5, 1954)

● Classification of Public Lands for Multiple Use Management in 1967 (32 Federal Register

[FR] 8536).

● Designation of Fred J. Weiler “Green Belt” Resource Conservation Area in 1970 (35 FR

13532)

B.2.4. Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Social and Economic

Conditions

Hazardous Materials and Public Safety Management

The plan will develop a framework to protect public health and safety, including addressing

hazardous sites and activities; incorporating requirements to meet the CAA, CWA, and other

environmental laws and regulations; and considering other potential hazards.

The Air Force and BLM are developing a Memorandum of Understanding to address safe disposal

of any unexploded ordnance discovered on lands relinquished from the Barry M. Goldwater

Range (i.e., Sentinel Plain and property in the vicinity of the Ajo Airport).

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Socioeconomics August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1021

In SDNM, in order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent Barry M. Goldwater

Range, and to continue management practices that have resulted in an exceptionally well

preserved natural resource, the current procedures for public access to the portion of the

monument depicted as Area A will remain in full force and effect, except to the extent that the Air

Force agrees to different procedures that the BLM determines are compatible with the protection

of resources and uses identified in the Presidential Proclamation.

● Action to Expedite Energy Related Projects (EO 13212, May 18, 2001)

● Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (PL 83-703)

● BLM Abandoned Mine Land Program Policy Handbook (H-3720-1)

● BLM CERCLA Handbook (H-1703-1)

● BLM Military Munitions & Explosives of Concern Handbook (H-1703-2)

● BLM National Environmental Policy Act Handbook (H-1790-1)

● BLM Safety and Health for Field Operations Handbook (H-1112-2)

● BLM Safety and Health Management Handbook (H-1112-1)

● Innocent Landowners, Standards for Conducting All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR 312)

● Reporting Hazardous Substance Activity When Selling or Transferring Federal Real Property

(43 CFR 373)

● Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 (40 CFR

350-372)

● Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (EO 13211, May 18, 2001)

● Environmental Management Systems (515 DM 4)

● Environmental Stewardship & Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews (EO 13274,

September 18, 2002)

● Federal Aid Highways Act (23 USC 317)

● Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards (EO 12088, October 13, 1978) as

amended (EO 12580, January 23, 1987)

● Federal Compliance with Right to Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements (EO

12856, August 3, 1993)

● Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, as amended (7 USC 136)

● Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992 (PL 102-386)

● Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1975, as amended (7 USC 136)

● Land Acquisition, Exchange and Disposal, Real Property Pre-Acquisition Environmental Site

Assessments (602 DM 2)

August 2011

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations,

and Policies

Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Socioeconomics
1022 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● National Oil & Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300)

● Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 USC 10101)

● Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (42 USC 13101 et seq.)

● Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended (42 USC 6901 et seq.)

● Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (42 USC 300)

● Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 USC 6901 et seq.)

● Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management (EO 13423,

January 24, 2007)

● Superfund Implementation (EO 12580, January 23, 1987) as amended (EO 13016, August

28, 1996)

● Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 (15 USC 2601 et seq.)

● Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended (88 USC 7901)

Socioeconomic Management

● Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations & Low-Income

Populations (EO 12898, February 11, 1994)

● Protection & Enhancement of Environmental Quality (EO 11514, March 5, 1970)

Appendix B Applicable Laws, Regulations, and

Policies

Tribal Interests, Public Safety & Socioeconomics August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1023

Appendix C. State, County, Local and Other

Related Agency Plans

C.1. State

Arizona Department of Water Resources. 1999. Phoenix Active Management Area 3rd

Management Plan.

__________. 1999. Pinal Active Management Area 3rd Management Plan.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2006. Wildlife 2012 - The Arizona Game and Fish

Department’s Strategic Plan for the Years 2007-2012. (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2006)

__________. 2003. Arizona Shooting Ranges, a Strategic Plan for the Development of Arizona

Shooting Ranges. (Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2003)

__________. 2006. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan. (Arizona Game and Fish Department,

2006)

Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1996.

Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona.

Arizona Public Service. 2009. Arizona Public Service Company 2009-2018 Ten-Year Plan.

(Arizona Public Service Company, 2009)

Arizona State Land Department. 2003. Conceptual Plan for Gila Bend.

Arizona State Parks. 2009. Arizona Trails 2010: A State Motorized and Non-Motorized Trails

Plan. (Arizona State Parks, 2009)

__________. 2008. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. (Arizona State Parks,

2008)

Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup. 2006. Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment.

C.2. County

Gila County. 2003. Draft Gila County 2012 Comprehensive Plan.

Maricopa Association of Governments. 2000. Desert Spaces Plan.

__________. 2004. San Tan Mountains Regional Park Master Plan Environmental

Assessment. Maricopa County. 1991. Maricopa County LUP Mobile Planning Area.

https://maricopa.gov/Planning/Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/mobileplan.pdf

__________. 1992. Grand Avenue Corridor Area LUP.

__________. 1992. Maricopa County LUP Queen Creek Planning Area.

http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/queen.pdf

August 2011

Appendix C State, County, Local and Other

Related Agency Plans

State
1024 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

__________. 2008. Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future Comprehensive Plan. http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/

Carefree%20Highway%20Scenic%20Corridor.pdf

__________. 2000. Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan. http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/

Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/tonapah_6-21-2007.pdf

__________. 2003. Rainbow Valley Area Plan. http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/

Plans/AreaLandUsePlan/rainbowValleyAreaPlan.aspx

__________. 2003. SR 85 Corridor Area Plan. http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/Resources/

Plans/docs/pdf/State_Route_85.pdf

__________. 2000. White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan. http://www.maricopa.gov/planning/

Resources/Plans/docs/pdf/whitetanks_6-21-07.pdf

Pima County. 2003. Pima County Comprehensive Plan. http://www.pimaxpress.com/Planning/

ComprehensivePlan/LUI_legend2003.htm

__________. 2005. Conservation Lands System Regional Lands System. http://

www.pimaxpress.com/Planning/Conservation/PlanAmendCLS.htm

__________. 2004. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. http://www.co.pima.az.us/cmo/sdcp/

index.html

Yuma County. 2001. Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.

C.3. City

City of Apache Junction. 2010. PRELIMINARY DRAFT 2010 General Plan. (City of Apache

Junction, 2010)

City of Goodyear. 2008. City of Goodyear Parks Master Plan Update. (City of Goodyear, 2008)

__________. 2003. Goodyear General Plan Update 2003-2013.

City of Phoenix. 2001. City of Phoenix General Plan.

__________. 2003. Facility Plan, City of Phoenix SR 85 Landfill, Buckeye, Arizona.

Tucson Electric Power. 2010. Tucson Electric Power Company Ten-Year Plan for Years

2010-2019. http://www.cc.state.az.us/Divisions/Utilities/Electric/Biennial/10%20year%20plans/

TenYearPlanTEP2010-Final.pdf

C.4. Other Federal

Federal Aviation Administration. 2008. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2009-2013).

http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/npias/reports/

National Park Service. 1996. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Comprehensive

Management and Use Plan Final EIS. http://www.nps.gov/juba/parkmgmt/juba-cmp.htm

Appendix C State, County, Local and Other Related

Agency Plans

City August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1025

__________. 1998. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Final General Management Plan

Development Concept Plans EIS. http://www.nps.gov/orpi/parkmgmt/upload/fingmp.pdf

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2001-2005).

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2007. Final

Regional Transportation Plan. Maricopa Association of Governments, 2007.

http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/pdf/cms.resource/RTP_2007-Update_07July.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Recovery Plan.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/Documents/R2ES/LesserLongNoseBat.pdf

__________. 1998. Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan. http://www.fws.gov/

southwest/es/arizona/Sonoran_Pronghorn_RP.htm

__________. 2006.Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive

Conservation Plan Wilderness Stewardship Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/plan/PDFs%202007/Final%20EIS%20text.pdf (United

States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006)

U.S. Air Force. 1996. Final Characterization Plan for the Munitions Residue Burial Site on the

Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, USFS. 1985. Tonto National Forest Plan.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/tonto/plan-revision/index.shtml

U.S. Departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Interior (Lead Agency) and AGFD. 2003. DEIS for

a Proposed Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

August 2011

Appendix C State, County, Local and Other

Related Agency Plans

Other Federal
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1027

Appendix D. Wild and Scenic River

Eligibility Assessment

D.1. Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

Reason for Consideration

Public comments submitted on Scoping Process for the Lower Sonoran Field Office and the

Sonoran Desert National Monument Resource Management Plan.

Segment Description

Table D.1. Observations on Gila River Segments Assessed for WSR Eligibility

Within BLM Jurisdiction

Segment Description

Segment

Length

Segment

Acreage

Comments

Segment A: 19.3 miles from

Hayden Dam to the Gila

River Indian Community

Reservation (east boundary)

0.31 miles 50 Urban area, trash, salt cedar, effluent from sewage

plants, roads, bridges, transient camps, occupation,

stone and gravel extraction.

Segment B: 67.7 miles

within the Gila River Indian

Community Reservation

0 miles 0 Gila River Community Reservation and Interstate 10.

Segment C: 37.6 miles

from the Gila River Indian

Community Reservation

(north boundary) to Gillespie

Dam.

13 miles 2,080 Phoenix, Goodyear, and Buckeye metro area with

farming, residential development, trash, salt cedar

trees, effluent from sewage plants, transient camps,

OHV use areas, farm runoff and DDT contamination,

non-native fishes, roads, bridges, golf courses, and

race tracks. Dirt roads cross bed of river when dry.

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt and AGFD and USFWS

wildlife conservation areas.

Segment D: 40.8 miles from

Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock

Dam

23.6 miles 3,776 Contaminated fish, DDT contamination, salt cedar

infestations, trash, dump debris, roads, and farming

run-off. Dirt roads cross bed of river when dry. Fred

J. Weiler Green Belt. AGFD has relinquished wildlife

management area in flood reservoir of Painted Rocks

Dam. Fred J. Weiler impoundment area.

Segment E: 127.1 miles from

Painted Rock Dam to the

Colorado River

54.4 miles 8.704 Contaminated fish, DDT, salt cedar infestations,

trash, and farming run-off. Dirt and paved roads

cross bed of river when dry

TOTAL

91.31 14,610 River length from Hayden Dam to the Colorado

River: 292.5 miles.

Free-Flowing Requirement Analysis

For a river or river-segment to be eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS, it must be free-flowing.

The Wild and Scenic River Act (WSRA) defines a “free-flowing” river as having:

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment
1028 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Existence in a natural condition,

● Flow in a natural condition,

● Few impoundments,

● Few diversions,

● No straightening,

● No rip-rapping.

In-stream impoundments or structures will not automatically preclude a river segment from being

considered for inclusion in the NWSRS. The intent of Congress and Federal regulations is that

rivers must be generally free flowing, but not completely without human modification.

Table D.2. Flow of Gila River Segments Considered for WSR Eligibility

Segment Flow regime Free-flowingStatus Comments

Segment A:

Hayden Dam to

Gila River Indian

Community

Reservation (east

boundary)

Ephemeral or

underground.

No. Existence and Flow not in a

Natural Condition. Impoundments.

Water flow diverted by Hayden

Dam diversion and Coolidge Dam.

Impoundments and upstream

dams essentially de-water river

below Hayden Dam and Salt River

confluence. Salt cedar infestations.

Segment B: Gila

River Indian

Community

Reservation

Ephemeral or

underground.

No. Existence and Flow not in a

Natural Condition. Impoundments.

Water diverted by Hayden Dam

diversion and Coolidge Dam.

Impoundments and upstream

dams essentially de-water river

below Hayden Dam and Salt River

confluence. Salt cedar infestations.

Segment C: Gila

River Indian

Community

Reservation

(north boundary)

to Gillespie Dam

Ephemeral – effluent

from 91st sewage

treatment plan creates

permanent flow in

areas. Seasonal or

permanent ponding

and marsh in some

areas. Underground

flow in some areas.

No. Water flow Existence and

Flow is not considered a natural

regime. Water flows are a product of

farm water run off, treated sewage

effluent from the 91st Avenue

Sewage Treatment Plant, and

occasional surfacing of subterranean

flows. Significant effect from

upstream impoundments and

diversions of the Salt, Verde and

Gila Rivers. Straightening and

bank Rip-Rapping near urban

communities.

Salt River contributes little water

due to dams, impoundments and

diversions. Hassayampa River and

Salt River flows are ephemeral and

contribute to some subterranean

flow. Some marsh and wetland

areas intermixed with salt cedar

infestations and cottonwood trees.

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1029

Segment Flow regime Free-flowingStatus Comments

Segment D:

Gillespie Dam

to Painted Rock

Dam

Ephemeral – little

surface flow. There

is underground and

surface flow in some

areas due to farm water

recharge and sewage

effluent.

No. Water flow considered only

marginal and not natural per its

existence and flow regime. Flows

are a product of farm run off, and

treated sewage effluent from the 91st

Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant.

The lower ten-miles east of Painted

Rock Dam is an impoundment area

full of dead and living salt cedar

trees and subject to fires.

Upper half of segment is surrounded

by farms, and crossed by roads and

utilities. Lower part of segment is

a toxic (DDT and other materials)

and dead salt cedar forest clogged

with dead trees, deposited with

refuse and contamination from the

1993 and 2005 Painted Rock Dam

flood impoundments, and fire scars.

Gillespie Dam breached in 1993

and no longer impounds water or

silt.

Segment E:

Painted Rock

Dam to Colorado

River

Ephemeral, surface

flow occasionally

in some areas,

underground flows,

seasonal ponding in

some areas below

Painted Rock Dam.

Marshy areas near

ponding areas.

No. Painted Rocks Dam is a major

impediment to all natural flow

events and impounds all surface

water flowing down the Verde, Gila

and Salt systems. Surface water

below Painted Rock Dam flows

and surfaces to some extent due to

lack of additional impoundments.

However, the current Existence and

Flow regimes are not considered

natural. Occasional surfacing water

flows do not resemble or mimic

an unencumbered river’s natural

ebb and flow existence nor the

desert river’s natural water flow.

River flows are mainly a product

of farm run off, release of flood

waters from Painted Rock Dam,

and occasional surfacing of some

re-charged subterranean flows. This

segment does offer more connected

riparian habitat and cover than the

other four segments.

Most natural appearing segment

along lower Gila River due

to remoteness and less human

infrastructure. There are some

marsh areas, cottonwood trees,

along with salt cedar infestations.

Section C: Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORV) Analysis

A river must have one or more Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) to be eligible for

inclusion in the NWSRS. Each value must be directly river-related (defined as occurring within

a quarter-mile of the river’s high-water mark), exhibit rare or exemplary values within the

geographic region, and be determined to be regionally or nationally significant. BLM IM

2004-196 indicates that judgment should be used to determine whether the ORV meets the

criteria: Each ORV “should be located in the river or on its immediate shore lands, contribute

substantially to the functioning of the river ecosystem, and/or owe [its] location or existence to

the presence of the river”.

Potential ORVs are:

● Scenic: diversity of view, special features, seasonal variations, cultural modifications;

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment
1030 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Fish: habitat quality, diversity of species, value of species, abundance of fish, natural

reproduction, size and vigor of fish, cultural and historic importance, recreational importance,

and access;

● Recreation, water-oriented and general: length of season, flow, diversity of use, experience

quality, scenery and naturalness, access, level of use, associated opportunities, attraction,

sites and facilities

● Wildlife: habitat quality, diversity of species, abundance of species, natural reproduction, size

and vigor of species, cultural and historic importance recreational importance, and access;

● Geologic: feature abundance, diversity of features, educational and scientific;

● Historic: significance, education and interpretation, listing and eligibility, site integrity;

● Cultural: significance, current uses, number of cultures, site integrity, education and

interpretation, listing and eligibility;

● Ecological: species diversity, ecological function, rare communities, educational and

scientific.

The size of a river is not a criterion of eligibility. To be eligible, rivers do not have to have

outstanding white-water or even boatable segments. Flow must be sufficient to sustain the ORV

that makes a river or river segment eligible for consideration. The ORVs present on the segments

of the Gila River assessed for WSR eligibility are shown in Table 3 below.

Table D.3. Presence and Extent of Scenic, Recreational, Geological, Fish and Wildlife,

Historical, Cultural or Other Values in Gila River Segments

Segment Scenic

Recreational Geological

Fish and

Wildlife Historical Cultural

Other

Similar

Values

Segment A: Hayden

Dam to Gila River

Indian Community

Reservation

Not Present. Not Present. Not Present.

– Flat desert

plain below

Hayden

Dam

None

identified

except pygmy

owl (currently

in the process

of potential

delisting by

the USFWS).

Not Present. Not

Present.

None

identified.

Segment B: Gila

River Indian

Community

Reservation

Not Present. Not Present. Not Present.

– Flat desert

plain below

Hayden

Dam

Not Present,

except where

Tribe has

artificially

restored

riparian

habitat.

Long history

of uses and

importance

to the Gila

River Indian

Community.

Cultural

and spiritual importance

to Gila

River

Indian

Community.

None

identified.

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1031

Segment Scenic

Recreational Geological

Fish and

Wildlife Historical Cultural

Other

Similar

Values

Segment C: Gila

River Indian

Community

Reservation to

Gillespie Dam

Views of the

Gila River.

Some areas

are scenic

and form a

“greenbelt”

through

parts of this

segment.

Bird

hunting, bird

watching.

None

identified.

Base and

Meridian

Wildlife Area

Robbins Butte

Wildlife Area

Fred J. Weiler

Green Belt.

Federally

endangered

Yuma clapper

rail, and

the Western

yellow-billed

cuckoo, a

Federally

listed

candidate

species.

Potential

habitat for the

Southwestern

willow

flycatcher.

Long history

of use and

importance

to the Gila

River Indian

Community.

Long association

of use and

cultural

importance to

the Gila

River

Indian

Community

None

identified.

Segment D:

Gillespie Dam to

Painted Rock Dam

In areas where

the river flows

by the Gila

Bend Mountains and

Painted Rock

Dam area due

to mountain

views to east

and north.

These views

are outside

of river corridor. Class

C Scenery

per VRM.

River corridor itself is

disturbed and

impacted by

farms, roads,

pipelines, impoundments

(Painted

Not Present.

Little public land and

limited public access.

Dense salt

cedar thickets in Painted

Rocks impoundment

impede public access.

None

identified.

Fred J. Weiler

Green Belt.

AGFD has

relinquished

control of the

Painted Rock

Dam wildlife

Federally

endangered

Yuma clapper

rail, and

the western

yellow-billed

cuckoo, a

Federally

listed

candidate

species in area.

Appropriate

habitat exists

for the

endangered

Southwestern

Willow

Flycatcher,

although

Anza

National

Historic Trail

Butterfield

Stage Trail

Gila Overland

Trail

Mormon

Battalion

None

identified,

but probably cultural affiliation

and importance

to Gila

River

Indian

Community and

Tohono

O’odham

Nation.

None

identified.

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment
1032 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Segment Scenic

Recreational Geological

Fish and

Wildlife Historical Cultural

Other

Similar

Values

Rock) and

bridges.

nesting not

documented.

Segment E: Painted

Rock Dam to

Colorado River

Middle areas

- Wellton to

Aqua Caliente

- is not noted

for scenic

views, but

some areas

where the

river cuts

through the

Sentinel Plain

lava flows

and Muggins

Mountains

have scenic

character due

to rugged

volcanic

geology.

These views.

The best

views are

greater than

1⁄4 mile away.

Roads and

farms along

river banks in

many areas.

Bird

watching

and bird

hunting good

at Painted

Rocks Lake

below dam

and, to a

lesser extent

along the

Gila River to

the Colorado

River.

River cuts

deeply

through

Sentinel

Plain Lave

Flow, one of

the youngest

and thickest

shield

volcano lava

flows in

Arizona.

Fred J. Weiler

Green Belt.

River corridor

has good

habitat and

cover for large

mammals,

aquatic life,

birds and

raptors, and

stretches

of riparian

habitat.

Federally

endangered

Yuma clapper

rail and

the western

yellow-billed

cuckoo, a

Federally

listed

candidate

species in area.

Appropriate

habitat exists

for the

endangered

Southwestern

Willow

Flycatcher.

Anza NHT.

Butterfield

Stage

Overland

Trail, Gila

Overland

Trail

Sears Point

Cultural

ACEC

Concentration

of pre-historic

cultural sites

on both sides

of river,

especially

petroglyphs

and pathways

Historic site

of Oatman

family

“massacre”

Long association

of uses

and importance

to lower

Colorado

River

Indian

Tribes

and communities,

and the

Tohono

O’Odham

Nation.

Concentration of

pre-historic cultural sites

on both

sides of

river, especially

petroglyphs

and pathways.

None

identified.

Eligibility Findings

Free-Flowing Requirements: Segments A, B, C, D and E are not free-flowing. The lower Gila

River is not eligible for consideration as a Wild and Scenic River.

Outstandingly Remarkable Values Analysis: The lower Gila River does have important

recreational, wildlife, riparian habitats, or cultural and historical resources. Appendix 1: Resource

Values of the Lower Gila River summarizes the condition and presence of resource values

observed on the river.

Rationale for Decision

Most of the Gila River’s natural and available surface flow ends abruptly at Coolidge Dam. The

dams and diversions of the Verde River, the Salt River, and the upper Gila River have staunched

water flow and contributed to the elimination, reduction, or alteration of riparian habitats on the

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1033

lower Gila River. The flows of the Salt River and the Hassayampa River, the lower Gila’s major

tributaries, rarely reach the river except during major winter rain and flooding events. The Salt

River is the core tributary, and it is impounded by a series of dams.

None of the five river segments identified are free-flowing in the context of Federal guidelines

defining existence in a natural condition or flow in a natural condition. Painted Rock Dam, the

Hayden Diversion Dam, Coolidge Dam, and the Salt River dam systems all bequeath major

impediments to the free flow of water to the lower Gila River. Much of the surface water flowing

in the lower Gila is a result of human actions, including farm runoff and agricultural returns,

treated sewage effluent, and flood and street water drainage. There also are subterranean water

flows that add to the human-provided waters contributed by the Hassayampa and Salt River.

The five identified river segments maintain little semblance of functioning riparian values except

in isolated areas. Pollution and adjacent development, including urban, farming, road, utility,

and residential uses, create a large succession of fragmented and unnatural river segments under

numerous private, state, Federal and local owners. This fragmented jurisdictional state of affairs

exists along the entire lower Gila River, curtailing cogent planning or restoration efforts. It must

be noted, however, that the aforementioned watered areas, while separated and disparate, provide

highly productive riparian habitat zones for birds and raptors, as well as small mammals and some

aquatic species both native and non-native. Recreational opportunities for wildlife sightseeing

and bird hunting are also good on these watered riparian segments.

Common plants in the river corridor are salt cedar, cottonwood, and mesquite. Salt cedar is

non-native. From the 1880 to the 1940s, proliferation of upstream dams and diversions decreased

the amount of water in the Gila River. Water loss led to the death of most of the healthy

cottonwood and willow trees and galleries along the lower Gila River. These trees need a lot of

water to thrive and reproduce. Droughts accelerated the loss of riparian habitats, and riparian and

mesquite forests were also cleared to grow crops, build roads, and enhance grazing. Today, much

of the original cottonwood and willow trees have been replaced with invasive and widespread salt

cedar. The upper flood plain, once a healthy mesquite forest, also contains mostly salt cedar.

Grazing and de-watering continue to alter the lower reaches of the Gila River. Native plants,

while present, have been supplanted many areas by large swaths of dense, near-impenetrable salt

cedar thickets. These thickets are subject to high-intensity wildfires during the spring and summer.

Native cottonwood galleries and mesquite bosques have been greatly reduced or eliminated due to

dewatering, grazing, and agricultural practices.

Agriculture remains the biggest user of the river’s water. Wells and diversions also pump water

out of the lower reaches of the river. Increasing water demands from the communities of Buckeye

and Goodyear, smaller towns poised to expand into large communities, portend greater amounts

of ground water pumping to supply residential needs. There is little hope that much water will, or

could ever, be allocated to re-establish natural flow regimes in the lower Gila River.

The lower stretches of the Gila River contain many illegal dump sites for litter, trash, tires,

appliances, chemicals, cars and appliances, causing various types of water pollution and soil

contamination. The 1993 and 2005 winter flood events filled the Painted Rocks Dam Flood

Impoundment area. Trash dumps and landfills upstream of Gillespie Dam were breached in the

Phoenix metropolitan and other areas. This resulted in polluted landfill debris, soils, and noxious

materials flowing to the Colorado and contaminating all downstream segments of the lower Gila

River with unsightly litter and toxic brews.

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment
1034 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Pesticide contamination affects most of the lower Gila River, especially between its confluences

with the Salt and the Colorado rivers. DDT was used to control cotton pests in Avondale and

Buckeye. Reports in the late 1970s considered the Salt River confluence to the Painted Rock

stretch of the Gila River the most DDT-laden stream sampled in the West. Anglers are warned

not to eat fish caught in the Gila River, near Painted Rock Dam, or from the dam’s various

impoundments and borrow areas. Due to the 1993 and 2005 floods, contaminants have flushed

downstream to the Colorado River. These two floods impounded high levels of water behind the

dam, which eventually were released, taking DDT compounds and pollution with them. No

clean-up plans are in the works due to high costs and a low threat to human activities.

The Gila River flows continually and consistently near Goodyear, Arizona. The water comes

from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant. This permanent water source has allowed riparian

areas to self-restore and re-establish habitat for birds, aquatic species, and water-dependent plants

like cottonwood, salt cedar and willows, along with cottontails and sedges. However, these

riverbed riparian areas are not natural and will not return to a natural functioning condition.

Larger animal species will never be able to re-populate the riparian areas as these animals are

permanently displaced or cut off by urban and agricultural development. Native fish survival also

is problematic due to intense competition with non-native fishes that eat the natives or usurp their

nesting and feeding habitat.

Current Management Areas – Lower Gila River Corridor

The lower Gila River’s best riparian and wildlife habitats and most noted cultural resources are

managed through a series of special management areas. These areas encompass and effectively

manage the best remaining fragments of natural and cultural resource values associated with this

beleaguered and over-used river. Segments A and B have no notable special management areas

associated with conservation of riparian and river-related values, but Segments C, D and E have

several special management areas. These areas include the Baseline Meridian, Robbins Butte,

Powers Butte, Arlington and Quigley Wildlife Management Areas, the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt,

the Sears Point ACEC and the Gila Trail Special Recreation Management Area. These areas are

described in greater detail in Attachment 1 – Resource Values of the Lower Gila River.

Urban communities along Segment C of the Gila River have proposed plans for “river greenbelts”

and recreation sites along the river. These include the Tres Rios Master Plan and the El Rio Master

Plan (along a portion of the Gila River). These areas would be intensely managed recreation sites

with trails, ponds, lakes, sports areas and other urban recreation uses. All the plans are under

consideration at this time.

D.2. ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the Lower Gila River

Fred J. Weiler Green Belt Special Management Area

Segments C, D and part of E of the lower Gila River contain BLM-administered public lands

encompassed within the Fred. J. Weiler Green Belt Management Area. Virtually all riparian

habitat along the lower Gila River channel is salt-cedar and mesquite thickets and salt-bush

flats. Cottonwoods and willows are limited. The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, managed by the

BLM and the Arizona Game & Fish Department (AGFD), consists of approximately 63,000

acres in the southwest region of Maricopa County. The green belt extends along the Gila River

from the Sierra Estrella Regional Park to a point 12 miles west of Dateland, Arizona. The U.S.

Department of the Interior determined in 1968 that the green belt would be retained under the

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the Lower

Gila River August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1035

Classification for Multiple Use Act of 1964, then designated the area the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt

Special Recreation Area in 1970. Both classifications were established to enable management of

wildlife habitat, flood and erosion control, and recreation opportunities The green belt contains

habitat for the Federally endangered Yuma clapper rail and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo, a

Federally listed candidate species.

Segment A - Hayden Dam to the Gila River Indian Community Reservation (East Boundary)

No resource values identified.

Segment B – Gila River Indian Community Reservation

No resource values identified.

Segment C - Gila River Indian Community Reservation (North Boundary) to Gillespie Dam.

Base and Meridian Wildlife Area (B&M)): The AGFD manage 200 acres of river and adjacent

riparian habitat at the confluence of the Salt River and Gila River just west of the Phoenix

metropolitan area. B&M contains riparian vegetation assemblages of cottonwood, willow, salt

cedar, seep willow and desert broom and mesquite.

The goal for management of the B&M area is to optimize the habitat for wildlife and

wildlife-oriented recreation. The area is fully devoted to waterfowl and riparian management.

Wetland and riparian habitats within B&M area provide critical nesting, cover and food resources

for many avian species, including sensitive species. The riparian habitat common to the Gila

River is recognized as the highest quality nesting habitat for white-winged dove in Arizona. The

property is equally valuable for mourning dove nesting. Other species of significant value are

Gambel's quail, coots and other shorebirds. A host of bird, mammal, and reptile species use the

area because of its proximity to the river. Wildlife may include: Common yellowthroat, great blue

heron, belted kingfisher, and Western screech-owl.

Special Status Species occurring on the B&M includes the Federally endangered Yuma clapper

rail and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo, a Federally listed candidate species. Potential

habitat for the following special status species may also occur near the area: Lowland leopard

frog, Ferruginous hawk, Great egret, Loggerhead shrike, Osprey, American peregrine falcon,

Southwestern willow flycatcher, California leaf-nosed bat, Greater Western mastiff bat, and

Sonoran desert tortoise.

Robbins Butte Wildlife Area: The Robbins Butte Wildlife Area (RBWA) is located approximately

seven miles southwest of Buckeye, Arizona, comprising approximately 1,681 acres. RBWA

is one of two areas along the Gila River with the greatest potential for waterfowl habitat

enhancement. Vegetative cover is a diverse mixture including dense salt cedar thickets, willows

and cattail in the river bottom; mature mesquite on the river terrace; saltbush and shrub-sized

mesquite upland areas.

The primary management emphasis at RBWA is to provide food crops and nesting habitat for

upland game birds. Secondary management emphasis includes enhancing riparian habitat and the

riparian-desert upland ecotone. A combination of wildlife food crops, natural foods and nesting

habitat attracts many breeding white-winged and mourning doves. Amphibians and reptiles also

are common; a minimum of 19 reptile species reside at RBWA.

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the

Lower Gila River
1036 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

RBWA is the center of the annual Gila River Christmas Bird Count, and over 115 species of

winter-resident birds have been observed in the vicinity. In addition, many raptors winter in

and near RBWA, including the White-tailed Kite. The summer avian community has not been

counted, but species numbers probably exceed those of winter.

Special Status Species occurring on or near the Robbins Butte Wildlife Area includes the

Federally endangered Yuma clapper rail, and the Western yellow-billed cuckoo, a Federally listed

candidate species. Those special status species that potentially occur on the RBWA include Great

egret, Snowy egret, and Western yellow bat.

Powers Butte Wildlife Area: The Powers Butte Wildlife Area (PBWA) encompasses 1,120 acres.

The area is managed for the enhancement of its riparian and aquatic habitats.

Mourning doves, white-winged doves, Gambel's quail, and cottontail rabbits inhabit the area.

Particularly abundant during migration and in the winter, various birds, including a wide

assortment of hawks and other birds of prey, find food and shelter within the bounds of this

wildlife area as well.

The 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, local agriculture, intermittent tributary flows, and

groundwater all feed the Gila River through the wildlife area, creating dense stands of salt cedar,

and marsh and wetland habitats. Powers Butte, a steep knoll formed by volcanic boulder, provides

an overlook to the surrounding valley and river.

Riparian habitats are the most noticeable plant life on the area. The most common plants are salt

cedar and mesquite. Salt cedar was introduced to Arizona many years ago and does not naturally

occur here. Most of the original cottonwood and willow trees have been replaced with salt cedar.

The upper flood plain, which once was a mesquite forest, also contains a lot of salt cedar.

This area is highly valued for its protection of sensitive species and habitats in Arizona. With

appropriate enhancement, the amount and quality of riparian and wetland habitats can be

increased, and diversified to support more species that depend on such areas. The salt cedar, which

has replaced most of the native riparian trees in the area, provides good nesting places for doves.

Arlington Wildlife Area: The Arlington Wildlife Area (AWA) is located along the west bank of

the Gila River and is approximately 1,500 acres. The AWA is managed to optimize the habitat

potential of the property for wildlife and for present and future generations of the public to

enjoy wildlife-oriented recreation

The wildlife area has an extensive stand of salt cedar and about 4 miles of river channel, including

running water, cattails and other emergent vegetation, sand and gravel bars, and riparian trees

such as cottonwood, willow and salt cedar. The AWA is particularly favorable as a location for

limited-mobility hunters to gain access for duck hunting. This area also has a very high value for

its dove-nesting habitat. The Federally endangered Yuma clapper rail also is a regular nesting

species in the ponds and along the river.

The water ponds attract numerous waterfowl and shorebirds. The Yuma clapper rails nest on site.

The salt-cedar bosque provides nesting habitat for red-winged blackbirds, doves, and other riparian

bird species. The salt-cedar bosque also provides cover for various mammals, amphibians and

reptiles. Special-status species occurring on or near the AWA include the Federally endangered

Yuma clapper rail and the western yellow-billed cuckoo, a Federally listed candidate species.

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the Lower

Gila River August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1037

Urban communities on Segment C, including Buckeye and Goodyear, have proposed master plans

for “river greenbelts” and recreation sites along the river. Plans include the Tres Rios Master Plan

and the El Rio Master Plan along a portion of the Gila River. These areas would be intensely

managed recreation sites with trails, ponds, lakes, sports areas, and other urban recreation uses.

All the plans are under consideration at this time.

Segment D - Gillespie Dam to Painted Rock Dam

Public land ownership within the river bed is quite limited within Segment D. Public lands within

the river bed channel are part of the Fred. J. Weiler Green Belt and managed for riparian and

wildlife values. The area above Painted Rocks Dam has limited value for wildlife.

Anza National Historic Trail (NHT): The NHT enters this segment north of Gila Bend and

extends down the river corridor to the Colorado River and Yuma, Arizona. The BLM is mandated

to maintain and protect the historic and cultural resources within the NHT corridor as defined

by Federal law.

Gila Trail Special Recreation Management Area: This management area enters Segment D north

of Gila Bend and extends down the river corridor to the Maricopa County/Yuma County line. The

area includes lands surrounding the Gila Trail, the Butterfield Overland Stage Route, the Anza

National Historic Trail, the Southern Overland Trail, the Mormon Battalion Trail, the Oatman

Massacre Site, and the Painted Rock Mountains and associated cultural and recreational features.

Segment E - Painted Rock Dam to the Colorado River

This river segment has the most BLM-administered public land. Many of the public lands are

encompassed by the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt. The segment’s most noted cultural and riparian

values are enclosed within the following areas:

Quigley Wildlife Management Area (QWMA): The QWMA contains approximately 622 acres

consisting of two major open-water areas, idle farmland, large stands of salt cedar and open-water

areas characterized by emergent vegetation such as cattail. The area is managed to restore,

enhance, and manage wetland habitat, including open water and marsh, riparian and associated

upland wildlife habitats; and to provide public opportunities for wildlife viewing, education,

research, hunting and fishing.

Wetland and riparian habitats within the QWMA provide critical nesting, cover and food

resources for many avian species. The low water depths and emergent vegetation such as cattail

and bulrush make excellent nesting substrate for a large number of waterfowl species. Other

wildlife species supported by the wetlands at QWMA include shorebirds, game and nongame

fish, game and nongame birds, and amphibians. The marsh habitat at QWMA has in the past

supported four to six pairs of the endangered Yuma clapper rail, and appropriate habitat exists for

the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, although nesting has not been documented.

The upland habitats currently provides significant nesting habitat for white-winged and mourning

doves.

Special-status species occurring on or near the QWMA include the American bittern, great egret,

loggerhead shrike, osprey, snowy egret, southwestern willow flycatcher, western least bittern,

and white-faced ibis.

August 2011

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Assessment

ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the

Lower Gila River
1038 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Sear’s Point Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC): The BLM manages all cultural

resources in the river channel under the Antiquities Act of 1906. The Painted Rocks area and

Sears Point Cultural ACECprotect significant rock art and cultural areas of importance to local

and regional Indian nations and tribes.

Gila Trail Special Recreation Management Area: This management area includes lands

surrounding the Gila Trail, the Butterfield Overland Stage Route, the Anza National Historic

Trail, the Southern Overland Trail, the Mormon Battalion Trail, the Oatman Massacre Site, and

the Painted Rock Mountains and associated cultural and recreational features.

Anza National Historic Trail (NHT): The NHT enters this segment north of Gila Bend and

extends down the river corridor to the Colorado River and Yuma, Arizona. The BLM is mandated

to maintain and protect the historic and cultural resources within the NHT corridor as defined

by Federal law.

Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Eligibility

Assessment

ATTACHMENT 1: Resource Values of the Lower

Gila River August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1039

Appendix E. Draft Compatibility Analysis:

Livestock Grazing on the Sonoran Desert

National Monument

E.1. Background

Under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431-433), President Clinton

designated the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) by Presidential Proclamation

7397 on January 17, 2001 (Appendix A, Sonoran Desert National Monument Presidential

Proclamation (p. )). The Monument comprises approximately 486,400 acres of public lands

administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and is generally located 60 miles

southwest of Phoenix, Arizona. Among other provisions, and with respect specifically to the

practice of livestock grazing on these public lands, the President directed:

Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management in issuing and

administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall continue to apply

with regard to the lands in the monument; provided, however, that grazing permits on Federal

lands within the monument south of Interstate Highway 8 shall not be renewed at the end of

their current term; and provided further, that grazing on Federal lands north of Interstate 8

shall be allowed to continue only to the extent that the Bureau of Land Management determines

that grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects identified in

this proclamation [emphasis added].

Livestock grazing ceased in 2008-2009 on allotments located south of Interstate 8 (I-8) in

the SDNM. From this time forward, the public lands south of I-8 (155,900 acres) will remain

unavailable for livestock use and the grazing preferences (7,884 AUMs) attached to the base

properties for permitted use on the allotments will be cancelled. Forage previously allocated for

livestock grazing will be available for other resource uses such as wildlife habitat, watershed

values, recreation, etc. In addition, 78,000 acres were closed to grazing in 1941 in Area A for a

total of 233,900 acres on the Monument (48 percent of the total) that are currently and will remain

unavailable for livestock grazing. This document describes the BLM’s analysis of livestock

grazing on 252,500 acres of public lands that are currently available for livestock grazing north

of I-8 within SDNM (52 percent of the total). The following analysis will be used to determine

whether livestock grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of the Monument, which is

to protect the objects identified in the proclamation.

E.1.1. A Brief History of Grazing on Public Lands

During the era of homesteading, western public rangelands were often overgrazed because of

policies designed to promote the settlement of the West and a lack of understanding of arid

ecosystems. In response to requests from western ranchers, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing

Act of 1934, which led to the creation of grazing districts in which grazing use was apportioned

and regulated. Under the Taylor Grazing Act, the first grazing district to be established was

Wyoming Grazing District Number 1 on March 23, 1935. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes

created a Division of Grazing within the Department of Interior to administer the grazing districts;

this division later became the U.S. Grazing Service and was headquartered in Salt Lake City.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Background
1040 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In 1946, as a result of government reorganization by the Truman Administration, the Grazing

Service was merged with the General Land Office to become the Bureau of Land Management.

The unregulated grazing that took place before enactment of the Taylor Grazing Act caused

damage to soil, plants, streams, and springs in some places. As a result, grazing management after

enactment was initially designed to increase productivity and reduce soil erosion by controlling

grazing through fencing and water projects and by conducting forage surveys to balance forage

demands with the land’s productivity (“carrying capacity”).

These initial improvements in livestock management, which arrested the degradation of public

rangelands while improving watersheds, were appropriate for the times. However, by the 1960s

and 1970s, public appreciation for public lands and expectations for their management rose to a

new level, as made clear by passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Consequently, the BLM moved from managing grazing in general to better manage and protect

specific rangeland resources and other multiple-use resources, such as riparian areas, threatened

and endangered species, sensitive plant species, and cultural and historical objects. Consistent

with this enhanced role, the Bureau developed or modified the terms and conditions of grazing

permits and leases and implemented new range projects to address these specific resource issues

or promote continued improvement of public rangeland conditions.

E.1.2. Historic Use of Gila Bend, Arizona, and Surrounding Areas

Livestock grazing in Gila Bend and surrounding areas began in the late 1700s in Indian rancherias

along the Gila River. At that time, livestock largely were confined to the flood plains of the Gila

River, which was the only reliable water source able to support livestock year-round. It also is

likely that the mountains and bajadas adjacent to the river would have received some use by

livestock, particularly during wetter periods when temporary waters would have been available

in potholes or from the few springs in the area. Livestock use prior to this time occurred from

movement along the route taken by the Spanish immigrants in the 18th century along what is

now the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT). Records indicate that 240 people

on horseback or mule moved from towns in Sonora and Sinaloa to a new settlement in the San

Francisco area along with 1,000 head of livestock.

Starting in the 1860s, settlers began to move into the area along the Gila to start farming

operations. Livestock associated with these farms also were likely confined to the river floodplain

and adjacent bajadas. More widespread livestock use of the drier valleys and mountains did not

occur in the area until dirt stock tanks were developed and wells were dug in the early 1900s. The

first of these was a dirt stock tank developed around 1900 in the Little Rainbow Valley just north

of the current Monument boundary. The first wells in the area were drilled in Rainbow Valley

between 1910 and 1912. One of these wells was dug north of Mobile, which would have provided

some livestock access to what is now the SDNM. The only waters in the Vekol Valley area at that

time consisted of a couple of dirt waterholes, or “charcos,” that provided temporary water for

cattle belonging to the Tohono O’odham people. The Vekol Valley within the current SDNM

boundaries was not developed for additional livestock use until the 1920s and 1930s.

Larger scale ranching operations did not begin in the Sand Tank Mountain area until 1917. The

first water sources for livestock included two hand-dug wells, Lost Horse Tank (earthen), and the

development of two natural water sources at Sand Tank and Mesquite Tank (Robinett 1997).

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Historic Use of Gila Bend, Arizona, and Surrounding

Areas August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1041

After the development of necessary water sources, ranching in the area consisted of year round

cow-calf operations with herds that the operator would adjust based on weather conditions and

available forage. The practice of moving large numbers of steers to utilize the ephemeral forage

brought by a wet winter or spring did not occur until during and after World War II in the middle

of the 20th century (Robinett 1997).

E.1.3. Current Land Health Standards and Guidelines for

Grazing Management on Public Lands

Today, the BLM manages livestock grazing to achieve and maintain public land health. To achieve

desired conditions, the agency uses rangeland health standards and guidelines, which the BLM

developed in the 1990s with input from the citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils across the

West. Standards describe specific conditions needed for public land health, such as the presence of

stream bank vegetation and adequate canopy and ground cover. Guidelines are the management

techniques designed to achieve or maintain healthy public lands, as defined by the standards.

E.1.4. Current Livestock Grazing Management on the SDNM

Portions of six livestock grazing allotments are located within SDNM north of I-8, encompassing

a total of 252,500 acres (Map E-2). The allotments, their classifications, size, and amount of

permitted use are listed in Table E.1, “Acres of Public Lands and Permitted Use within SDNM

Grazing Allotments” (p. 1041). Permitted use is expressed in animal unit months (AUMs) which

means the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow, or its equivalent, for a

period of one month. Facilities constructed to manage livestock grazing within these allotments

include: 16 ephemeral reservoirs, 9 wells, 8 corrals, and approximately 46 miles of allotment

boundary and pasture barbed-wire fences.

Table E.1. Acres of Public Lands and Permitted Use within SDNM Grazing Allotments

Allotment

Rangeland

Classification

Allotment

Number

Public Land

Acres

% of Public

Land Acres

Current

Permitted Use

AUMs

Big Horn

PerennialEphemeral

03009 92,204 95% 2,812**

Beloat

PerennialEphemeral

03007 33,600 26% 776

Conley

PerennialEphemeral

03018 77,708 88% 3,403

Hazen

PerennialEphemeral

03042 31,926 75% 886

Lower Vekol

PerennialEphemeral

03053 15,409 71% 826

Arnold Ephemeral 03004 1,609 7% 0

Totals 252,456 n/a 8,703

* The acres and AUM percentages were prorated by using inventory data and base water properties instead of

percentage of public land acreage.

** This figure represents the prorated remaining portion of the Big Horn allotment after 53,144 acres south of I-8

were made unavailable in 2008.

The six allotments within the SDNM north of I-8 received their classifications between 1973

and 1976. Five of the allotments were classified as perennial-ephemeral. “Perennial” refers

to the grazing preference authorized on the permit. “Ephemeral” applies to additional annual

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Current Land Health Standards and Guidelines for

Grazing Management on Public Lands
1042 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

forage that occurs in years with above average precipitation. Livestock operators on these five

allotments are offered 10-year permits from the BLM that state the number and kind of livestock

as well as the period of use for each allotment. Ephemeral forage is utilized through ephemeral

use-authorizations in accordance with land health standards and the Arizona grazing guidelines

(Guidelines) discussed in the Lower Sonoran LS/SDNM Resource Management Plan (RMP).

(See Appendix L in the LS/SDNM DRMP/EIS). The sixth allotment (Arnold Allotment) is

authorized for ephemeral grazing only.

E.1.5. Legal Mandates Relating to Public Lands Grazing

Laws that apply to the BLM’s management of public lands grazing include the Taylor Grazing Act

of 1934, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and the Public Rangelands

Improvement Act of 1978. The Federal regulations that govern livestock management are found

at 43 CFR 4100.

E.2. Compatibility Analysis & Determination Process

As directed by the proclamation that established the SDNM, authorized grazing use and associated

management practices within the SDNM can continue only to the extent that livestock grazing is

determined to be compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the biological, ecological,

scientific, and historic and archaeological objects of the Monument.

The BLM utilizes a Land Health Evaluation (LHE) process to ascertain whether the Arizona

Rangeland Health Standards (land health standards) are met. When standards are not being met,

a draft determination is made to identify causal factors of non-achievement. Causal factors

can include current grazing practices, historical livestock use, drought, fire, OHV use, general

recreation, etc. Technical recommendations from the LHE identify appropriate actions needed

in order to make significant progress toward achieving the standards where they are not being

achieved.

The land health standards, specifically Standard 1 and Standard 3, directly address and measure

indicators associated with the biological, ecological and cultural resources, or “objects” identified

for protection in the Monument’s proclamation. In the case of the SDNM, the LHE analyzed the

Monument’s desert ecosystems for proper functioning condition; considered the anticipated

diversity of plant species; examined the long-term recruitment and maintenance of saguaro cactus

forests; addressed the effect of grazing on wildlife and associated habitat; and evaluated the

functioning, health, diversity and sustainability of key vegetation communities.

For the purposes of this assessment, livestock grazing will be considered incompatible with the

SDNM Proclamation when Monument objects are impaired due to present livestock grazing

practices.

The following process comprises the draft compatibility analysis and determination:

● Identify the “Monument objects” specific to the SDNM,

● Conduct a literature review,

● Conduct an LHE addressing the effects of livestock grazing on Monument objects,

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Legal Mandates Relating to Public Lands Grazing August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1043

● Perform an analysis of the effects of livestock grazing on archaeological and historical

Monument objects,

● Present draft compatibility analysis findings and determination,

● Set parameters to develop a full range of livestock grazing management alternatives for

analysis in the DRMP.

E.2.1. Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects Specific to the

SDNM

The first eight paragraphs of Presidential Proclamation 7397 outline the reasons why President

Clinton chose to designate the SDNM and, as such, provide the most direct expression of the

Monument objects to be conserved, protected, and restored for the benefit of current and future

generations. The identified objects are described in Table E.2, “Monument Objects Specific to

the SDNM” (p. 1044). The subsequent analysis of impacts of livestock grazing on these objects

assists in the determination of grazing compatibility. It also informs the range of alternatives

developed and analyzed in the Lower Sonoran-SDNM Draft RMP.

Because the objects in the proclamation are identified at the landscape level, biological

“indicators” for the objects were identified that can be measured at the site-specific level. For

each Monument object, corresponding "indicators" are identified. See Table E.2, “Monument

Objects Specific to the SDNM” (p. 1044).

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects

Specific to the SDNM
1044 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table E.2. Monument Objects Specific to the SDNM

Monument Object

Paragraph from Presidential

Proclamation 7397

Indicator

Functioning desert ecosystem

1. “The Sonoran Desert National

Monument is a magnificent example

of untrammeled Sonoran desert

landscape. The area encompasses a

functioning desert ecosystem with

an extraordinary array of biological,

scientific, and historic resources. The

most biologically diverse of the North

American deserts, the Monument

consists of distinct mountain ranges

separated by wide valleys, and

includes large saguaro cactus forest

communities that provide excellent

habitat for a wide range of wildlife

species.”

Diversity, density, and distribution of

saguaro cactus forest, habitat for a

wide range of wildlife species

Diversity of plant and animal species

2. “The Monument's biological

resources include a spectacular

diversity of plant and animal species.

The higher peaks include unique

woodland assemblages, while the

lower elevation lands offer one of the

most structurally complex examples

of palo verde/mixed cacti association

in the Sonoran Desert. The dense

stands of leguminous trees and cacti

are dominated by saguaros, palo verde

trees, ironwood, prickly pear, and

cholla. Important natural water holes,

known as tinajas, exist throughout the

Monument. The endangered acuña

pineapple cactus is also found in the

Monument.”

Health, density, and distribution of

saguaro cactus and nurse plants

3. “The most striking aspect of

the plant communities within the

Monument are [sic] the abundant

saguaro cactus forests. The saguaro

is a signature plant of the Sonoran

Desert. Individual saguaro plants

are indeed magnificent, but a forest

of these plants, together with the

wide variety of trees, shrubs, and

herbaceous plants that make up the

forest community, is an impressive

site [sic] to behold. The saguaro

cactus forests within the Monument

are a national treasure, rivaling those

within the Saguaro National Park.”

Health, density, and distribution of

saguaro cactus and nurse plants

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects Specific to

the SDNM August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1045

Saguaro cactus forests

4. “The rich diversity, density,

and distribution of plants in the

Sand Tank Mountains area of the

Monument is especially striking and

can be attributed to the management

regime in place since the area was

withdrawn for military purposes

in 1941. In particular, while some

public access to the area is allowed,

no livestock grazing has occurred

for nearly 50 years. To extend the

extraordinary diversity and overall

ecological health of the Sand Tanks

[sic] Mountains area, land adjacent

and with biological resources similar

to the area withdrawn for military

purposes should be subject to a similar

management regime to the fullest

extent possible.”

Diversity, density, and distribution

of plants (palo verde-mixed cacti

vegetation community)

Sand Tank Mountains

5. “The Monument contains an

abundance of packrat middens,

allowing for scientific analysis of

plant species and climates in past

eras. Scientific analysis of the midden

[sic] shows that the area received

far more precipitation 20,000 years

ago, and slowly became more arid.

Vegetation for the area changed from

juniper-oak-pinion pine woodland

to the vegetation found today in the

Sonoran Desert, although a few plants

from the more mesic period, including

the Kofa Mountain barberry, Arizona

rosewood, and junipers, remain on

higher elevations of north-facing

slopes.”

Preservation, health, and distribution

of packrat middens, Kofa Mountain

barberry, Arizona rosewood, junipers

Vegetation communities:

creosote-bursage, desert grassland,

and washes

6. “The lower elevations and flatter

areas of the Monument contain the

creosote-bursage plant community.

This plant community thrives in the

open expanses between the mountain

ranges, and connects the other plant

communities together. Rare patches

of desert grassland can also be found

throughout the Monument, especially

in the Sand Tank Mountains area.

The washes in the area support a

much denser vegetation community

than the surrounding desert, including

mesquite, ironwood, palo verde,

desert honeysuckle, chuperosa, and

desert willow, as well as a variety of

herbaceous plants. This vegetation

offers the dense cover bird species

need for successful nesting, foraging,

Health, diversity, and distribution

of creosote bush-bursage vegetation

community, desert grassland, washes

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects

Specific to the SDNM
1046 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

and escape, and birds heavily use the

washes during migration.”

Wildlife

7. “The diverse plant communities

present in the Monument support a

wide variety of wildlife, including

the endangered Sonoran pronghorn,

a robust population of desert

bighorn sheep, especially in the

Maricopa Mountains area, and

other mammalian species such as

mule deer, javelina, mountain lion,

gray fox, and bobcat. Bat species

within the Monument include the

endangered lesser long-nosed bat, the

California leaf-nosed bat, and the cave

myotis. Over 200 species of [song]

birds are found in the Monument,

including 59 species known to nest

in the Vekol Valley area. Numerous

species of raptors and owls inhabit

the Monument, including the elf owl

and the western screech owl. The

Monument also supports a diverse

array of reptiles and amphibians,

including the Sonoran desert tortoise

and the red-backed whiptail. The

Bureau of Land Management has

designated approximately 25,000

acres of land in the Maricopa

Mountains area as critical habitat

for the desert tortoise. The Vekol

Valley and Sand Tank Mountain areas

contain especially diverse and robust

populations of amphibians. During

summer rainfall events, thousands

of Sonoran green toads in the Vekol

Valley can be heard moving around

and calling out.”

Distribution and health of Sonoran

desert tortoise, desert bighorn sheep,

red-backed whiptail lizard, raptors,

owls (including elf owl and western

screech owl), mule deer, Sonoran

pronghorn, javelina, mountain lion,

gray fox, bobcat, lesser long-nosed

bat (see above), California leaf-nosed

bat, cave myotis bat, Sonoran green

toads.

Archaeological and historic sites

8. “The Monument also contains

many significant archaeological and

historic sites, including rock art

sites, lithic quarries, and scattered

artifacts. Vekol Wash is believed to

have been an important prehistoric

travel and trade corridor between

the Hohokam and tribes located

in what is now Mexico. Signs of

large villages and permanent habitat

sites occur throughout the area, and

particularly along the bajadas of the

Table Top Mountains. Occupants of

these villages were the ancestors of

today's O'odham, Quechan, Cocopah,

Maricopa, and other tribes. The

Monument also contains a much

used trail corridor 17 miles long in

which are found remnants of several

Preservation of rock art sites, lithic

quarries, scattered artifacts, Vekol

Wash, Table Top Mountain bajadas,

Juan Batista de Anza NHT, Mormon

Battalion Trail, and Butterfield

Overland Stage Route.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 1: Identify the Monument Objects Specific to

the SDNM August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1047

important historic trails, including

the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT,

the Mormon Battalion Trail, and the

Butterfield Overland Stage Route.”

E.2.2. Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review

In order to determine possible effects of livestock grazing on resources and objects in the

Monument, the BLM conducted a thorough review of pertinent scientific literature specific to

livestock grazing in the Sonoran Desert. The literature addressing the potential effects of livestock

grazing in the arid West is voluminous; however, limited literature addresses the Sonoran Desert

specifically. Thus, this review is limited to documents that have a close relationship to Monument

objects. Literature reviewed included materials submitted by interested parties, groups, and

individuals outside the BLM. A list of references reviewed and an evaluation of the body of

literature for its relevance to the assessment of grazing compatibility in SDNM is compiled into a

separate document and is available from the BLM on request.

The following literature review is organized by Monument object type. Results of some studies

refer to more than one object type but are classified below to the most likely type for the purposes

of organization.

E.2.2.1. Functioning Desert Ecosystem

The zone of effect around a livestock watering source has been termed the “piosphere” (Andrew,

1988). Particularly in arid environments, the distribution of impacts resulting from concentrations

of large herbivores is patterned, ranging from impacts many times higher than the overall average

at the watering point to many times lower than the average along a gradient until the foraging

range of the animal is exceeded. Such concentrated impacts include the accumulation of livestock

feces, increased soil nutrients near water and depletion further away from it, livestock trails, soil

compaction, reduced cryptogamic crust cover, increased bare soil, decreased herbage biomass,

and increased herbage defoliation. Similar, albeit more subtle, patterns of impact may occur

around shade, campsites, and salt licks (Andrew 1988).

Bahre (1991) summarized previous studies in assessing the effects of human use on arroyo

cutting and gully erosion in the arid Southwest. While overgrazing by livestock is often cited

as an initiating factor, woodcutting, agricultural clearing, road and railroad construction, and

construction of water diversions such as canals and levees, combined with changing rainfall

patterns, are also cited as important contributing factors. An alternate view, stimulated by the

observation that arroyo cutting and filling also occurred in prehistoric times, postulates that

downward movement of soils leads to cumulatively steeper gradients of outwash plains until a

tipping point is reached (i.e., when increased runoff velocity causes a soil cutting process that

continues until slopes and runoff velocities are again in equilibrium). This view suggests that

because only natural mechanical processes are involved in gully erosion, no human intervention is

required to address it (Cooke and Reeves 1976).

Hovorka (1996) studied the relationship between livestock grazing and Sonoran Desert vegetation,

insects, and insectivorous bats at sites in the Rincon, Tucson, and Silver Bell Mountains. He

found that the influence of grazing history on plant community composition of the Sonoran Desert

was significantly weaker than that of both moisture availability and elevation; however, small

perennials and saguaro were more abundant on ungrazed study plots than on grazed study plots.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review
1048 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The study also showed that grazing history did not have a significant influence on insect or

bat abundance.

E.2.2.2. Saguaro Cactus Forests

Studies of saguaro cactus (Carnegia gigantea) at Saguaro National Park suggest that livestock

grazing has an adverse effect on the recruitment of young saguaro, which germinate and grow

during the first decade under the shade and protection of shrubs and trees known as “nurse”

plants. Abouhaidar (1992) found significantly fewer saguaros aged 11-20 years on a grazed area

of Saguaro National Park relative to an ungrazed area, and observed that saguaro recruitment

following cessation of livestock grazing appeared to experience a lag of approximately 10 years,

after which saguaro germination and growth markedly increased as the density of protective cover

increased. This pattern of delayed recruitment was also documented by Holden et al. (2000) in

a re-survey of saguaro monitoring plots at Saguaro National Park, although these writers noted

that inability of earlier researchers to locate tiny saguaro seedlings and several subsequent years

of above average rainfall may have contributed to this effect.

Available literature is conclusive that saguaro populations are strongly influenced by forces that

alter the density of shade producing perennial plants under which saguaro germinate and grow

early in life, and also suggests that saguaro tend to establish in cohorts when climatic conditions

are favorable (see Niering et al. 1963; Steenbergh and Lowe 1977; Turner et al. 1966). In general,

favorable seasonal rainfall increases the likelihood of saguaro germination and contributes to

increased cover of nurse plants. Livestock can crush nurse plants or trample seedlings as they

rest in the shade of larger trees, or directly feed on nurse plants, which would reduce protective

cover for young saguaro and adversely affect saguaro germination and establishment. Such

effects generally occur where livestock congregate, such as near watering areas or washes

with large trees. However; Bowers and Turner (2002) also speculated that livestock grazing

“may have indirectly benefited palo verde populations by reducing small mammal populations

via competition for forage.”

E.2.2.3. Vegetation Communities

The few peer-reviewed scientific studies that attempt to measure or infer the direct and indirect

effects of livestock grazing on specific elements of the Sonoran Desert ecosystem focus on annual

and perennial vegetation, saguaro cactus, insects and insectivorous bats, lizards, rodents, and

bighorn sheep.

Several studies examining changes in Sonoran Desert vegetation have been conducted at a site

near Tucson called Tumamoc Hill that has been fenced and protected from livestock grazing

since 1907 (Blydenstein et al. 1957; Goldberg and Turner 1986; Shreve 1929; and Shreve and

Hinckley 1937). These studies are not conclusive in determining whether the presence or absence

of livestock grazing significantly affects plant density and species composition. Blydenstein

et al. (1957) found that plant density, particularly with regard to the presence of perennial

grasses and white ratany (Krameria grayi), was notably greater on the protected study site than

at an adjacent area that was not protected from “occasional light” livestock grazing; however,

no significant difference in plant species composition between the two areas was observed.

In a subsequent study, Goldberg and Turner (1986) also documented increased plant density

over time but observed that, while increased plant density might be related to protection from

livestock grazing, the recruitment of new plants occurs very slowly and is critically dependent

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1049

upon suitable climatic conditions. Goldberg and Turner (1986) also found that the number of

plant species increased in all study plots. Because the study plots were located in areas that were

believed to have historically received differing levels of use by livestock, these writers concluded

that there were no consistent directional changes in the vegetation composition of the study area,

despite having been protected from livestock grazing for nearly 70 years, and that the observed

changes in cover and density appeared to be responses to sequences of either exceptionally wet

years or exceptionally dry years (Goldberg and Turner 1986).

A two-year study of grazed and ungrazed plots adjacent to the northern boundary of the Organ

Pipe Cactus National Monument found that the composition of annual plant species declined

with recent grazing by livestock (Waser and Price 1981). This reduction of plant diversity was

not caused by turnover in common species but by the disappearance of rarely encountered,

inconsistently distributed species. Within each study year, an overall reduction of plant diversity

following recent grazing was determined to be significant; however, the relationship between

livestock grazing and species composition between the two years was less clear due to variance in

annual precipitation. Even considering that varying precipitation levels tend to obscure grazing

affects on specie composition on a year-to-year basis, Waser and Price (1981) speculated that the

effects of livestock grazing and winter precipitation on plant species diversity are cumulative and

that recovery of plant species diversity would occur more rapidly in the absence of continued

livestock grazing.

During a study of the effects of livestock grazing on jojoba shrubs (Simmondsia chinensis),

Roundy and Ruyle (1989) found that plant species density and composition inside an area near

Roosevelt Lake that was protected from livestock grazing for 48 years was similar to the area

outside of the exclosure that had been continuously grazed during the same period. Although the

density of jojoba was similar in the two areas, the plants were smaller and the canopy cover was

less outside than inside the exclosure. Jojoba grazed by livestock had greater twig growth than

ungrazed shrubs, but grazed shrubs had lower male and female flower densities than ungrazed

shrubs. The researchers observed that heavy grazing, such as near a stock water pond, resulted in

much smaller branches and canopies, leading to lower overall forage production in comparison to

moderately grazed shrubs. Based on their findings, they recommended rest from grazing from

March to May when warm temperatures and available water in the soil would allow maximum

re-growth and seed production.

E.2.2.4. Wildlife

Jones (1981) studied the effects of livestock grazing on lizard abundance and diversity at three

locations on the BLM Phoenix District. Fourteen sample sites, comprised of seven sites located

in areas characterized as “heavily” grazed and seven sites as “lightly grazed,” were established

in chaparral, desert grassland, mixed riparian scrub, cottonwood-willow riparian, and Sonoran

desert scrub vegetative communities. All the lightly grazed sites had greater lizard abundance and

species diversity than the heavily grazed sites except in Sonoran desert scrub communities where

no differences were detected. Jones (1981) concluded that livestock grazing reduced overall

lizard abundance and species diversity when associated with changes in structural composition

of a given vegetative community. In Sonoran desert scrub, cattle did not reduce the amount of

abundant, non-palatable shrubs; thus, little change in low-height perennial structure occurred, and

lizard populations appeared to be unaffected.

The effect of livestock grazing on rodents is ambiguous but appears to depend on habitat

preference for dense cover. Species that prefer open habitats such as Arizona pocket mouse

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review
1050 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

(Perognathus amplus), silky pocket mouse (P. flavus), hispid pocket mouse (P. hispidus), and

Merriam’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami) may thrive where livestock grazing reduces

vegetative cover without substantially reducing seed production. In contrast, species that prefer

heavy cover such as Price pocket mouse (P. penicillatus) and Bailey pocket mouse (P. baileyi)

may be negatively affected (Fagerstone and Ramey 1996). Steenbergh and Lowe (1977) discussed

the possible interrelationship between livestock grazing, rodent populations, and recruitment of

young saguaro. While their review suggested that rodents consume saguaro seedlings and young

plants, these writers did not find sufficient evidence to show a relationship between livestock

grazing and effects to vegetative composition and cover such that increased rodent populations,

and a resulting decrease in numbers of young saguaro, ultimately occurred.

In a study of livestock grazing influence on desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana),

Dodd and Brady (1986) examined differences between Sonoran Desert bighorn sheep habitat that

had not been grazed for 26 years and recently grazed habitat. The main differences are that bighorn

sheep preferred steep slopes while livestock predominantly used level terrain, and bighorn sheep

primarily ate shrubs and cacti whereas cattle predominantly ate perennial grasses. The percentage

of dietary overlap between bighorn sheep and cattle averaged only 35 percent, and no significant

differences between grazed and ungrazed shrub and cacti cover were noted at any slope. On level

slopes, annual grass and forb cover was significantly greater on the ungrazed area relative to the

grazed areas. Dodd and Brady (1986) concluded that competition between bighorn sheep and

cattle was low due to a dissimilarity in diets and distinct spatial segregation based on slope

steepness. Krausman et al. (1996) also observed that ranges used by livestock and desert bighorn

sheep usually do not overlap spatially; however, these writers described numerous instances

of “social intolerance” in desert bighorn sheep: as livestock moved into core areas of habitat,

bighorn sheep moved away. Due to this tendency to avoid contact with livestock, Krausman et al.

(1996) suggested that even seasonal livestock grazing may fragment desert bighorn sheep habitat,

effectively resulting in the exclusion of sheep from what is otherwise acceptable habitat.

With the exception of possible social intolerance of livestock by bighorn sheep, potential effects

of livestock grazing on Sonoran Desert fauna is closely related to the affects of livestock grazing

on Sonoran Desert vegetation. What is known about such effects is summarized below:

The very limited number of studies does not allow for strong conclusions to be drawn. Plant

diversity appears to decline with grazing, although overall changes in species composition are

relatively small. Grazing does not appear to have large effects on the major woody components,

but impacts the less abundant and smaller species. Regeneration of saguaro cacti in areas of the

Sonoran Desert can be negatively impacted. Recovery of a perennial herbaceous understory may

be site dependent, and it is not clear whether the difference in recovery is due to site potential to

support an herbaceous understory or due to the intensity of historic grazing (Milchunas 2006).

E.2.2.5. Archaeological and Historic Sites

Archaeological Resources

There are few published empirical studies of effects on cultural resources from livestock grazing.

However, unpublished literature and published archaeological reports from the American

Southwest describe incidents of damage associated with grazing. Reported effects of trampling

include artifact breakage; vertical and horizontal displacement of artifacts; physical disturbance

of archaeological features, such as collapse of walls; contamination of organic materials; and

accelerated erosion that can disturb cultural deposits and obscure the visibility of artifacts, trails,

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1051

and other features. There have also been reports of cattle damaging rock art panels by rubbing

against them.

Such disturbances affect the quality that archaeologists refer to as “integrity.” A site with good

archaeological integrity has archaeological deposits that are relatively intact and complete. These

deposits retain the spatial patterning of surface and subsurface artifacts and features, as well as

qualities of “context” that can yield critical information for scientific studies. Aspects of integrity,

used to evaluate the eligibility of historic properties for nomination to the National Register of

Historic Places, also include “setting” and “feeling.” Setting is “the physical environment of a

historic property ... elements such as topographic features, open space, viewshed, landscape,

vegetation” (Little et al. 2000). Feeling is “a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic

sense of a particular period of time” (Little et al. 2000). Intact qualities of setting and feeling

enhance opportunities to interpret sites for public visitation and education. Disturbances to

these qualities, from grazing impacts or other sources, can limit opportunities for research and

interpretation.

In some cases, it is difficult to determine whether adverse impacts to archaeological sites have

been caused by grazing, recreational activities such as camping, or a combination of factors. A

small number of controlled studies have examined grazing impacts by mapping the locations

and condition of artifacts in clearly defined plots, before and after grazing use (Osborn and

Hartley 1991, Osborn et al. 1987, Roney 1977, Van Vuren 1982). Alan Osborn and his colleagues

examined the effects of domestic livestock grazing on archaeological resources of Capitol Reef

National Park in southern Utah. The study included reconnaissance and observations at recorded

sites, and the creation of experimental and control plots containing several types of newly

manufactured lithic and ceramic artifacts. Several study plots were located close to water sources.

The artifacts were made, measured, weighed, placed, and mapped. Following 6 months of grazing

use, they were again mapped, weighed, and examined. Osborn found that 93 percent of the

artifacts remained intact, and 84 percent remained visible. Pottery shards were more prone to

breakage. Mapping revealed that 23 percent of artifacts were displaced, but about 75 percent of

the displaced artifacts had moved less than 15 centimeters. The results varied by the location of

the plot. The impacts were greatest in plots close to water sources, which received a higher degree

of grazing use. Osborn and Hartley (1991) concluded, “the degree of effect is a direct reflection of

grazing intensity and dependence on limited water sources in this cold desert environment.”

In summary, these studies indicate that impacts are a concern in areas of concentrated livestock

use, such as water sources and corrals, more so than in areas of dispersed use. This conclusion is

reflected in a study that examined lithic artifact breakage in areas of variable livestock use along

the Central Arizona Project aqueduct in the western Arizona desert (Brown and Stone 1982).

Collections of lithic artifacts from six archaeological sites located along different segments of the

aqueduct route exhibited breakage rates ranging from 13 to 17 percent. These rates of breakage

may be related to multiple factors, including grazing and off-highway vehicle use. In contrast, 52

percent of the artifacts from a seventh site located near a reservoir used by cattle were broken.

Historical Resources

As identified in Table 2, the Monument contains the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail (Anza trail)

corridor, a National Historic Trail. Approximately 17 miles in length, the corridor also contains

remnants of other later traveled historic trails: the Mormon Battalion and the Butterfield Overland

Stage Route. Although no visible physical remnants remain of the Anza trail, the historic

corridor, as defined by the National Park Service, varies in width depending on the information

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 2: Conduct a Literature Review
1052 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

found in the user diaries. The historic setting is an area 3 miles wide, or up to the visual horizon,

whichever is less. The Mormon Battalion and the Butterfield Overland Stage Route both contain

characteristics that would make them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Like

the Anza Trail, the Mormon Battalion trail contains physical features and attributes documented

by diariesm, however, portions along the Butterfield route contain actual visible remnants from

the stagecoaches. Four livestock water developments lie within the historic corridor: Gap Tank,

Conley Tank, North Tank and North Tank Well.

E.2.2.6. Summary of the Literature Review

There are few studies of livestock grazing effects within the Sonoran Desert and none conducted

within the SDNM. Most of the livestock-grazing management studies in the Sonoran desert

in this literature review appear to compare effects on fauna, flora, and soil from an unknown

and unquantified, amount of livestock grazing to no grazing. The lack of quantification of the

intensity, frequency, and timing of livestock grazing makes it difficult to ascertain the levels of

livestock grazing that are causing the effects. Despite these problems, the body of literature does

provide some general potential effects of livestock grazing within the Sonoran desert that can be

extrapolated to the SDNM and to some biological and cultural objects on the SDNM.

Potential negative effects of livestock grazing to annual and perennial vegetation, saguaro cactus,

insects, insectivorous bats, lizards, rodents, and bighorn sheep were found from the literature

review, and these potential effects can be related to the diversity of the plant species biological

object, the saguaro cactus forest biological object, and the wildlife biological object.

Livestock grazing in the Sonoran Desert can potentially reduce plant species diversity and the

presence of young saguaros in localized areas. Livestock grazing had no significant effects on

insectivorous bats such as the lesser long-nosed bat, the California leaf-nosed bat, or the cave

myotis bat. Livestock grazing had little to no effect on lizard abundance in Sonoran desert scrub

plant communities, which are the habitat of the red-backed whiptail lizard (a noted wildlife

object); therefore, livestock grazing is predicted to have little to no effect on the red-backed

whiptail lizard. Livestock have the potential to cause social intolerance in desert bighorn sheep.

This manifests itself in desert bighorn sheep moving away from areas when livestock are in

the vicinity.

There are descriptions in the published record of damage to archaeological resources associated

with livestock grazing. Reported adverse effects to site integrity include artifact breakage by

trampling, displacement of artifacts, and the physical disturbance of archaeological features.

Accelerated erosion can disturb cultural deposits and obscure the visibility of artifacts, trails,

and other features. Studies indicate that breakage impacts are more of a concern in areas of

concentrated livestock use, such as water sources and corrals, than in areas of dispersed use.

Impacts on cultural resources by camping, off-road vehicles and other human activities can have

the same effects as described above.

E.2.3. Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation

A draft land health evaluation (LHE) was completed in 2011 for this compatibility analysis. The

purpose of the SDNM LHE is to gauge whether the Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health are

being met on the Monument. If the LHE documents that standards are not met in the assessment

area, the authorized officer must determine significant causal factors for non-achievement.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1053

Further, if existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public land are

significant causal factors for the non-achievement of standards, then BLM has determined that

such grazing is not compatible with the protection of the objects of the Monument.

Rangeland Health Standards (now referred to as Land Health Standards) are measurable

and attainable goals for the desired condition of biological resources and physical

components/characteristics of desert ecosystems found within the Monument that were identified

as Monument objects by Presidential Proclamation 7397. BLM typically evaluates indicators of

land health by ascertaining the effects of livestock grazing on natural resources on landscape units

called ecological sites. The BLM does not have site-specific data for every ecological site within

the Sonoran Desert but does try to collect data on prevalent ecological sites within pastures or

allotments. Comprehensive data on the Sonoran Desert do not exist from other sources. The BLM

typically monitors change on ecological sites in response to management or weather but makes

livestock-grazing management changes on a management unit of pastures or allotments rather

than ecological sites because ecological sites are typically too small in size to manage separately

for livestock grazing. Prevalent ecological sites within pastures or allotments are typically

monitored through use of key areas or critical areas. Response to management or weather on these

key areas or critical areas is used as a basis for judging whether livestock-grazing management is

in need of change within pastures or allotments.

As part of the LHE process, desired plant community (DPC) objectives were established for

the biological objects of the Monument. The DPC objectives were used as an indicator of

ecosystem function and land health. This was accomplished by identifying indicators for the

biological objects, which are identified in Table 2. If standards are being achieved then ecosystem

functionality is not at risk. If standards are not achieved, then ecosystem functionality may be

at risk on the Monument.

The Arizona Rangeland Health Standards are defined below:

● Standard 1 - Upland Sites: Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates

that are appropriate to soil type, climate, and landform (ecological site). To achieve Standard

1, rangelands cannot show signs of accelerated soil erosion by wind or water. If achieved, the

health of the rangelands is determined to not be at risk. If the standard is not achieved, the

health of the ecological site is at risk due to clear evidence of soil loss and hydrologic function.

● Standard 2 - Riparian-Wetland Sites: Riparian-wetland areas are in proper functioning

condition (not applicable).

● Standard 3 - Desired Resource Conditions: Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland

communities of native species exist and are maintained. To achieve Standard 3, the ecological

site must be producing desirable forage, cover and soil protection. For wildlife, including

desert tortoise, this means “healthy” rangeland is more likely to provide the necessary food and

cover to sustain the species. If achieved, ecological sites are determined to contain productive

and diverse communities of native species resulting in proper ecosystem function. If the

standard is not achieved, the soil conditions and ecosystem function described in Standard 1

are at risk of losing soil, and not providing forage and habitat for wildlife and livestock.

Standard 1 and Standard 3 apply to public lands within the SDNM. There are no riparian areas

located within the Monument; therefore, land health Standard 2 is not applicable and was not

evaluated. The Barry M. Goldwater Range (BGR) and Area A (Sand Tank Mountains area) were

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1054 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

used as comparison areas to set conservative resource condition objectives. The area has not

been open to livestock grazing since the 1940s.

As part of the LHE process, a draft of the evaluation was sent out for a technical peer review.

Contributors to the technical peer review are four rangeland ecologists who each have an

extensive publications record and are recognized experts in Sonoran Desert ecosystem functions.

These included an Assistant Professor of Natural Resources, University of Arizona, and Extension

Specialist in Range Management, University of Arizona, a professor Emeritus, University of

Arizona, Tucson and a Professor Emeritus, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces. The peer

reviewers were asked the following questions:

1. Are the conclusions supported by analysis of the data?

2. Are the data collected sufficient to permit the BLM to draw the conclusions made?

3. If data are not deemed sufficient, what improvements could be made to existing data, what

new types of data could be collected, and what methods could be used to obtain the data to

improve BLM’s ability to generate conclusions?

Recommendations received from the peer review were considered before completing the

draft LHE. In addition, future study design recommendations from the peer reviewers will be

considered in any monitoring plan for the SDNM. Comments submitted by stakeholders and

interested publics will be considered for the final LHE and final compatibility analysis.

E.2.3.1. Data Collection and Analysis

Direct measurements of the resource conditions on the Monument began with a BLM rangeland

soil and vegetation inventory, which was completed for SDNM allotments in 1981 as part of the

planning effort for the Lower Gila South RMP/EIS. Ecological sites were mapped for each

allotment within the Monument. Data were collected for the rangeland survey from 1979 to 1981.

The BLM’s rangeland inventory production data and the Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS)

range site guides were used to determine range condition (ecological status) and apparent trend.

In 2002, the Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI), which was a subcontractor of The Nature

Conservancy through an assistance agreement with the BLM, collected estimates of vegetative

canopy cover to assess the ecological condition of SDNM. This was designed to be used as a

baseline for changes and trends in the condition of the natural communities within the Monument.

Data were also collected by PBI in the BGR and the southern portion of Area A. Historical

records indicate that livestock use in this area has been absent or relatively light since the 1940s.

Data from the 48 PBI study sites were used as part of the analysis.

In 2008, a BLM interdisciplinary team collected data at 35 key areas within the SDNM allotments

for the purpose of conducting an LHE. Key areas were selected based on their location, distance

to water, livestock and wildlife habitat values, and included representations of all major ecological

sites. Key areas were not placed within small, localized disturbance areas around wildlife and

livestock watering facilities, as they are not representative of the overall range conditions.

Vegetative attribute data collected includes ground cover, frequency, relative production,

structure, composition, and canopy cover (Interagency Technical Team 1996a). Utilization data

were also collected at several key areas, and use-pattern mapping was conducted during a year of

average livestock use for each of the allotments (Interagency Technical Team 1996b). Detailed

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1055

methodology for each of these data collection techniques is provided in Appendix F, Arizona

Land Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1081), Arizona Land

Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument.

The plant communities found on an ecological site are naturally variable. Composition and

production vary with yearly conditions, location, aspect, and the natural variability of the soils.

The “historical climax plant community” represents the natural potential plant communities found

on relic or relatively undisturbed sites. Other plant communities described here represent plant

communities that are known to occur when the site is disturbed by factors such as fire, grazing,

or drought (NRCS 2010). Given this natural variability, rather than using the absolute value to

determine achievement of the objective, the site was considered achieving the objective if the

vegetative attributes measured were within 80 percent of the attribute value.

For the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving land health Standard 3, a

majority of the key areas and PBI plots (more than 50 percent) representing an ecological site had

to meet all the desired plant community objectives. This represents a preponderance of evidence

approach to ascertain whether land health Standard 3 was met.

The departure from achievement of a standard may be negligible, minor, moderate or major.

Level and intensity of use is the indicator used of whether or not an activity is a significant causal

factor for not achieving a land health standard. The percent of the vegetative community/object

affected by livestock use are also summarized by cumulative acres and miles.

E.2.3.2. Analysis, Interpretation & Evaluation of Effects of Livestock

Grazing on Monument Objects

The following analysis and interpretation summarizes the results of the LHE (Appendix F,

Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument (p. 1081)). It

is based on the cumulative acres of ecological sites found within the vegetative community

Monument object. The results of the LHE indicate that Standard 1 is being achieved throughout

the Monument. Qualitative assessments of the soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns,

pedestals, bare ground, gullies, litter movement, and soil compaction etc.) did not indicate any

signs of accelerated erosion at any site. Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion

rates that are appropriate for the ecological sites. Quantitative cover data indicates that vegetative

and microbiotic crust cover levels are appropriate across the majority of the ecological sites

assessed, and are comparable to the BGR/Area A areas that have not been grazed in 60 years.

Because Standard 1 is being achieved throughout the Monument, it is not analyzed further.

However, Standard 3 is not achieved in all areas.

Utilization data is analyzed in conjunction with vegetation cover and composition, livestock-use

levels (AUMs), and precipitation to determine causal factors for non-achievement of standards

and to determine whether changes in current management practices are necessary. Proper

utilization levels are needed to provide for plant maintenance and watershed health values.

The analysis below includes a determination as to whether or not livestock grazing is the causal

factor when Standard 3 is not achieved. The SDNM is comprised primarily of shrubs. Shrub

utilization exceeding 40 percent of current year's growth can impede shrub viability (i.e. vigor,

reproductive capacity, etc.) (Holechek, et al. 1999). Therefore, current livestock grazing is

determined to be a significant causal factor for non-achievement of standards in those areas where

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1056 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

patterns of livestock use are greater than 40 percent utilization. If livestock grazing is determined

not to be the causal factor, other factors may be contributing to non-achievement of Standard 3.

Effects of grazing were analyzed by vegetative community and by permitted allotment.

Analysis of the Biological Objects by Vegetative Community

Creosote Bush-Bursage Vegetation Community

This community consists of the limy fan, limy upland deep and Sandy Loam deep ecological sites

and provides habitat for wildlife objects (identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health

Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060). It comprises 151,643 acres within

the Monument. Standard 3 is being achieved on 45,633 acres within this community. Standard

3 is not being achieved on 106,010 acres within this community, due in large part to a minor

departures from the reference state of vegetation canopy cover and composition (See Table E.3,

“Creosote Bush-Bursage Land Health Standard Achievement Status” (p. 1056)). Utilization

data indicate that existing grazing-management practices are causal factors in failing to achieve

Standard 3 on 7,980 acres (5 percent) of the creosote bush-bursage community. The remaining

98,030 acres of the vegetation community not achieving Standard 3 could not be attributed to

current livestock-grazing practices. Long-term trend data are not available to ascertain whether

progress is or is not being made toward achievement of Standard 3 (May also refer to Map F-5

in the LHE Appendix F).

Table E.3. Creosote Bush-Bursage Land Health Standard Achievement Status

Standard 1 Standard 3

1. Acres achieving land health

standards

151,643 45,633

2. Acres not achieving land health

standards

0 106,010

a. Due to current livestock grazing 0 7,980

b. Due to other causes* 0 98,030

3. Acres not achieving land health

standards but making significant

progress

0 0

Total acres in the SDNM 151,643

*May include historic livestock grazing, livestock use patterns, fire, drought, OHV use, etc.

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community and Saguaro Cactus Forest

This community (see Map E-1) consists of the limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites

and provides habitat for wildlife objects (identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health

Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060)). It comprises 87,366 acres within

the Monument. Standard 3 is being achieved on 65,827 acres within the Monument. Standard 3 is

not being achieved on 21,539 acres within this community, due in large part to a minor departure

from the reference state of vegetation canopy cover or composition (see Table E.4, “Palo-Verde

Mixed Cactus Land Health Standard Achievement Status” (p. 1057)). Utilization data indicate

that existing grazing-management practices are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 511

acres (approximately 1 percent of the community). The remaining 21,028 acres of the vegetation

community not achieving Standard 3 could not be attributed to current livestock-grazing practices.

The results of the PBI Saguaro Study indicate that recruitment of saguaros is occurring within the

grazed portion of SDNM north of I-8 at appropriate rates compared to Area A and BGR.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1057

Table E.4. Palo-Verde Mixed Cactus Land Health Standard Achievement Status

Standard 1 Standard 3

1. Acres achieving land health

standards

87,366 65,827

2. Acres not achieving land health

standards

0 21,539

a. Due to current livestock grazing 0 511

b. Due to other causes* 0 21,028

3. Acres not achieving land health

standards but making significant

progress

0 0

Total acres 87,366

*May include historic livestock grazing, livestock use patterns, fire, drought, OHV use, etc.

Desert Wash Community

This community consists of the sandy wash and loamy swale ecological sites and provides habitat

for wildlife objects (identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE

Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060)). The community covers 490.5 miles within the

Monument. (See Table E.5, “Desert Wash Community Land Health Standard Achievement

Status” (p. 1057).) Standard 3 is being met on 196.5 miles within the Monument. Standard 3

is not being met on 294 miles within this community, due in large part to a minor departure

from the reference state of vegetation canopy cover or composition. Utilization data indicate

that existing grazing management practices are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 12

miles (approximately 2 percent) of the community. The remaining 282 miles of the vegetation

community not achieving Standard 3 could not be attributed to current livestock-grazing practices.

Table E.5. Desert Wash Community Land Health Standard Achievement Status

Standard 1 Standard 3

1. Miles achieving land health

standards

490.5 196.5

2. Miles not achieving land health

standards

0 294.0

a. Due to current livestock grazing 0 12.0

b. Due to other causes* 0 282.0

Total Miles 490.5

*May include historic livestock grazing, livestock use patterns, fire, drought, OHV use, etc.

Analysis of the Diversity of Plant Species Biological Object

Plant species diversity is most simply defined as the number of plant species occurring in a given

plant community or landscape. Plant diversity is a vegetation attribute based on other attributes

such as presence, cover or biomass -- it is a calculated or synthesized value, not a directly

observable attribute of vegetation. Cover was used as a diversity attribute in this analysis. This

use is an accepted methodology and was employed by Waser and Price (1981).

The plant diversity found within any vegetation community can be highly variable and is affected

by factors such as slope, aspect, local climate and the natural variability of the soils. In addition,

drought, fire, herbivory, and other factors have an effect on the diversity of a community. As

mentioned earlier, the plant communities within the SDNM are shrub-dominated communities,

typical of the Sonoran Desert scrub vegetative communities.

The analysis was based on cover data from PBI plots. Data collected on the Monument north of

I-8 was compared to the average number of perennial species per plot on BGR and Area A lands

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1058 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

within similar ecological sites. The BGR and Area A are considered reference areas for plant

species diversity for the SDNM. The results are summarized in Table E.6, “Average Number of

Perennial Species Per Plot (Diversity)” (p. 1058).

Table E.6. Average Number of Perennial Species Per Plot (Diversity)

Plant Community (ecological

site)

BGR/ Area A Big Horn Conley Beloat Hazen

Lower

Vekol

Creosote-bursage (limy fan) 2 3 2.6 2.7 5.5 **

Palo verde-mixed cacti (granitic

hills)

9* 14 12.5 18.8 16 19

Creosote-bursage (limy upland

deep)

4.6 4.3 **   ** 

Desert wash (sandy wash) 12 17.7 6 ** 10 **

*Only one plot in this ecological site in BGR

**No data collected

Based on the results summarized in the table, the average number of species per plot for all

allotments are similar to BGR/Area A average species with the exception of the Conley allotment

sandy wash ecological site. This would indicate that the diversity of perennial species is relatively

similar to that of the comparison area, which has not been grazed in more than 50 years.

Analysis of the Biological Monument Objects by Allotment

Big Horn (92,204 Acres)

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community and saguaro cactus forest Monument objects

(limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites) represent 28,836 acres within the allotment. Both

ecological sites within this community are achieving Standard 1 and Standard 3.

The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan, limy upland deep,

and Sandy Loam deep ecological sites) represents 59,240 acres within the allotment. The limy

fan and sandy loam deep ecological sites (29,856 acres) are meeting Standard 1 and Standard 3.

The limy upland deep ecological site is meeting Standard 1 but not Standard 3 (29,384 acres).

Utilization data indicate that existing grazing-management practices are factors in failing to meet

Standard 3 on 2,974 acres (5 percent) of the creosote bush-bursage community. The failure of

the remaining acres of the limy upland deep ecological site to meet Standard 3 could not be

attributed to current livestock grazing.

The desert wash Monument object (sandy wash and loamy swale ecological sites cover 192 miles

within the allotment (see Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives

by Monument Object)” (p. 1060)). Both ecological sites within this community are meeting

Standard 1 and Standard 3.

Beloat (33,600 Acres)

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community and saguaro cactus forest objects (limy upland

and granitic hills ecological sites) cover 12,113 acres within the allotment. Both ecological sites

within this community are achieving Standard 1 and Standard 3.

The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan and limy upland

deep ecological sites) represents 21,487 acres of the allotment. Both ecological sites within

this community are achieving Standard 1, but the limy fan ecological site (17,906 acres) is not

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1059

achieving Standard 3. Because the livestock utilization was less than 40 percent, grazing is

determined not to be a causal factor for failing to achieve Standard 3.

The desert wash Monument object (sandy wash and loamy swale ecological sites) covers 64 miles

within the allotment. The loamy swale ecological site (1 mile) is achieving Standard 1 and

Standard 3. The sandy wash ecological site is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3 (63 miles).

Grazing management practices are not factors in failing to achieve Standard 3, as livestock use

levels were negligible (0-5 percent) and slight (6 to 20 percent) levels.

Conley (77,708 Acres)

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community and saguaro cactus forest Monument objects

(limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites) cover 20,963 acres within the allotment. The limy

upland and granitic hills ecological sites are achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3. Utilization

data indicate it is more likely than not that existing grazing management practices or levels of

grazing use are factors in failing to achieve the Standard 3 on 511 acres (2 percent) of the palo

verde-mixed cacti vegetation community. The failure of the remaining acres of the community to

meet Standard 3 could not be attributed to current livestock grazing.

The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan and limy upland

deep ecological sites) covers 52,315 acres of the allotment. The limy fan and limy upland deep

ecological sites are achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3 (52,315 acres). Utilization data

indicate it is more likely than not that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing

use are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 5,006 acres (10 percent) of the creosote

bush-bursage community. The failure of the remaining acres of the vegetation community to meet

Standard 3 could not be attributed to current livestock grazing.

The desert wash Monument object (sandy wash and loamy swale ecological sites) covers 155

miles of the allotment. The loamy swale ecological site (1 mile) is achieving Standard 1 and

Standard 3. The sandy wash ecological site (154 miles) is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard

3. Utilization data indicate it is more likely than not that existing grazing-management practices

and levels of grazing use are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 10 miles (6 percent) of

the desert wash community.

Hazen (31,926 Acres)

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community and saguaro cactus forest Monument objects

(limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites), which provide habitat for wildlife objects, cover

17,713 acres of the allotment. The ecological sites within this community are achieving Standard

1 and Standard 3. The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan

and limy upland deep ecological sites) covers 14,213 acres of the allotment. The limy upland

deep ecological site (8,514 acres) is achieving Standard 1 and Standard 3. The limy fan ecological

site is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3 (5,699 acres). It is more likely than not that

the failure of this site to meet Standard 3 is not due to existing grazing-management practices

or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at negligible (0 to 5 percent) and slight (6

to 20 percent) levels.

The desert wash Monument object (sandy wash ecological site) covers 59 miles of the allotment

(see Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument

Object)” (p. 1060). The ecological site is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3. It is more

likely than not that the failure of this site to meet Standard 3 is not due to existing grazing

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1060 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

management practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at negligible (0 to 5

percent) and slight (6 to 20 percent) levels.

Lower Vekol (15,409 Acres)

The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community and saguaro cactus forest Monument objects

(limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites covers 6,838 acres of the allotment (see Table E.7,

“Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060)).

The granitic hills ecological site (6,262 acres) is achieving Standard 1 and Standard 3. The

limy upland ecological site (576 acres) is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3. It is more

likely than not that the failure of these sites to meet Standard 3 are not due to existing grazing

management practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at slight (6 to 20

percent) and light (21 to 40 percent) levels.

The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan and limy upland

deep ecological sites covers 3,682 acres of the allotment. See Table E.7, “Results of the Land

Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060). Both ecological sites

within this community are achieving Standard 1 and Standard 3.

The desert wash Monument object (sandy wash and loamy swale ecological sites) covers 18.5

miles of the allotment. The loamy swale ecological site (0.5 miles) is achieving Standard 1 and

Standard 3. The sandy wash ecological site is achieving Standard 1 but not Standard 3 (18 miles).

Utilization data indicate it is more likely than not that existing grazing management practices

or levels of grazing use are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 2 miles (11 percent) of

the desert wash community.

Arnold (1,609 Acres)

The creosote bush-bursage vegetation community Monument object (limy fan ecological site)

covers 706 acres of the allotment. The ecological site is meeting Standard 1 but not Standard 3. It

is more likely than not that the failure of these sites to meet Standard 3 are not due to existing

grazing management practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at slight (6

to 20 percent) levels. Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by

Monument Object)” (p. 1060) identifies which land health objectives apply to each biological

indicator of the Monument objects. Because the objects in the proclamation are identified at the

landscape level, biological "indicators" for the objects were identified that can be measured at

the site-specific level. These were identified in Table E.2, “Monument Objects Specific to the

SDNM” (p. 1044). For each Monument object, corresponding "indicators" are identified.

Table E.7. Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Monument Object: Functioning Desert Ecosystem

See Monument object: saguaro cactus forest

See Monument object: vegetation communities

Habitat for a wide range of wildlife species (See Monument object: wildlife)

Monument Object: Diversity of Plant and Animal Species

Woodland assemblages

Do not occur north of I-8. Occur in the higher peaks of the Table Top and

Sand Tank Mountains.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1061

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1

Does not achieve Standard 3 for

the limy upland and granitic hills

ecological sites

Hazen:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site

Palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation

community

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability and

hydrologic function on granitic hills

and limy upland ecological sites.

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover objective for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites. palatable shrub composition

objective for the limy upland

ecological sites

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy upland ecological site. Does

not achieve the palatable shrub

composition DPC objective.

Monument Object: Saguaro Cactus Forests

All SDNM: PBI recruitment of

saguaros is occurring within the

grazed portion of the SDNM at

appropriate rates compared to

ungrazed portions of the SDNM and

BGR Area A. See Map E-3.

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1

Saguaro cactus and nurse plants

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability and

hydrologic function on granitic hills

and limy upland ecological sites -

provides suitable soil and hydrologic

conditions for saguaros and nurse

plants.

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover objectives for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites - provides vegetative cover of

nurse plants.

Land Health Standard 3: Saguaro

recruitment objectives for the limy

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1062 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1

Does not achieve Standard 3 for

the limy upland and granitic hills

ecological sites

Hazen:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site.

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site

Does not achieve Standard 3 for

the limy upland ecological site;

however, does achieve the canopy

cover objective for nurse plants.

Monument Object: Sand Tank Mountains

Sand Tank Mountains Mountain range not in analysis area (located south of I-8)

Monument Object: Scientific Analysis of Plant Species and Climates in Past Eras

Packrat middens

Ancient middens occur in dry caves and rock shelters where they are

protected from moisture. Livestock do not generally utilize areas with dry

caves and rock shelters due to steep, rocky, and rough terrain.

Kofa Mountain barberry Does not occur north of I-8.

Arizona rosewood Does not occur north of I-8.

Juniper Does not occur north of I-8.

Monument Object: Vegetation Communities: Creosote-Bursage, Desert Grassland, and Desert Washes

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy fan

ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the sandy

loam deep ecological site,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy upland deep ecological site.

Several sites do not meet canopy

cover objectives.

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy fan ecological site.

Creosote-bursage vegetation

community

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability and

hydrologic function on limy fan, limy

upland deep, and/or sandy loam deep

ecological sites

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover objectives and

composition objectives for the limy

fan, limy upland deep, and sandy

loam deep ecological sites

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1063

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy fan ecological site. Species

composition objectives were not met

at multiple sites,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy upland deep ecological site.

Hazen:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland deep ecological site,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy fan ecological site.

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland deep ecological site.

Arnold:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy fan ecological site.

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the sandy

wash and loamy swale ecological

sites.

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site.

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site.

Hazen:

Desert washes

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability and

hydrologic function on sandy wash

and loamy swale ecological sites.

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover and palatable shrub

composition objectives for the sandy

wash ecological site, and vegetative

canopy cover and perennial grass

composition objectives for the loamy

swale ecological site.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1064 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site.

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site.

Desert Grassland Does not occur north of I-8

Monument Object: Wildlife*

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites.

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites.

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for

the limy upland and granitic hills

ecological sites.

Hazen:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site.

Sonoran desert tortoise,

Desert bighorn sheep,

Red-backed whiptail lizard,

Elf owl,

Western screech owl,

Mule deer.

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability

and hydrologic function on granitic

hills and limy upland ecological sites

(palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation

community).

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover objectives for the limy

upland and granitic hills ecological

sites.

Land Health Standard 3: palatable

shrub plant species composition

objective for the limy upland

ecological site.

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the granitic

hills ecological site,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

limy upland ecological site.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1065

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Big Horn:

Achieves Standard 1,

Achieves Standard 3 for the sandy

wash and loamy swale ecological

sites,

Achieves CFPO canopy cover

objective.

Beloat:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site,

Achieves CFPO canopy cover

objective.

Conley:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site,

No identified potential cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl (CFPO)

habitat.

Hazen:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves CFPO canopy cover

objective.

Mule deer,

Elf owl,

Western screech owl,

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (not

identified in the proclamation).

Land Health Standard 1:

Assessments of soil/site stability and

hydrologic function on sandy wash

ecological site

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative

canopy cover and palatable shrub

composition objectives for the sandy

wash ecological site, and vegetative

canopy cover and perennial grass

composition objectives for the

loamy swale ecological site, and

for potential cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl (CFPO) habitat in the

sandy wash ecological site

Lower Vekol:

Achieves Standard 1,

Does not achieve Standard 3 for the

sandy wash ecological site,

Achieves Standard 3 for the loamy

swale ecological site,

No identified potential cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl (CFPO)

Habitat.

Sonoran pronghorn Does not occur in the Monument.

Javelina Occurrence of this species north of I-8 in the SDNM is unconfirmed.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1066 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards Evaluation Results

Mountain lion

Evaluation of palo verde-mixed cacti and washes communities (granitic

hills, limy upland and sandy wash ecological sites) addresses suitable

habitat for prey species (i.e. mule deer, bighorn sheep, rodents, etc.).

Gray fox

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable habitat for prey

species (i.e. quail, birds, rodents, lizards, etc.).

Bobcat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable habitat for prey

species (i.e. quail, birds, rodents, lizards, etc.).

Lesser long-nosed bat (see above)

Evaluation of saguaro cactus forests conditions and applicable ecological

sites evaluates habitat needs within the SDNM north of I-8 for this species.

California leaf-nosed bat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable forage habitat.

No known roost sites on the SDNM (Arizona Bat Resource Group, 2003).

Forage (insects) area could occur within the Monument.

Cave myotis bat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable forage habitat.

No known roost sites on the SDNM (Arizona Bat Resource Group, 2003).

Forage (insects) area could occur in the Monument.

Elf owl (see above)

Evaluation of palo verde-mixed cacti and washes communities (granitic

hills, limy upland and sandy wash ecological sites) addresses suitable

forage habitat.

Western screech owl

(see above)

Evaluation of palo verde-mixed cacti and washes vegetation communities

(granitic hills, limy upland and sandy wash ecological sites) addresses

suitable forage habitat (i.e. small birds, rodents, lizards, insects etc.).

Red-backed whiptail lizard (see above)

Evaluation of palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community

(granitic hills and limy upland ecological sites) addresses the habitat needs

for this species.

Sonoran green toad

Located in Vekol Valley spreader dikes and stock tanks outside the SDNM

north of I-8.

* Under Standard 3, when DPC objectives for wildlife habitat are being achieved, the site is producing desirable

forage, cover, and soil protection. For wildlife, including the desert tortoise, this means “healthy” rangeland is more

likely to provide the necessary food and cover to sustain the species that live there.

E.2.3.3. Summary of Land Health Evaluation Findings by Monument Object

Where livestock grazing was determined to be a significant causal factor for of the failure to

meet land health standards, it was determined that livestock grazing is not compatible with the

protection of the Monument objects (see Map E-2 and Map E-3). Current livestock grazing was

determined to be a significant causal factor for non-achievement of standards in those areas where

unacceptable patterns of livestock use (greater than 40 percent utilization levels) occurred.

Functioning Desert Ecosystem

The functioning desert ecosystem in the SDNM including saguaro cactus forests, various

vegetation communities, and habitat for a wide range of wildlife species is generally unaffected by

grazing. Livestock grazing north of I-8 is not having an adverse effect on the ecosystem function

of 99 percent of the palo verde-mixed cacti community, 99 percent of the saguaro cactus forest

community, 95 percent of the creosote bush-bursage community, and 98 percent of the desert wash

vegetation community or associated wildlife identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health

Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060) and discussion below. In these

locales, current livestock-grazing practices are compatible with protection of Monument objects.

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community, Saguaro Cactus Forests, Diversity of Plant

and Animal Species, Wildlife

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1067

Studies (Abouhaidar 1992, Holden, et al. 2000) have shown that saguaro cactus forest

communities are strongly influenced by forces that alter density of shade-producing perennials

(“nurse” plants). Evidence from the SDNM suggests that current grazing practices are compatible

with the maintenance of nurse plants. Analysis of 87,366 acres of palo verde-mixed cactus

and the saguaro cactus forest communities in the SDNM indicate that Standard 3 is being

achieved on 65,827 acres. (See Table E.9, “Land Health Standard Status & Determination by

Vegetation Community” (p. 1070)) Standard 3 is not being met on the Conley or Lower Vekol

allotments. (See Table E.9, “Land Health Standard Status & Determination by Vegetation

Community” (p. 1070).) Use-pattern mapping and utilization data indicate that failure to achieve

Standard 3 on the Lower Vekol allotment is not attributable to grazing. However, on 511 acres

(more than 1 percent) of the Conley Allotment, conditions do not meet Standard 3, a situation that

likely is attributable to grazing. The BLM has determined that current grazing practices are not

compatible with the protection of the palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation or saguaro cactus forest

communities on 511 acres of the Conley Allotment within the SDNM.

The failure of 21,539 acres (24.7 percent) of the SDNM to meet Standard 3, is due to a small

difference in canopy cover or composition from the reference state. These are important criteria

for recruitment in saguaro forests and recovery in both these communities. Failure to achieve

Standard 3 is likely due to plant mortality associated with recent periods of drought (in particular

the 2002 drought) and local site characteristics.

The results of the PBI Saguaro Study indicate that recruitment of saguaros is occurring within the

grazed portion of SDNM north of I-8 at appropriate rates for this community.

Based on the results summarized in Table E.6, “Average Number of Perennial Species Per Plot

(Diversity)” (p. 1058), species diversity within the palo verde-mixed cacti and saguaro cactus

forest vegetation communities within the SDNM north of I-8 is not reduced from what is found in

the BGR and Area A.

Scientific Analysis of Plant Species & Climates in Past Eras

Packrat middens

Current livestock grazing is compatible with the Scientific Analysis of Plant Species and Climates

biological object. Use-pattern mapping indicates that livestock do not utilize areas with dry

caves or rock shelters where ancient packrat middens, used for ancient climate studies, occur

due to steep, rocky and rough terrain. Other indicators of scientific analysis of plant species,

identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument

Object)” (p. 1060), occur south of I-8.

Creosote Bush-Bursage and Wildlife Within This Community

Elf Owl, Western Screech Owl, Mule Deer, Mountain Lion, Gray Fox, Bobcat, California

Leaf-Nosed Bat, Cave Myotis Bat

Analysis of the 151,643 acres of creosote bush-bursage vegetation community in the SDNM

indicates that Standard 3 is being achieved on 45,633 acres. (See Table E.9, “Land Health Standard

Status & Determination by Vegetation Community” (p. 1070).) The acreage where Standard 3 is

not being met (106,010) is mostly attributable to drought and subsequent plant mortality (98,030

acres). Utilization data indicate that grazing is contributing to the failure to achieve Standard 3 on

7,980 acres of the SDNM. The BLM has determined that current livestock-grazing practices are

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1068 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

not compatible with the protection of the creosote-bursage vegetation community on 2,974 acres

of the Big Horn allotment and 5,006 acres of the Conley allotment within the SDNM.

Desert Washes and Wildlife Within This Community

Elf Owl, Western Screech Owl, Mule Deer, Mountain Lion, Gray Fox, Bobcat, California

Leaf-Nosed Bat, Cave Myotis Bat

Desert washes are particularly important and provide habitat for numerous wildlife species. There

are 490.5 miles (approximately 1,717 acres) of desert washes within the SDNM. Of these, 294

miles (1,029 acres) (see Table E.9, “Land Health Standard Status & Determination by Vegetation

Community” (p. 1070)) are not achieving Standard 3 due to differences in vegetation canopy or

composition from the reference state. Utilization data indicate that grazing management practices

or levels of use are contributing to non-achievement on 12 miles (42 acres) of desert wash. Ten

of these miles are on the Conley allotment and two on the Lower Vekol allotment. The BLM

has determined that current livestock-grazing practices are not compatible with protection of 10

miles (35 acres) of desert washes on the Conley allotment and 2 miles (7 acres) of the Lower

Vekol allotment within the SDNM.

Table E.8. Land Health Standard Status & Causal Factor Determination by

Allotment/Ecological Site

Ecological site Total (acres)

Achieving LH

standards (acres)

Not achieving LH

Standards (acres)

Acres where

livestock use is

a causal factor

% of total where

livestock use is a

causal factor

Big Horn

Limy fan 28,390 28,390 0 0 0%

Limy upland deep 29,384 0 29,384 2,974 10%

Sandy loam deep 1,466 1,466 0 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

59,240 29,856 29,384 2,974 5%

Limy upland 6,898 6,898 0 0 0%

Granitic hills 21,938 21,938 0 0 0%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

28,836 28,836 0 0 0%

Misc. ecological

sites*

4,128 4,128 0 0 0%

Total acres 92,204 62,820 29,384 2,974 3%

Loamy swale 2 miles 2 miles 0 miles 0 0%

Sandy wash 190 miles 190 miles 0 miles 0 0%

Beloat

Limy fan 17,906 0 17,906 0 0%

Limy upland deep 3,521* 3,521* 0 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

21,487 3,581 17,906 0 0%

Limy upland 5,403 5,403 0 0 0%

Granitic hills 6,710 6,710 0 0 0%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

12,113 12,113 0 0 0%

Total acres 33,600 15,694 17,906 0 0%

Loamy swale 1 mile 1 mile 0 miles 0 0%

Sandy wash 63 miles 0 miles 63 miles 0 0%

Conley

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1069

Ecological site Total (acres)

Achieving LH

standards (acres)

Not achieving LH

Standards (acres)

Acres where

livestock use is

a causal factor

% of total where

livestock use is a

causal factor

Limy fan 38,537 0 38,537 5,006 0

Limy upland deep 13,778 0 13,778 0 0%

Sandy loam deep 0 0 0 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

52,315 0 52,315 4,971 10%

Limy upland 5,053 0 5,053 320 0.6%

Granitic hills 15,910 0 15,910 191 0.01%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

20,963 0 20,963 511 0.02%

Misc. ecological

sites*

4,430 0 0 0 0%

Total acres 77,708 0 73,278 5,517 7%

Loamy swale 1 mile 0 0 miles 0 0%

Sandy wash 154 miles 0 154 miles

10 miles;

(35 acres)**

6%

Hazen

Limy fan 5,699 0 5,699 0 0%

Limy upland deep 8,514 8,514 0 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

14,213 8,514 5,699 0 0%

Limy upland 4,831* 4,831* 0 0 0%

Granitic hills 12,882 12,882 0 0 0%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

17,713 17,713 0 0 0%

Total acres 31,926 26,227 5,699 0 0%

Loamy swale 1 mile 1 mile 0 miles 0 0%

Sandy wash 63 miles 0 miles 63 miles 0 miles 0%

Lower Vekol

Limy fan 118* 118* 0 0 0%

Limy upland deep 3,564 3,564 0 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

3,682 3,682 0 0 0%

Limy upland 576 0 576 0 0%

Granitic hills 6,262 6,262 0 0 0%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

6,838 6,262 576 0 0%

Misc. ecological

sites*

4,889 4,889 0 0 0%

Total acres 15,409 14,833 576 0 0%

Loamy swale 0.5 miles 0.5 miles 0 miles 0 0%

Sandy wash 18 miles 0 miles 18 miles

2 miles;

(7 acres)

1%

Arnold

Limy fan 706 0 706 0 0%

Creosote

bush-bursage

total

706 0 706 0 0%

Limy upland 360* 360* 0 0 0%

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation
1070 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Ecological site Total (acres)

Achieving LH

standards (acres)

Not achieving LH

Standards (acres)

Acres where

livestock use is

a causal factor

% of total where

livestock use is a

causal factor

Granitic hills 543* 543 0 0 0%

Palo verde-mixed

cacti total

903 903 0 0 0%

Total acres 1,609 903 706 0 0%

Sandy wash 2 miles 2 miles 0 miles 0 0%

Total acres unavailable to grazing: 8,498**

* Generally consists of small patchy inclusions of ecological site polygons within the allotment that do not represent

larger stratum for management purposes and do not meet the key area concept or are inaccessible to livestock and

were not evaluated. However, the majority of these areas were mapped for livestock use patterns.

** The sandy wash acres for the Conley allotment are included in the creosote bush-bursage vegetation community

acreage and not included in the grand total acres to avoid acreage duplication

Table E.9. Land Health Standard Status & Determination by Vegetation Community

Creosote Bush-Bursage

Big Horn Beloat Conley Hazen

Lower

Vekol Arnold Total

1. Acres achieving land

health standards

29,856 3,581 0 8,514 3,682 0 45,633

2. Acres not achieving

land health standards

29,384 17,906 52,315 5,699 0 706 106,010

a. Due to livestock

grazing

2,974 0 5,006 0 0 0 7,980

b. Due to other causes* 26,410 17,906 47,309 5,699 0 706 98,030

Total acres: 151,643

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti & Saguaro Cactus Forest

Big Horn Beloat Conley Hazen

Lower

Vekol Arnold Total

1. Acres achieving land

health standards

28,835 12,113 0 17,713 6,262 903 65,826

2. Acres not achieving

land health standards

0 0 20,963 0 576 0 21,539

a. Due to livestock

grazing

0 0 511 0 0 0 511

b. Due to other causes* 0 0 20,452 0 576 0 21,028

Total acres: 87,366

Desert Wash

Big Horn Beloat Conley Hazen

Lower

Vekol Arnold Total

1. Miles (acres)

achieving land health

standards

190 (665) 1 (3.5) 1 (3.5) 0 .5 (1.7) 2 (7)

(6.2);

(680.7 acres )

2. Miles (acres) not

achieving land health

standards

0 63 (220.5) 154 (539) 59(206.5) 18 (63) 0

0;

(1,029 acres)

a. Due to livestock

grazing

0 0 10 (35)** 0 2 (7) 0

0;

(42 acres)

b. Due to other causes* 0 63 (220.5) 144 (504) 59 (206.5) 16 (56) 0

0;

(987 acres)

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 3: Conduct a Land Health Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1071

Total miles (acres): 490.5 miles (1716.75 acres)

*May include historic livestock grazing, livestock use patterns, fire, drought, OHV use, etc.

** The sandy wash acres for the Conley allotment are included in the creosote bush-bursage vegetation community

acreage and not included in the total acres to avoid acreage duplication

Where livestock grazing was determined to be a significant causal factor for non-achievement

of land health standards, it was determined that livestock grazing is not compatible with the

protection of the Monument objects. Current livestock grazing was determined to be a significant

causal factor for non-achievement of standards in areas where unacceptable patterns of livestock

use (greater than 40 percent utilization levels) occurred. In addition to identifying livestock-related

effects on the SDNM’s biological objects, this compatibility study also evaluated livestock-related

effects on archaeological and historic objects, as identified in the Monument proclamation. A class

1 literature search was completed in 2010 for the LHE, as per BLM manual section 8110.2.A.2.

This review identified previous surveys and known archeological sites or traditional cultural

places within the allotment boundaries. The results on the archaeological/historical evaluation are

identified in Table E.10, “Results of the Cultural Evaluation by Monument Object” (p. 1071).

E.2.4. Step 4: Analysis of the Effects of Livestock Grazing on

Archaeological & Historic Objects

E.2.4.1. Indicators to Evaluate the Condition of Monument Cultural Objects

Based on the above discussion, indicators of grazing-related damage could include the following:

● Breakage or displacement of artifacts or features that is clearly associated with

livestock-grazing use.

● Evidence of trampling that has disturbed archaeological deposits or accelerated processes

of erosion at archaeological sites.

● Trampling, loss of vegetation, defecation, or other observable effects that impair qualities of

setting, feeling, and other aspects of integrity.

Table E.10. Results of the Cultural Evaluation by Monument Object

Indicator Evaluation Results

Monument Object: Archaeological and Historic Sites

Rock art sites

Three rock art sites are known to exist on the grazing allotments within the SDNM

north of I-8. These sites are all in rocky, upland settings and are not situated in

areas of concentrated livestock use. These sites do not exhibit evidence of damage

from livestock, livestock-management activities, or range improvements, because

the petroglyphs and associated artifacts are on large, boulder-strewn hillsides

and knolls that it would be extremely unlikely for livestock to access.

Lithic quarries

All sites identified in existing information are located south of I-8 and

are no longer subject to grazing activities.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 4: Analysis of the Effects of Livestock Grazing

on Archaeological & Historic Objects
1072 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Indicator Evaluation Results

Monument Object: Archaeological and Historic Sites

Scattered artifacts

A total of 22 of the 41 sites located north of I – 8 on the SDNM are listed as artifact

scatters. Of these 22 artifact scatters, 19 sites have characteristics that would make

them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). None of these

known artifact scatters are located within areas of concentrated livestock use.

Of the 19 artifact scatters that have the characteristics that would make them eligible

for the NRHP, five sites have been documented by the recording archaeologist as

having been affected by grazing. On three of these sites, the documentation merely

mentions grazing generally as an effect, usually among other effects, with no further

information tied to indicators of disturbance to that site. There is no documentation

as to whether any artifacts or features had been disturbed by grazing.

Two sites were documented with specific indicators of the type and level of

disturbance. One site was documented as having “moderate trampling and

denudation of vegetation.” This was cited as a factor that leads to gradual erosion.

However, the photographs of the site in this documentation do not show that this is

the case. The photograph shows Sonoran Desert vegetation with typical densities.

This photo shows that the ground surface is stable and is not subject to erosion.

The other site was documented as being disturbed because of “three well-defined

livestock trails that cut across a potential ancient trail near the northwest end of

the site, and general grazing impacts and gradual erosion.” The line of sight can

follow the line of travel and the profile of the probable prehistoric trail in several

places. Artifacts and features have not been disturbed by the livestock trails. The

livestock trails are distinct and visible in this area due to their distance to a water

development (Bosque Well). This well is roughly 0.75 mile away from the site.

Livestock trails have disturbed roughly 0.4 percent of the ground surface of this site.

Vekol Wash Located south of I-8.

Table Top Mountain bajadas Located south of I-8.

Juan Bautista de Anza NHT

While no visible physical remnants remain of this historic trail, later trails

utilized the same corridor used by Anza. The historic trail corridor, as

identified by the National Park Service, varies in width depending on the

information found in the diaries. The historic setting of this trail is an area

3 miles wide, or up to the visual horizon, whichever is less. The livestock

water developments in the area -- Gap Tank, Conley Tank, North Tank, and

North Tank Well -- all lie within this historic setting.

The line of sight for a trail user is undisturbed as one can see where the trail corridor

continues ahead. This trail is 1,200 miles long -- from the border with modern

Mexico to the San Francisco Bay area -- with roughly 17 miles within the SDNM. Of

the four water developments on the SDNM where livestock usage is concentrated,

the area at North Tank is the only one where effects from grazing activities disturbs

the setting. The area where livestock use has reduced the vegetation is about 10

acres in size, amounting to 1,300 linear feet of the trail corridor.

The Anza NHT story involves driving 1,000 head of livestock and 300 people

mounted on horseback along this trail when it was originally used. Thus, livestock

may be viewed as compatible with authentic Anza NHT setting.

Mormon Battalion Trail

The Mormon Battalion Trail is an historic route with well documented physical

features and attributes. It has the characteristics that would make it eligible for the

NRHP. This trail experiences direct disturbance from the congregation of livestock

at North Tank. The area of direct impact amounts to about 800 linear feet of trail

signature from trampling the trail ruts, berms, and vegetation that grows along

the berms. The Mormon Battalion Trail is about 1,850 miles long, 17 miles of

which are within the SDNM boundaries. The area at North Tank where direct

effects from grazing activities disturbs the setting is about 10 acres in size.

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 4: Analysis of the Effects of Livestock Grazing

on Archaeological & Historic Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1073

Indicator Evaluation Results

Monument Object: Archaeological and Historic Sites

Butterfield Overland Stage

Route

The Butterfield Overland Stage Route, like the Mormon Battalion Trail, is a

historic route with well documented physical features and attributes. It has the

characteristics that would make it eligible for the NRHP. Several other historic sites

are associated with this historic route within the SDNM. This trail experiences

direct disturbance from the congregation of livestock at North Tank.

The area of direct disturbance amounts to approximately 800 linear feet of trail

signature from trampling the trail ruts, berms, and vegetation that grows along the

berms. The Butterfield Overland Stage Route is about 2,800 miles long, 17 miles

of which is located within the SDNM boundaries. The area at North Tank where

direct impacts from grazing activities disturbs the setting is about 10 acres in size.

Other archaeological &

historic sites

A total of 14 out of the 41 sites recorded on the SDNM north of I-8 can be

categorized as “other archaeological and historic sites.” These include nine

historic sites related to railroad, ranching, or travel routes.

The only sites documented to have impacts related to grazing are along the

Butterfield Overland Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trail immediately

next to North Tank. These sites are entirely located within the 15 acres that were

identified above as having been used by livestock historically, diminishing the

vegetation. A protective fence installed in 1995 has been helpful in reducing

disturbances from grazing and human activities on this site. Human activities

have been so intense in this area that the causal factor for the level of disturbance

in this area cannot be blamed on one activity alone. Unauthorized collection

of artifacts, for instance, has been occurring over the years.

E.2.4.2. Summary of Grazing Effects on Cultural Monument Objects

The rock art sites are all situated in rough, rocky areas it is extremely unlikely for livestock

to access. None of the rock art (petroglyph) site information suggests any disturbance from

livestock. Lithic quarries sites are situated south of I-8 and are not subject to grazing activities.

The artifact scatter sites are a very common site type in this region. A close look at the

documentation shows that only one site out of 22 artifact scatters shows physical disturbance

due to grazing activities. The amount of disturbance to the site is calculated to be approximately

0.4 percent of the surface area of this one site.

The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT setting is being affected by historically concentrated use around

one livestock water source. The nature of this disturbance is trampling of the local vegetation.

When one considers the length of the Anza Trail (1,200 miles long, 17 miles of which is located

within the SDNM boundaries) and the area of direct impact of 10 acres, amounting to about 1,300

linear feet of trail corridor, this disturbance area is at a very small scale. Driving livestock and

people along this trail historically is the action that blazed the original trail. In historic and recent

times, vegetation was not permanently removed from this area. The diminishment of the volume

of vegetation in one small area along the trail corridor does not affect the characteristics that

make this trail important in history.

In terms of the Butterfield Overland Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trails, they share

the same 17 miles of physical trail tread in the SDNM. Therefore, they both have experienced

historic disturbances from the congregation of livestock at North Tank. The area of direct

disturbance amounts to a loss of about 800 linear feet of trail signature due to livestock trampling

of the historic trail ruts, berms, and vegetation that grows along the berms. The area at North

Tank where direct disturbance from grazing activities diminishes the setting is about 10 acres in

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 4: Analysis of the Effects of Livestock Grazing

on Archaeological & Historic Objects
1074 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

size [Note: in total acreage calculations, these acres are included in the creosote bush-bursage

figures to avoid duplications]. Trail users can see the trail continue beyond this open area. The

diminishment of the volume of vegetation in one small area along the trail corridor does not affect

the characteristics that make this trail important in history. The essential characteristics that make

these two trails important in history are still present and visible.

E.2.5. Step 5: Compatibility Analysis Findings and Determination

The Proclamation for the Sonoran Desert National Monument requires that BLM determine the

compatibility of grazing “with the paramount purpose of protecting objects identified in this

proclamation.” The results of this determination will be used in the Lower Sonoran and Sonoran

Desert National Monument Resource Management Plan to inform a range of alternatives with

respect to livestock grazing.

Methodologies employed in the compatibility analysis included a rigorous land health evaluation

process, a thorough literature review, technical reports and guidance, and a comprehensive

evaluation of the effects of grazing on Monument objects and their indicators within the SDNM.

This analysis has been a complex undertaking due to the inherent challenges of balancing human

use and the needs of interrelated desert ecosystems.

E.2.5.1. Findings

In some locations, current conditions on the six allotments within the SDNM are not achieving

Standard 3 (See Map E-2). Monument lands not achieving Standard 3 total 127,550 acres,

representing 50.5 percent of all Monument lands north of I-8. Livestock use pattern mapping

and monitoring data indicate that non-achievement of Standard 3 cannot be attributed to current

livestock-grazing practices on 96.6 percent of Monument lands located north of I-8. There may

be several contributing factors to non-achievement of Standard 3 aside from livestock grazing.

The results of the analysis indicate that livestock grazing is a causal factor for non-achievement

of Standard 3 on 8,498 acres (Map E-2). This represents 3.4 percent of the 252,500 acres of the

Monument north of I-8, and 6.76 percent of the 127,550 acres not achieving Standard 3.

Areas where livestock grazing was determined to be the causal factor for not achieving Standard

3 include portions of the following Monument objects or indicators: palo verde-mixed cacti (1

percent of plant community), the saguaro cactus forest (1 percent of plant community), creosote

bush-bursage (5 percent of plant community) or desert wash (2 percent, or 12 miles of the plant

community) and its associated wildlife objects (identified in Table E.7, “Results of the Land

Health Evaluation (LHE Objectives by Monument Object)” (p. 1060)) and a small portion (1.4

percent, or 10-acres) of the Anza NHT.

Currently, the grazing preference for perennial forage is not supported by monitoring and

inventory data. Field observations and use compliance checks indicate that operators graze the

majority of their permitted AUMs during the early winter and spring months, which are periods

of high levels of ephemeral forage.

Concentrated livestock use around North Tank (10 acres) is not consistent with past use during

historic time periods, and it negatively affects the protection of the archaeological and historic site

within the SDNM. Elsewhere, known rock art sites in the SDNM are not near areas of grazing

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 5: Compatibility Analysis Findings and

Determination August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1075

concentration and have not been impacted by grazing. Artifact scatters have not yielded any

definitive evidence of grazing impacts that would affect site setting or integrity.

E.2.5.2. Determination

A limited amount of livestock grazing is compatible with the protection of Monument objects,

based on the draft SDNM LHE and this draft compatibility analysis. The evaluation, literature

review and professional opinions of BLM staff identify presently undesirable interactions

between current livestock-grazing practices and individual Monument objects, as well as the

underlying biological/ecological processes.

Livestock-grazing practices negatively affect 3.4 percent (8,498 acres) of the Monument north of

I-8. Current livestock grazing is determined to be incompatible on 3.4 percent of the Monument.

Recommended livestock-grazing adjustments and technical recommendations presented in the

draft SDNM LHE ensure that 49.5 percent of Monument north of I-8 will continue to meet

Standard 3. Future permitted use should be changed to ensure the Monument objects are managed

properly. To ensure that future management practices remain compatible with the Monument

objects, perennial permitted use should be reduced.

The level of use should be adjusted to primarily fall-winter-spring with reduced use levels during

the summer months as follows: 65 percent of permitted use would occur from Oct. 1 to April 30

and 35 percent of permitted use from May 1 to Sept. 30. This will reduce potential competition

with special status wildlife and other wildlife species during the critical summer months.

Ephemeral grazing is compatible with Monument objects when the Ephemeral Guidelines for

Livestock Grazing Management (Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253))

are followed.

Current livestock grazing at one 10-acre site around North Tank along the Anza NHT and the

Butterfield Overland Stage Route is not compatible with protecting these archaeological and

historic Monument objects [Note: this acreage figure is included in the creosote bush-bursage

biological objects calculations to avoid duplication]. Overall, however, this compatibility analysis

finds that livestock-grazing activities on the SDNM are compatible with the paramount purpose of

protecting archaeological and historic objects identified in the Monument proclamation.

E.2.6. Step 6: Develop Full Range of Livestock Grazing

Management Alternatives in the Draft Lower Sonoran & SDNM

RMP

The BLM must develop a full range of livestock management RMP alternatives in order to: 1)

meet land health standards, and 2) satisfy the paramount purpose to protect Monument objects

as directed by the presidential proclamation.

The findings and determinations presented in Step 5 guided development of the range of action

alternatives presented and analyzed in the RMP. The draft RMP will evaluate the environmental

consequences of implementing a range of alternatives.

One RMP alternative (the No Action Alternative) should establish a baseline and emphasize

maintaining current grazing authorizations, terms, conditions and practices. Other alternative(s)

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 6: Develop Full Range of Livestock Grazing

Management Alternatives in the Draft Lower

Sonoran & SDNM RMP
1076 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

should address Step 5 findings and determinations through emphasizing that some or all SDNM

acreage will be unavailable for grazing, as recommended by the draft SDNM LHE. Alternative(s)

should address Step 5 findings through emphasizing modified grazing use authorizations, as

recommended by the draft SDNM Land Health Evaluation.

E.2.6.1. Manager Recommendation

The foregoing compatibility analysis and determination considers the SDNM’s place in the

NLCS, the unique character of the Sonoran Desert, as well as the historic role and current

practices of livestock grazing management in the area. This analysis concludes that current

livestock-grazing practices negatively affect 3.4% (8,498 acres) of the Monument north of I-8

and grazing is therefore incompatible with protection of monument objects in that area. This

8,498 acre figure includes the one 10 acre site determined to not be compatible with protecting

archeological and historic monument objects. In accordance with the proclamation’s direction,

those areas will be unavailable for livestock grazing. With that limited exception, I find that

modified and limited livestock-grazing authorizations on the public lands of the SDNM north of

I-8 is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects the objects identified in

Presidential Proclamation 7397 and for which the SDNM was designated.

________________________ (Manager, SDNM) _________________ (Date)

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Step 6: Develop Full Range of Livestock Grazing

Management Alternatives in the Draft Lower

Sonoran & SDNM RMP August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1077

E.3. References

Abouhaidar, F. 1992. Influence of livestock grazing on saguaro seedling establishment, pp.

57-61, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Research in Saguaro National Monument. 23-24

January 1991 Tucson, Arizona. National Park Service, Rincon Institute and Southwest Parks

and Monuments Association.

Andrew, M.H. 1988. Grazing impact in relation to livestock watering points. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution 3(12):336-339.

Bahre, C.J. 1991. A legacy of change: historic human impact on vegetation of the Arizona

borderlands. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. pp. 231

Blydenstein, J.C., R. Hungerford, G.I. Day, and R.R. Humphrey. 1957. Effect of domestic

livestock exclusion on vegetation in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology 38(3):522-526.

Bowers, J.E., and R.M. Turner. 2002. The influence of climatic variability on local population

dynamics of Cercidium microphyllum (foothill palo verde). Oecologia 130:105-113.

Brown, P.E., and C.L. Stone. 1982. Granite Reef: A study in desert archaeology. Anthropological

Research Papers No. 28, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Cooke, R.U., and R.W. Reeves. 1976. Arroyos and environmental change in the American

South-west. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Dodd, N.L., and W.W. Brady. 1986. Cattle grazing influences on vegetation of a sympatric desert

bighorn range in Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 30:8-13.

Fagerstone, K.A., and C.A. Ramey. 1996. Rodents and lagomorphs, pp. 83-132 in: Rangeland

Wildlife, Paul R. Krausman, ed. The Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

Goldberg, D.E., and R.M. Turner. 1986. Vegetation change and plant demography in permanent

plots in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology 67(3):695-712.

Hall, J.A., S. Weinstein, and C.L. McIntyre. 2005. The impacts of livestock grazing in the

Sonoran Desert: a literature review and synthesis for the Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix

District Office. The Nature Conservancy in Arizona, Tucson.

Holden, M., P. Anning, and M. Weesner. 2000. 10-year re-survey of saguaro cactus (Carnegia

gigantea) populations at Saguaro NP. Lay Report to Southwest Parks and Monuments Association,

SPMA Project 00-08.

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 1998. Range management: principles and

practices. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Holechek, J.L., M. Thomas, F. Molinar, and D. Galt. 1999. Stocking desert rangelands: what

we’ve learned. Rangelands 21(6):8-12.

Holechek, J.L., and D. Galt. 2000. Grazing intensity guidelines. Rangelands 22(3):11-14.

Holechek, J.L., T.T. “Red” Baker, and J.C. Boren. 2005. Impacts of controlled grazing versus

grazing exclusion on rangeland ecosystems: what we have learned. Range Improvement Task

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

References
1078 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Force Report No. 57. Agricultural Experiment Station, Cooperative Extension Service, College

of Agriculture and Home Economics, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Hovorka, M.D. 1996. The impacts of livestock grazing on Sonoran desert scrub vegetation,

insect, and insectivorous bat communities. M.S. Thesis, Graduate Programme in Biology, York

University, North York, Ontario.

Interagency Technical Team. 1996a (revised 1997, 1999). Sampling vegetation attributes.

Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4. Cooperative Extension Service; U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management. 172 p.

Interagency Technical Team. 1996b (revised 1997, 1999). Utilization studies and residual

measurements. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3. Cooperative Extension Service; U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Grazing Land Technology Institute; U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 176 p.

Jones, K.B. 1981. Effects of grazing on lizard abundance and diversity in western Arizona.

The Southwestern Naturalist 26(2):107-115.

Krausman, P.R., R. Valdez, and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Bighorn sheep and livestock, pp. 237-243,

in: Rangeland wildlife. Paul R. Krausman, ed. The Society for Range Management, Denver,

Colorado.

Little, B., E.M. Seibert, J. Townsend, J.H. Sprinkle Jr., and J. Knoerl. 2000. National Register

Bulletin: Guidelines for evaluating and registering archaeological properties. U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Martin, S.C., and R.M. Turner. 1977. Vegetation change in the Sonoran Desert region, Arizona

and Sonora. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 12:59-69.

Milchunas, D.G. 2006. Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United

States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-169.

Niering, W.A, R.H. Whittaker, and C.H. Lowe. 1963. The saguaro: a population in relation

to environment. Science 142(3588):15-23.

Osborn, A.J., and R.J. Hartley. 1991. Adverse effects of domestic livestock grazing on the

archaeological resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah, p. 136-153 in: Proceedings of

the first biennial conference of research in Colorado Plateau National Parks. U.S. Geological

Survey, Washington, D.C.

Osborn, A.J., S. Vetter, R.J. Hartley, L. Walsh, and J. Brown. 1987. Impacts of domestic livestock

grazing on archaeological resources of Capitol Reef National Park, Utah. Occasional Studies in

Anthropology No. 20. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Midwest Archaeological

Center.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting indicators of rangeland

health-version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

References August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1079

Land Management; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Agricultural Research Service. 130 p.

Robinett, D. 1992. Drought and recovery in the upper Sonoran Desert. Rangelands 14(4):219-222.

Robinett, D.G. 1997. Rangeland, p. 97-100, in: Soil survey of Gila Bend-Ajo area, Arizona,

parts of Maricopa and Pima Counties. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service.

Roney, J. 1977. Livestock and lithics: the effects of trampling. Unpublished manuscript on file,

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District.

Roundy, B.A., and G.B. Ruyle. 1989. Effects of herbivory on twig dynamics of a Sonoran Desert

shrub, Simmondsia chinensis (Link) Schn. The Journal of Applied Ecology 26(2):701-710.

Shreve, F. 1929. Changes in desert vegetation. Ecology 10(4):364-373.

Shreve, F., and A.L. Hinckley. 1937. Thirty years of change in desert vegetation. Ecology

18(4):463-478.

Smith, L., G. Ruyle, J. Maynard, S. Barker, W. Meyer, D. Stewart, B. Coulloudon, S. Williams,

and J. Dyess. 2007. Principles of obtaining and interpreting utilization data on rangelands.

The University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Arizona Cooperative

Extension, AZ1375, 14 p.

Steenbergh, W.F., and C.H. Lowe. 1977. Ecology of the saguaro: II. reproduction, germination,

establishment, growth, and survival of the young plant. U.S. Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Scientific Monograph Series, Number 8.

Turner, R.M. 1990. Long-term vegetation change at a fully protected Sonoran Desert site.

Ecology 71(2):464-477.

Turner, R.M., S.M. Alcorn, G. Olin, and J.A. Booth. 1966. The Influence of shade, soil, and water

on saguaro seedling establishment. Botanical Gazette 127(2/3):95-102.

University of Arizona. 1982. Big Horn Allotment cattle diet study.

Van Vuren, D. 1982. Effects of feral sheep on the spatial distribution of artifacts on Santa Cruz

Island. Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Science 81(3):148-151.

Waser, N.M., and M.V. Price. 1981. Effects of grazing on diversity of annual plants in the

Sonoran Desert. Oecologia 50:407-411.

August 2011

Appendix E Draft Compatibility Analysis: Livestock

Grazing on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

References
?Í

Aó

!`

ARNOLD

BELOAT

BIG HORN

CONLEY

HAZEN

LOWER

VEKOL

UT

PALO VERDE MOUNTAINS

PALO VERDE MOUNTAINS

UNALLOTED

Sonoran Desert National Monument

General Reference

County Boundary

Interstate

State Route

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no

planning authority under the municipal or county planning

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: Jan. 2010

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Coconino

Yavapai

Mohave

La Paz

Yuma

Pima

Santa

Cruz

Maricopa Gila

Greenlee

Pinal

Apache

Navajo Graham

Cochise

Appendix E - Map 1

(Compatibility Analysis)

SDNM Grazing Allotments &

Vegetation Communities

From Land Health Evaluation

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

Creosote Bush-Bursage

± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:225,000

0 1 2 4 Miles

LOWER

VEKOL

SDNM North of I-8

!#`

Aó

Palo Verde Mixed Cactus and

Saguaro Cactus Forest

Allotment Boundaries
BIG HORN

CONLEY

HAZEN

BELOAT

LOWER

VEKOL

ARNOLD

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Uplands Not Achieving Standard 3

General Reference

County Boundary

Interstate

State Route

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no

planning authority under the municipal or county planning

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: Jan. 2010

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Coconino

Yavapai

Mohave

La Paz

Yuma

Pima

Santa

Cruz

Maricopa Gila

Greenlee

Pinal

Apache

Navajo Graham

Cochise

Appendix E - Map 2

Compatibility Analysis

SDNM Grazing

Standard 3 Findings

from Land Health Evaluation

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

Livestock is the Causal Factor

Uplands Not Achieving Standard 3

Other Causal Factor - Drought, Fire, etc.

Desert Washes Not Achieving Standard 3

Livestock Causal Factor

Desert Washes Not Achieving Standard 3

Desert Washes Achieiving Standard 3

0 1 2 4 Miles

± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:225,000

LOWER

VEKOL

SDNM NORTH OF I-8

!#`

Aó

Anza National Historic Trail

Allotment Boundaries
Maricopa County

Pima County

!`

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no

planning authority under the municipal or county planning

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: Jan. 2010

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum Coconino

Yavapai

Mohave

La Paz

Yuma

Pima

Santa

Cruz

Maricopa Gila

Greenlee

Pinal

Apache

Navajo Graham

Cochise

Appendix E - Map 3

Compatibility Analysis

SDNM - BGR (Area A)

Non-Grazed Lands

Standard 3 Findings

from Land Health Evaluation

SAND TANK MTNS (FORMERLY PART OF AREA A)

NOT AVAILABLE FOR GRAZING PER PROCLAMATION

PORTION OF AREA A MANAGED BY BGR

NO DATA: AREA NOT AVAILABLE FOR GRAZING

PER PROCLAMATION

Sonoran Desert National Monument

General Reference

County Boundary

Interstate

Surface Management

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

Uplands Not Achieving Standard 3

Other Causal Factor - Drought, Fire, etc.

Desert Washes Not Achieving Standard 3

Tohono O'odham Reservation

Bureau of Land Management

BGR Military Range

SDNM SOUTH OF I-8

± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:220,000

0 1 2 4 Miles

Allotment Boundaries
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1081

Appendix F. Arizona Land Health

Evaluation for the Sonoran Desert National

Monument

F.1. Introduction

The purpose of this draft land health evaluation (LHE) is to gauge whether the Arizona Standards

for Rangeland Health (Standards) are being achieved on the Sonoran Desert National Monument

(SDNM) and, where they are not, to determine whether livestock grazing is the causal factor.

An evaluation is not a decision document but a standalone report that clearly records the

analysis and interpretation of the available inventory and monitoring data. As part of the land

health-assessment process desired plant community (DPC) objectives were established for the

biological objects of the Monument, i.e., special-status species habitat. The DPC objectives will

assure that soil conditions and ecosystem function described in Standards 1 and 3 are met — or

will make significant progress toward meeting Standards 1 and 3.

The Secretary of the Interior approved the “Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and

Guidelines for Grazing Administration” (Standards and Guidelines) in April 1997. The decision

record, signed by the BLM Arizona State Director in April 1997, provides for full implementation

of the Standards and Guides in BLM resource-management plans (RMPs) in Arizona. These

Standards and Guidelines are now referred to as Land Health Standards. (See Arizona Rangeland

Health Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. ) in this document.)

Land health standards are measurable and attainable goals for the desired condition of the

biological resources and physical components and characteristics of desert ecosystems found

within the Monument.

The evaluation:

● Ascertains whether standards are being achieved, not achieved, and whether significant

progress is being made towards achievement of the land health;

● Determines whether livestock grazing is a significant factor causing non-achievement where it

is ascertained that land health standards are not being achieved.

F.2. Monument Profile

F.2.1. Monument Description

The SDNM was established by proclamation in 2001 by the President of The United States under

authority of section 2 of the Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 16 USC 431). (See

SDNM Presidential Proclamation (p. ).) The purpose of establishing the Monument was to protect

the biological and cultural objects of the Monument. The Monument is located south of the city

of Buckeye, Arizona, and east of the town of Gila Bend, Arizona, in Maricopa and Pinal counties.

It covers approximately 486,400 acres and is part of the National Landscape Conservation System

managed by the Bureau. The proclamation required three allotments (Santa Rosa, South Vekol

and Vekol) and portions of two other allotments (Big Horn and Table Top) south of Interstate 8

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Introduction
1082 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

(I-8) be closed to livestock use upon expiration of their permits. This resulted in 155,900 acres

being closed to livestock grazing south of I-8 by 2009. In 1941, 78,000 acres (formerly known as

Area “A”) were withdrawn for the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BGR) for military purposes. It

was later returned to the BLM and was not reopened to grazing use. Currently, 233,900 acres are

unavailable to livestock use within the Monument. The portions of the six allotments north of I-8

currently open to livestock use are the focus of this evaluation (see Map F-4).

The SDNM Proclamation requires the BLM to determine whether livestock grazing is compatible

with protecting the objects of the SDNM on the 252,500 acres currently open to livestock use

north of I-8, with protecting the objects of the SDNM. The proclamation specifically states:

“[G]razing on Federal lands north of I-8 shall be allowed to continue only to the extent that the

Bureau of Land Management determines that grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose

of protecting the Monument objects identified in this proclamation.” This LHE will be part of a

larger document that will analyze the compatibility of grazing on the Monument. A draft resource

management plan (RMP) and environmental impact statement (EIS) addresses the full array of

rangeland management alternatives for livestock grazing.

F.2.2. Physical Description of the SDNM

F.2.2.1. Grazing Allotments within the SDNM

The following is a general description of the size and location of the allotments within the

Monument north of I-8. See Table 1 for land status and allotment acreages and Map F-1 for the

location of the allotments within the SDNM.

Big Horn

The Big Horn allotment (92,204 acres) is in the western portion of the Monument and lies east of

Gila Bend. The northern boundary of the allotment is the North Maricopa Mountains, and the

southern boundary is I-8. The western boundary of the allotment is State Highway 85 (SR 85),

and the eastern boundary is 2 miles west of the Vekol Valley interchange. The Big Horn allotment

contains the most acreage of the six allotments being evaluated. It ranges in elevation from 780

ft. to 3,182 ft.

Beloat

The Beloat allotment (33,600 acres) is located in the Rainbow Valley area. Approximately one

quarter of the allotment lies within the boundary of the Monument. The allotment’s northern

boundary is the El Paso natural gas pipeline. The North Maricopa Mountains are the southern

boundary. It ranges in elevation from just over 1,100 ft. near the El Paso gas line to 2,493 ft.

on Sheep Mountain.

Conley

The Conley allotment (77,708 acres) is located at the southern end of Rainbow and Mobile

valleys. It lies south of the Beloat allotment, with the Maricopa Mountains on the west and the

Palo Verde Mountains on the east. The southern boundary is the South Maricopa Mountains.

Approximately 60 percent of the entire allotment lies within the Monument boundary. It ranges in

elevation from 1,260 ft. near Waterman Wash to 3,182 ft. in the North Maricopa Mountains..

Hazen

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Physical Description of the SDNM August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1083

The Hazen allotment (31,926 acres) lies on the northwest side of the Monument. The Gila

River is the western boundary, while the eastern boundary runs through the middle of the North

Maricopa Mountains. The northern boundary is the gas pipeline, and the southern boundary is the

fence along the northern boundary of the Big Horn allotment. Approximately 50 percent of the

entire allotment lies within the Monument boundary. It ranges in elevation from 800 ft. on the

Gila River to 2,493 ft. on Sheep Mountain.

Lower Vekol

The Lower Vekol allotment (15,409 acres) comprises only a small portion of the Monument on the

east side. It stretches from I-8 on the south to the Haley and Booth Hills on the north. The western

portion, which lies mainly in the Monument, is in the South Maricopa Mountains. It ranges in

elevation from around 1,600 ft. near Vekol Wash to 2,600 ft. in the Maricopa Mountains.

Arnold

The Arnold Allotment (1,609 acres) has only a small portion within the north end of the SDNM.

The northern boundary of the allotment in the SDNM is the gas pipeline, and the southern and

western boundaries are the Hazen allotment. The allotment is bordered by the Beloat allotment

on the east.

Table F.1. SDNM Grazing Allotments, Acreage of Public Lands and Permitted Use North

of Interstate 8

Allotment Rangeland Classification

Allotment

Number

Public Land

Acres

% of Public Land

Acres*

Permitted Use

(AUMs*)

Big Horn Perennial-Ephemeral 03009 92,204 95% 2,812**

Beloat Perennial-Ephemeral 03007 33,600 26% 776

Conley Perennial-Ephemeral 03018 77,708 88% 3,403

Hazen Perennial-Ephemeral 03042 31,926 75% 886

Lower Vekol Perennial-Ephemeral 03053 15,409 71% 826

Arnold Ephemeral 03004 1,609 7% 0

Totals N/A

*The acres and AUM percentages were prorated by using inventory data and base water properties instead of

percentage of public land acreage

** This figure represents the prorated remaining portion of the Big Horn allotment after 5,144 acres south of I-8

were made unavailable in 2008.

F.2.2.2. Climate

Precipitation

Precipitation data was collected from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) from two stations: Gila Bend and Maricopa. The 20-year average annual precipitation

for the Gila Bend area is approximately 6.28 inches. The 20-year average for the Maricopa

area is 7.63 inches.

Temperature

Winter temperatures are mild, with the few recorded freezing days lasting for short periods of

time only. Summertime temperatures are hot, with many days in June and July exceeding 105

degrees Fahrenheit. Frost-free days range from 280 days in major river valleys with cold air

drainage to 320-350 days in uplands.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Physical Description of the SDNM
1084 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.2.2.3. Soils

Winter temperatures are mild, with the few recorded freezing days lasting for short periods of

time only. Summertime temperatures are hot, with many days in June and July exceeding 105

degrees Fahrenheit. Frost-free days range from 280 days in major river valleys with cold air

drainage to 320-350 days in uplands.

The Gunsight-Rillito-Denure Map Unit (map unit s399 in Map F-2) occurs on the fan terraces

and is deep, somewhat excessively drained, and nearly level to moderately steep loamy soils.

These soils are deeply dissected by drainages. The ecological sites associated with these soils are

limy fan, limy upland deep, and sandy wash.

The Quilotosa-Rock Outcrop-Momoli Map Unit (map unit s293 in Map F-2) occurs on upper

fan terraces, hills, and mountains. They are shallow to deep, excessively drained, nearly level

to steep, very gravelly loamy soils and rock outcrops. It is mostly granitic mountains and hills.

Ecological sites associated with these soils are limy upland and granitic hills.

The Mohall-Dateland Map Unit (map unit s283 in Map F-2) occurs on fan terraces and basin

floors. They are deep, well drained, nearly level, loamy soils dissected by drainageways.

Ecological sites associated with these soils are limy fan, limy upland deep, sandy wash, and

Loamy Swale.

The Gunsight-Chuckawalla Unit (map unit s288 in Map F-2) is only a small portion of the

Monument near Gila Bend. It occurs on fan terraces dissected by drainageways. They are deep,

well drained, loamy soils. The Chuckawalla soil is characterized by desert pavement on fan

terrace summits between drainages. The ecological sites associated with these soils are limy fan,

limy upland deep, and sandy wash.

F.2.2.4. Watersheds

The SDNM lies within portions of the Santa Cruz River and the Lower Gila River Watersheds.

Sub watersheds include the Vekol Valley, Rainbow Valley, and the Gila Bend units.

F.2.2.5. Water Quality

There are no Section 303d Water Quality Limited Stream Segments within the Monument.

F.2.3. Biological Resources

F.2.3.1. Vegetation

The vegetation existing on any given area of land is a product of two kinds of site factors. One is

the combination of soil, topography, and climate that determines the moisture, temperature, and

nutrient relationships of the site. The other is the natural and land-use history of the location over

time. These factors may include a combination of plant invasions, climatic changes, fire, disease,

animal influences (including grazing animals and predators, as well as insects, soil organisms,

and birds), and human impacts (including livestock grazing, clearing, reseeding, burning, wood

cutting, seed harvest, or other influences, not only since European settlement but extending

back to the beginnings of human occupation).

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Biological Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1085

Changes in vegetation due to environmental factors or management practices may result in

various stable states of vegetation that may not have the potential to return to the “original”

condition. Thus, the vegetation has entered a different relatively stable state. This is called the

state and transition concept (Westoby et al. 1989). In some cases, changes may not be reversible

by removing grazing, or the removal of grazing may lead to a buildup of fine fuels from ephemeral

years that could result in catastrophic fires in plant communities that are not fire-adapted.

The SDNM has three major plant communities: the creosote- bursage desert scrub, the palo

verde-mixed cactus, and the ephemeral wash plant communities. Each of these communities is

described below along with the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) associated

ecological sites.

An ecological site is a distinctive kind of rangeland that differs from other kinds of rangeland in

its ability to produce a characteristic natural plant community.

Creosote- Bursage Desert Scrub (Limy Fan and Limy Upland Deep Ecological Sites):

This community is generally in the lower elevations of the Monument on desert flats and valley

bottoms. Primarily creosote (Larrea tridentata) in the flats with minor amounts of shrubs such

as triangle-leaf bursage (Ambrosia deltoidea) and white or range ratany (Krameria grayi or

erecta) and scattered trees such as little-leaf Palo verde (Parkinsonia microphylla) and ironwood

(Olneya tesota). This community is associated with the limy fan and limy upland deep 7- to 10

inch precipitation zone (p.z.) ecological sites. It comprises approximately 36 percent of the area

covered by the Monument. During periods of above average precipitation these ecological sites

can produce up to several thousands of pounds per acre of ephemeral forage in the form of

annual grasses and forbs.

Palo Verde-Mixed Cactus (Granitic Hills and Limy Upland Ecological Sites):

This vegetative community generally occupies the mountain slopes and upper bajadas. It is a mix

of palo verde, ironwood, and varied shrub species such as triangle-leaf bursage, white bursage

(Ambrosia dumosa), range ratany and white ratany, and a mixed variety of cactus including cholla

species (Cylindropuntia spp.), Engelmann’s hedgehog (Echinocereus engelmannii), and barrel

cactus (Ferocactus spp.). Ocotillos (Fouquieria splendens) also occur in this community. This

community is associated with granitic hills and limy upland 7- to 10-inch precipitation zone

ecological sites. It comprises approximately 42 percent of the Monument with the majority

from the granitic hills.

The highest densities of saguaros (Carnegiea gigantea), referred to as the “saguaro forest,” are

found primarily within these ecological sites.

Ephemeral Wash (Sandy Wash Ecological Site):

This site occurs in larger drainageways that dissect bajadas and desert flats throughout the

Monument. In some cases, the drainage is braided and covers a large surface area. It is a

multi-layered community that contains trees, large shrubs, small shrubs, and forbs. Trees include

blue palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), ironwood, and desert willow (Chilopsis linearis). Common

shrubs include wolfberry (Lycium spp.), desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi), burrobush (Hymenoclea

salsola), and bricklebush (Brickellia coulteri). This community is associated with the sandy wash

ecological sites. It comprises approximately 16 percent of the Monument. During periods of

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Biological Resources
1086 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

above average precipitation, these ecological sites can produce several thousands of pounds of

ephemeral forage per acre.

F.2.3.2. Major Land Resource Areas

The Monument lies within two different major land resource areas (MLRA): The 40-4 MLRA

Lower Sonoran Desert Shrub and the 40-2 MLRA Middle Sonoran Desert Shrub. An MLRA

is a broad geographic area that is characterized by a particular pattern of soils, climate, water

resources, vegetation, and land use. Each MLRA is further divided into ecological sites. The

ecological sites in the Monument are identified in the plant community descriptions above.

F.2.3.3. Wildlife Resources

F.2.3.3.1. Threatened and Endangered Species

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat

The lesser long-nosed bat was listed as endangered in September 1988 without critical habitat

(USFWS 1988). The lesser long-nosed bat consumes high energy nectar, pollen, and fruit

produced by a variety of columnar cacti including saguaro and agaves. The migratory nature of

the lesser long-nosed bat allows it to take advantage of the seasonal availability of these cacti and

agave species. Cactus flowers and fruit are available during the spring and early summer; agave

flowers are available from July through October (BLM unpublished documentation on file).

Lesser long-nosed bats are efficient fliers and are known to fly considerable distances from roost

sites to foraging sites. Foraging areas are areas with sufficient food resources within 40 miles of a

roost site. (See Map F-3). Using this criterion, approximately 57,170 acres in the South Maricopa

Mountains Wilderness and the Booth Hills contain suitable foraging habitat.

The terms and conditions of the biological opinion (BO) for the Lower Gila South RMP (BLM

1998) require that the BLM “maintain current levels of food plants for the bat” and that “grazing

levels will not be increased until it is known that sufficient food plants exist and are being

sustained.”

F.2.3.4. Special Status and Sensitive Species:

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

The cactus ferruginous pygmy owl (CFPO) was listed as endangered under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) on March 10, 1997. Critical habitat was designated in 1999 but did not include

lands within the SDNM. Following a number of lawsuits, the CFPO was de-listed in 2006 (FR 73

(106) 31418-31424). In 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) received a petition

to again list the CFPO under the ESA based on additional information. The USFWS is actively

considering the petition. Currently, the BLM considers the CFPO a special status species.

The cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl has not been documented on the Monument, but potential

and suitable habitat does occur in several locations throughout the Monument, primarily in the

bajadas, the larger drainages, and several larger livestock waters (dirt tanks). These livestock

waters are also important for other wildlife species.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Biological Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1087

The vegetation around four of the larger livestock waters on Conley and Beloat allotments were

identified as potential CFPO habitat. Other livestock waters found on the Big Horn, Lower Vekol,

and other allotments were assessed for CFPO habitat and did not meet the requirements. A few of

the larger livestock waters surrounded by dense vegetation, such as mesquite (Prosopis velutina),

may also be considered suitable habitat. Suitable habitat for this species lies within uplands

and washes of the Arizona upland subdivision below the 4,000 foot elevation (USFWS 1997).

Suitable habitat patches are areas greater than 3 acres in size and consist of braided wash systems

and other densely vegetated areas. Suitable habitat consists of dense thickets of vegetation such

as palo verde, ironwood, mesquite, acacia (Acacia spp.), and saguaro. It contains a diversity of

species and structures of shrubs, cacti, and trees instead of single or very scattered individuals and

contains trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, and saguaro cacti with cavities. The structural

height of vegetation is usually evenly divided in volume or density between herbaceous ground

cover and low shrubs, medium-sized shrubs, and trees. Unsurveyed areas are considered to be

suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl habitat when they include the attributes described above.

Surveys were conducted throughout the SDNM in 2001 and south of I-8 in 2004, following the

protocol developed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD 2000). No pygmy-owls

were detected during those survey efforts.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise

The Sonoran Desert tortoise was listed by the USFWS as a candidate species in November 2010.

It has 152,743 acres of Category I, 22,756 acres of Category II and 4,058 acres of Category III

habitat within the Monument north of Interstate-8. (See Map F-3) Tortoise habitat is associated

with the upper bajadas and ridges (limy upland ecological sites) and rocky slopes (granitic hills

ecological sites). Tortoises will also use caliche caves in washes associated with the upper bajadas

for burrows as well as using the washes as travel ways.

Tucson Shovel-Nosed Snake

The Tucson shovel-nosed snake (Stebbins 1985, Crother 2000) was recently petitioned for listing

as an endangered species by the Center for Biological Diversity. The Tucson shovel-nosed

subspecies is considered regionally vulnerable by The Nature Conservancy (TNC 2004) because

much of its formerly occupied habitat has been altered and appears to be no longer inhabited.

It has a restricted distribution, known only from a small area in Arizona in portions of Pinal,

Maricopa, and Pima counties. This taxon is considered regionally vulnerable because much of its

lowland, valley floor habitat within its restricted range has been cleared or severely impacted by

agricultural and urban development. The greatest abundance of the Tucson shovel-nosed snake in

its entire range is thought to be west of Mobile on the SDNM (P. Rosen, personal comm.).

The shovel-nosed snake is found in areas with soft sandy loams; loose soil; fine, wind-blown

sands (such as in washes); and occasionally on rocky hillsides with pockets of sand among rocks

(Stebbins 1985, Pima County 2001, TNC 2004). The snake requires these deep valley fill soils

for burrowing and nesting. The western shovel-nosed snake utilizes the soil substrate around

creosote bush as foraging habitat (Pima County 2001). Creosote bush also serves as escape

habitat (Stebbins 1985, Pima County 2001).

According to information collected by TNC (2004) the Tucson shovel-nosed snake was found

at sites with soils that had a high percentage (ranging from 49 to 85 percent) of fine sand, silt,

and clay (classified as sandy loams, loamy sands, gravelly-sandy loams, and silty-sandy loams;

P. Rosen, personal comm.). The Tucson shovel-nosed snake was found in areas on the SDNM

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Biological Resources
1088 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

that correspond to creosote bush-bursage desert scrub and xeroriparian scrub (ephemeral wash)

natural communities.

Desert Bighorn Sheep

This BLM and state sensitive species has approximately 177,000 acres of habitat within the

Monument north of I-8. (See Map F-3.) Desert bighorn have been documented from all the

mountain ranges on the SDNM. Important features of desert bighorn habitat are cliffs, rocky

outcrops, and talus slopes which are used as escape terrain. Desert bighorn are closely associated

with palo verde-mixed cacti-mixed scrub vegetation communities on rocky slopes, mountain

uplands, and rock outcrops (granitic hills ecological site). However, desert bighorn sheep move

seasonally between the uplands and bajadas and travel across desert valleys between mountain

ranges.

Desert bighorn forage on green and dried, grasses and forbs, as well as on shoots and flowers of

prickly pear (Opuntia polyacantha), cholla cactus, and succulents (for example, barrel cactus,

agaves). Grasses, including big galleta (Pleuraphis rigida), are important in the northern and

eastern part of their range and are favored when available. Browse becomes more important in the

fall and winter and in the southern and western part of bighorn’s range. Other important browse

species include acacia, palo verde, ironwood, mesquite, fairy duster (Calliandra eriophylla),

Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.), and desert mistletoe (Phoradendron californicum).

Population estimates for the Sand Tank Mountains and the North and South Maricopa Mountains

have been low due to drought conditions from the mid 1990s.

F.2.3.5. General Wildlife:

Wildlife species that populate the various vegetative communities within the SDNM allotments

include, mule deer, coyote, javelina, mountain lion, bobcat, gray fox, kit fox, badger, chuckwalla,

rosy boa, western diamondback, mourning doves, white-winged doves, Gambel’s quail, and

various other reptile, bat, and non-game species.

F.2.4. Special Management Areas

Wilderness

Two wilderness areas occur within the evaluation area. (See Map F-1) The North Maricopa

Wilderness area lies on the north end of the SDNM. It is approximately 63,200 acres in size. The

South Maricopa Wilderness area lies just north of I-8 in the central portion of the SDNM and is

approximately 60,100 acres in size. Both of these wilderness areas provide good to outstanding

opportunities for primitive recreation but are easily accessed via roads and trails.

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (NHT)

The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, designated in 1990, is a 1,200-mile historic trail corridor

extending from Mexico to California. The NHT commemorates the 1775–1776 land route that

Spanish commander Juan Bautista de Anza took in an effort to establish a mission and presidio

near San Francisco Bay. Within the SDNM, this one-mile wide trail corridor is located north of I-8

and runs east-west through the entire Monument. Although this trail has no known surviving trail

signature on the ground, certain segments of the trail that traverse the SDNM are considered to be

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Special Management Areas August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1089

among the best-preserved corridor segments and most representative of the historic trail corridor

conditions. A total of 17 miles traverse the Conley and Big Horn allotments. (See Map F-1)

F.2.5. Recreational Resources

The SDNM provides opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized recreation. Off-highway

vehicle use is restricted to the existing road and trail system. There are several developed

recreation sites within the Monument boundaries. Unauthorized OHV use does occur off-road,

mostly in the larger ephemeral washes and congregation areas. The extent of the impacts this use

has on the vegetative community and wildlife habitat has been steadily increasing in recent years.

F.2.6. Visual Resources

The BLM manages public lands to protect scenic values. The agency developed the visual

resource management (VRM) program to assess and maintain these values. The VRM process

is used to evaluate the scenic quality and lessen the effects of development on the land. The

Monument contains VRM Classes I through IV. Class I areas are afforded the highest protection

of visual resources, whereas Class IV areas are afforded the least.

F.2.7. Cultural Resources

A class 1 literature search was completed, as per BLM manual section 8110.2.A.2. This review

identified previous surveys and known archeological sites or traditional cultural places within

the allotment boundaries.

There are no known archeological sites or traditional cultural properties within areas of

concentrated physical impacts from domestic livestock. There are no known sites that have

been identified as properties of traditional importance by Native American tribes or other

related groups. As a result of the aforementioned information, no mitigation measures have

been required or recommended as a term or condition of the grazing permits north of I-8. This

does not preclude any protective measures deemed necessary to protect future cultural resource

discoveries within an allotment.

F.3. Grazing Management

F.3.1. Grazing History

Livestock grazing in Gila Bend and the surrounding areas began to occur in the late 1700s with

a few Indian rancherias where livestock were confined to the flood plains of the Gila River. At

the time, the river was the only available reliable water source that could support livestock.

Livestock use of the drier valleys and mountains did not occur in the area until the drilling of

wells and development of dirt stock tanks in the early 1900s. The first of these was a dirt stock

tank developed around 1900 in the Little Rainbow Valley just north of the Monument boundary.

The first wells in the area were drilled in Rainbow Valley around 1910 to 1912, one of which was

north of Mobile and provided some livestock access to water within what is now the Monument

boundary. At this time, the only waters in the Vekol Valley consisted of a couple of dirt charcos

that provided temporary water for cattle from the Tohono O’odham people. Ranching operations

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Resources
1090 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

began in the Sand Tank Mountains area in 1917. The first water sources for livestock there

included two hand-dug wells, Lost Horse Tank (earthen) and the development of natural water

sources in Sand Tank Mountains at Sand Tanks and Mesquite Tanks.

The Vekol Valley was not developed for additional livestock use until the 1920s and 1930s.

(Robinett 1997).

F.3.2. Current Management

From 1973 to 1976, the allotments in the SDNM were classified as perennial/ephemeral

rangelands with the exception of the Arnold Allotment, which was classified as ephemeral

only. Perennial-ephemeral range produces perennial forage each year and periodically provides

additional ephemeral vegetation. In a year of abundant moisture and favorable climatic

conditions, annual forbs and grasses add materially to the total grazing capacity.

The permitted use for the allotments is identified in Table F.1, “SDNM Grazing Allotments,

Acreage of Public Lands and Permitted Use North of Interstate 8” (p. 1083). Permitted use is

defined in animal unit months (AUMs) which means the amount of forage necessary for the

sustenance of one cow, or its equivalent, for a period of one month. Ephemeral use may be

authorized in accordance with policy established by Arizona BLM Instruction Memorandum

(IM) AZ-94-018 and the Ephemeral Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. (See

Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing Administration (p. 1253)) Ephemeral ranges lie within the

general southwest desert region extending primarily into southern Arizona, southern California,

and southern Nevada, and include portions of the Mojave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts.

Ephemeral range does not consistently produce forage but periodically provides annual vegetation

suitable for livestock grazing. In years of abundant moisture and other favorable climatic

conditions, a large amount of forage may be produced (from 400 to 2,000 lbs. per acre air dry

weight). Favorable years are highly unpredictable, and the season is usually short-lived. Operators

adjust livestock numbers voluntarily or as requested by the BLM when faced with drought, fire,

etc. Active preference AUMs are adjusted throughout the grazing year (March 1 to February 28)

in response to drier periods or to take advantage of ephemeral forage during wetter periods.

F.3.3. Terms and Conditions of the Current Permits

All of the allotments grazing permits contain the standard terms and conditions listed below in

accordance with provisions of the grazing regulations.

● Grazing permits or lease terms and conditions and the fees charged for grazing use are

established in accordance with all the provisions of the grazing regulations now or hereafter

approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

● They are subject to cancellation, in whole or in part, at any time because of:

○ Noncompliance by the permittee/lessee with rules and regulations,

○ Loss of control by the permittee/lessee of all or a part of the property upon which it is

based,

○ A transfer of grazing preference by the permittee/lessee to another party,

○ A decrease in the lands administered by the BLM within the allotments described,

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Current Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1091

○ Repeated, willful unauthorized grazing use.

● They are subject to the terms and conditions of allotment management plans if such plans

have been prepared. Allotment management plans must be incorporated in permits or leases

when completed.

● Those holding permits or leases must own or control and be responsible for the management

of livestock authorized to graze.

● The permittee’s/lessee’s case file is available for public inspection as required by the Freedom

of Information Act.

● Grazing permits or leases are subject to the nondiscrimination clauses set forth in Executive

Order 11246 of September 24, 1964, as amended. A copy of this order may be obtained

from the authorized officer.

● Grazing permits or leases are subject to the nondiscrimination clauses set forth in Executive

Order 11246 of September 24, 1964, as amended. A copy of this order may be obtained

from the authorized officer.

● Livestock use that is different from that authorized by a permit or lease must be applied for

prior to the grazing period and must be filed with and approved by the authorized officer

before grazing use can be made.

● Billing notices are issued which specify fees due. Billing notices, when paid, become a

part of the grazing permit or lease. Grazing use cannot be authorized during any period of

delinquency in the payment of amounts due, including settlement for unauthorized use.

● Grazing fee payments are due on the date specified on the billing notice and must be paid

in full within 15 days of the due date, except as otherwise provided in the grazing permit or

lease. If payment is not made within that time frame, a late fee (the greater of $25 or 10

percent of the amount owed but not more than $250) will be assessed.

● No member of or delegate to Congress or the Resident Commissioner after his election or

appointment, either before or after he has qualified, or during his continuance in office or

officer, agent, or employer of the Department of the Interior, other than members of advisory

committees appointed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 USC

App. 1) and Sections 309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC

1701 et seq.) shall be admitted to any share or part in a permit or lease or derive any benefit

to arise therefrom; and the provisions of Section 3741 Revised Statutes (41 USC 22; 18

USC Section 431-433, and 43 CFR Part 7), enter into and form a part of a grazing permit or

lease, so far as the same may be applicable.

Other terms and conditions:

● When forage conditions warrant, livestock grazing may be authorized upon application to

utilize an ephemeral forage crop pursuant to federal grazing regulations, special management

requirements, and other guidance.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Terms and Conditions of the Current Permits
1092 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.4. Planning and Environmental Documents

The following documents provide resource condition objectives for public lands within the

SDNM allotments. (See Key Area Data (p. ).) These objectives were used in the development of

the desired resource conditions and DPC objectives for the Monument.

● Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) (1988)

● Resource objectives from the Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public

Lands in Arizona (TP), 1990.

F.5. Rangeland Management Programs Objectives

F.5.1. BLM Objectives

The BLM’s objectives for rangeland management are to carry out the intent of the Taylor Grazing

Act of 1934, as amended and supplemented, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976, and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. This is: 1) to periodically

and systematically inventory public lands and their resources and their present and future use

projected through land use planning processes; 2) to manage public lands on the basis of multiple

use and sustained yield; 3) to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of

scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and

archaeological values; 4) where appropriate, to preserve and protect certain public lands in their

natural condition; 5) to provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; 6) to

provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and 7) to manage, maintain and

improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for

all rangeland values in accordance with management objectives and the land use planning process.

Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 4100 regulations govern grazing administration

for public rangelands. Among other things, the regulations in CFR Part 4180 require the

implementation of land health standards and guidelines for livestock grazing management to

achieve the fundamentals of land health. The regulations at 43 CFR 4100 require that permits and

leases include terms and conditions that ensure conformance with subpart 4180, Fundamentals

of Rangeland Health.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA) provides for two types of authorized use (1) A grazing

permit that is a document that authorizes use of the public lands within an established grazing

district. A grazing district defines the specific area within which the public lands are administered

in accordance with Section 3 of the TGA; (2) A grazing lease is a document authorizing use of

the public lands outside an established grazing district. Public lands outside grazing-district

boundaries are administered in accordance with Section 15 of the TGA.

A permit or lease will include:

● The number and kind of livestock;

● The period(s) of use;

● The allotment(s) to be used; and

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Planning and Environmental Documents August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1093

● The amount of use, in animal unit months (AUMs).

The Special Ephemeral Rule, published December 7, 1968 allows a variance to the mandatory

stipulations above. An ephemeral permit or lease does not specify number and kind of livestock,

period of use, or the amount of use in AUMs. The rule establishes that on applicable grazing

lands, livestock grazing is feasible when certain climatic conditions create favorable conditions

for grazing, primarily on annual vegetation. When these conditions occur, and the permittee or

lessee applies for grazing use, the BLM determines the amount and period of authorized use.

Such use is authorized when forage is available and there is a high probability that the forage will

continue to be available through the period applied for and authorized.

Other terms and conditions may be specified in grazing permits or leases, which will assist in

achieving management objectives, provide for proper range management or assist in the orderly

administration of the public rangelands. These terms and conditions, which are not all inclusive,

are contained at 43 CFR 4130.3.

Terms and conditions for grazing permits and leases must be in conformance with resource

management objectives and program constraints, as identified in land use plans.

BLM allotments in Arizona are classified as perennial, ephemeral, or perennial-ephemeral. These

classifications correspond to the following types of designated rangelands:

● Perennial - rangeland which consistently produces perennial forage to support a year round

livestock operation.

● Ephemeral - rangelands that do not consistently produce enough forage to sustain a year round

livestock operation but may briefly produce unusual volumes of forage to accommodate

livestock grazing. There is a special rule for ephemeral range.

● Perennial-Ephemeral – rangelands that produce perennial forage every year and periodically

provide additional ephemeral vegetation. In a year of abundant moisture and favorable

climatic conditions, annual forbs and grasses add materially to the total grazing capacity.

F.5.2. SDNM Desired Future Conditions

Manage livestock grazing to provide forage for multiple uses while maintaining healthy

ecosystems and protecting the Monument’s biological and cultural resources.

F.5.3. SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site

The land health standards are evaluated by polygons that represent ecological sites. The “health”

of different kinds of rangeland must be judged by standards specific to the potential of the

ecological site. (See Tables 6-12: Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site, which are listed

separately for each allotment below.)

The land health standards and subsequent objectives were quantified to address the objects of

the Monument. See Table F.2, “Land Health Objectives by Monument Object” (p. 1094). The

Monument objects are defined at the landscape level, while biological indicators for the objects

were identified at the site-specific level.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Desired Future Conditions
1094 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Ecological sites within the BGR and Area A were used as comparison areas to help AB quantify

the resource-condition objectives because the areas have not been open to livestock grazing since

the 1940s and meet the desired resource conditions for wildlife habitat and other resource values

at the landscape level. Only the data that could be correlated to ecological sites present in both the

BGR/Area A and the allotments north of I-8 were used as comparison data.

Table F.2. Land Health Objectives by Monument Object

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards

Monument Object: Functioning Desert Ecosystem

See Monument Object: Saguaro Cactus Forest

See Monument Object: Vegetation Communities

Habitat for a wide range of wildlife species (See Monument Object: Wildlife)

Monument Object: Diversity of Plant and Animal Species

Woodland assemblages

Does not occur north of I-8. Occurs in the higher peaks of Table Top and

Sand Tank Mountains.

Land Health Standard 1: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and Hydrologic

Function on Granitic Hills and Limy Upland Ecological Sites.

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation

Community Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover Objective for the Limy

Upland and Granitic Hills Ecological Sites. Palatable Shrub Composition

Objective for the Limy Upland Ecological Sites.

Monument Object: Saguaro Cactus Forests

Land Health Standard 1: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and Hydrologic

Function on Granitic Hills and Limy Upland Ecological Sites - provides

suitable soil and hydrologic conditions for saguaros and nurse plants.

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover Objectives for the

Limy Upland and Granitic Hills Ecological Sites - provides vegetative cover

of nurse plants.

Saguaro cactus and nurse plants

Land Health Standard 3: Saguaro Recruitment Objectives for the Limy

Upland and Granitic Hills Ecological Sites.

Monument Object: Sand Tank Mountains

Sand Tank Mountains Mountain range not in analysis area (located south of I-8)

Monument Object: Scientific Analysis of Plant Species and Climates in Past Eras

Packrat middens

Ancient middens occur in dry caves and rock shelters where they are protected

from moisture. Livestock do not generally utilize areas with dry caves and

rock shelters due to steep, rocky and rough terrain.

Kofa Mountain barberry Does not occur north of I-8

Arizona Rosewood Does not occur north of I-8

Junipers Does not occur north of I-8

Monument Object: Vegetation Communities: Creosote-Bursage, Desert Grassland, and Desert Washes

Land Health Standard 1: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and Hydrologic

Function on Limy Fan, Limy Upland Deep, and/or Sandy loam deep

Creosote-Bursage Vegetation Ecological Sites.

Community (Map F-2) Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover Objectives and

Composition Objectives for the Limy Fan, Limy Upland Deep, and/or Sandy

loam deep Ecological Sites.

Land Health Standard 1: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and Hydrologic

Function on Sandy wash and Loamy swale Ecological Site

Desert Washes (???)

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover and Palatable Shrub

Composition Objectives for the Sandy Wash ecological site, and Vegetative

Canopy Cover and Perennial Grass Composition Objectives for the Loamy

Swale ecological site.

Desert Grassland Does not occur north of I-8

Monument Object: Wildlife*

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1095

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards

Land Health Standard 3: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and

Hydrologic Function on Granitic Hills and Limy Upland Ecological Sites

(Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community).

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover Objectives for the Limy

Upland and Granitic Hills Ecological Sites.

Sonoran Desert Tortoise,

Desert Bighorn Sheep,

Red-Backed Whiptail Lizard,

Elf Owl,

Western Screech Owl,

Mule Deer

Land Health Standard 3: Palatable Shrub Plant Species Composition

Objective for the Limy Upland Ecological Site.

Land Health Standard 1: Assessments of Soil/Site Stability and Hydrologic

Function on Sandy Wash Ecological Site.

Mule Deer,

Elf Owl,

Western Screech Owl,

Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl (not

identified in the proclamation)

Land Health Standard 3: Vegetative Canopy Cover and Palatable Shrub

Composition Objectives for the Sandy Wash ecological site, and Vegetative

Canopy Cover and Perennial Grass Composition Objectives for the Loamy

Swale ecological site, and for Potential Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy Owl

(CFPO) Habitat in the Sandy Wash Ecological Site.

Sonoran Pronghorn Does not occur in the Monument.

Javelina Occurrence of this species north of I-8 in SDNM is unconfirmed.

Mountain Lion

Evaluation of Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation and Washes Communities

(Granitic Hills, Limy upland and Sandy wash ecological sites) addresses

suitable habitat for prey species (i.e. mule deer, Bighorn sheep, rodents, etc.).

Gray Fox

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable habitat for prey

species (i.e. quail, birds, rodents, lizards, etc.).

Bobcat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable habitat for prey

species (i.e. quail, birds, rodents, lizards, etc.).

Lesser Long-Nosed Bat (see above)

Evaluation of saguaro cactus forests conditions and applicable ecological sites

evaluates habitat needs within SDNM, north of I-8, for this species.

California Leaf-Nosed Bat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable forage habitat.

No known roost sites on SDNM (Hinman and Snow, eds.). Forage (insects)

area could occur in the Monument.

Cave Myotis Bat

Evaluation of all vegetative communities addresses suitable forage habitat.

No known roost sites on SDNM (Hinman and Snow, eds.). Forage (insects)

area could occur in the Monument.

Elf Owl (see above)

Evaluation of Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation and Washes Communities

(Granitic Hills, Limy upland and Sandy wash ecological sites) addresses

suitable forage habitat.

Western Screech Owl

(see above)

Evaluation of Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation and Washes Communities

(Granitic Hills, Limy upland and Sandy wash ecological sites) addresses

suitable forage habitat (i.e. small birds, rodents, lizards, insects etc.).

Red-Backed Whiptail Lizard (see

above)

Evaluation of Paloverde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community

(Granitic Hills and Limy upland ecological sites) addresses the habitat needs

for this species.

Sonoran Green Toads

Located in Vekol valley spreader dikes and stock tanks outside SDNM north

of I-8.

Monument Object: Archaeological and Historic Sites

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site
1096 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards

Rock art sites

Three rock art sites are known to exist on the grazing allotments within the

SDNM north of I-8. These sites are all in rocky, upland settings and are not

situated in areas of concentrated livestock use. These sites do not exhibit

evidence of damage from livestock, livestock-management activities, or

range improvements, because the petroglyphs and associated artifacts are on

large, boulder-strewn hillsides and knolls that it would be extremely unlikely

for livestock to access.

Lithic quarries

All sites identified in existing information are located south of I-8 and are no

longer subject to grazing activities.

Scattered Artifacts

A total of 22 of the 41 sites located north of I – 8 on the SDNM are listed as

artifact scatters. Of these 22 artifact scatters, 19 sites have characteristics

that would make them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). None of these known artifact scatters are located within areas of

concentrated livestock use.

Of the 19 artifact scatters that have the characteristics that would make them

eligible for the NRHP, five sites have been documented by the recording

archaeologist as having been affected by grazing. On three of these sites, the

documentation merely mentions grazing generally as an effect, usually among

other effects, with no further information tied to indicators of disturbance to

that site. There is no documentation as to whether any artifacts or features had

been disturbed by grazing.

Two sites were documented with specific indicators of the type and level of

disturbance. One site was documented as having “moderate trampling and

denudation of vegetation.” This was cited as a factor that leads to gradual

erosion. However, the photographs of the site in this documentation do not

show that this is the case. The photograph shows Sonoran Desert vegetation

with typical densities. This photo shows that the ground surface is stable

and is not subject to erosion.

The other site was documented as being disturbed because of “three

well-defined livestock trails that cut across a potential ancient trail near the

northwest end of the site, and general grazing impacts and gradual erosion.”

The line of sight can follow the line of travel and the profile of the probable

prehistoric trail in several places. Artifacts and features have not been

disturbed by the livestock trails. The livestock trails are distinct and visible

in this area due to their distance to a water development (Bosque Well). This

well is roughly 0.75 mile away from the site. Livestock trails have disturbed

roughly 0.4 percent of the ground surface of this site.

Vekol Wash Located south of I-8.

Table Top Mountain bajadas Located south of I-8.

Juan Bautista de Anza NHT

While no visible physical remnants remain of this historic trail, later trails

utilized the same corridor used by Anza. The historic trail corridor, as

identified by the National Park Service, varies in width depending on the

information found in the diaries. The historic setting of this trail is an area 3

miles wide, or up to the visual horizon, whichever is less. The livestock water

developments in the area -- Gap Tank, Conley Tank, North Tank, and North

Tank Well -- all lie within this historic setting.

The line of sight for a trail user is undisturbed as one can see where the trail

corridor continues ahead. This trail is 1,200 miles long -- from the border

with modern Mexico to the San Francisco Bay area -- with roughly 17 miles

within the SDNM. Of the four water developments on the SDNM where

livestock usage is concentrated, the area at North Tank is the only one where

effects from grazing activities disturbs the setting. The area where livestock

use has reduced the vegetation is about 10 acres in size, amounting to 1,300

linear feet of the trail corridor.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1097

Biological Indicator Applicable Standards

The Anza NHT story involves driving 1,000 head of livestock and 300 people

mounted on horseback along this trail when it was originally used. Thus,

livestock may be viewed as compatible with authentic Anza NHT setting.

Mormon Battalion Trail

The Mormon Battalion Trail is an historic route with well documented

physical features and attributes. It has the characteristics that would make

it eligible for the NRHP. This trail experiences direct disturbance from the

congregation of livestock at North Tank. The area of direct impact amounts

to about 800 linear feet of trail signature from trampling the trail ruts, berms,

and vegetation that grows along the berms. The Mormon Battalion Trail is

about 1,850 miles long, 17 miles of which are within the SDNM boundaries.

The area at North Tank where direct effects from grazing activities disturbs

the setting is about 10 acres in size.

Butterfield Overland Stage Route

The Butterfield Overland Stage Route, like the Mormon Battalion Trail, is a

historic route with well documented physical features and attributes. It has

the characteristics that would make it eligible for the NRHP. Several other

historic sites are associated with this historic route within the SDNM. This

trail experiences direct disturbance from the congregation of livestock at

North Tank.

The area of direct disturbance amounts to approximately 800 linear feet of

trail signature from trampling the trail ruts, berms, and vegetation that grows

along the berms. The Butterfield Overland Stage Route is about 2,800 miles

long, 17 miles of which is located within the SDNM boundaries. The area at

North Tank where direct impacts from grazing activities disturbs the setting is

about 10 acres in size.

Other Archaeological & Historic

sites

A total of 14 out of the 41 sites recorded on the SDNM north of I-8 can be

categorized as “other archaeological and historic sites.” These include nine

historic sites related to railroad, ranching, or travel routes.

The only sites documented to have impacts related to grazing are along the

Butterfield Overland Stage Route and the Mormon Battalion Trail immediately

next to North Tank. These sites are entirely located within the 15 acres

that were identified above as having been used by livestock historically,

diminishing the vegetation. A protective fence installed in 1995 has been

helpful in reducing disturbances from grazing and human activities on this

site. Human activities have been so intense in this area that the causal factor

for the level of disturbance in this area cannot be blamed on one activity

alone. Unauthorized collection of artifacts, for instance, has been occurring

over the years.

F.5.3.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Objective:

● Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal and are appropriate for the site as indicated by

ground cover (litter, rock, vegetative [canopy] cover, etc.) and signs of erosion. This objective

applies to all ecological sites. A departure from the ecological site description or reference

sheet of moderate or greater would not be achieving the standard. A departure of none to

slight or slight to moderate is considered achieving the standard.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site
1098 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Achievement of Standard 1 (appropriate erosion and vegetative cover levels) will ensure

properly functioning watersheds and ecological processes in order to sustain healthy biotic

populations and communities (biological objects of the Monument).

F.5.3.2. Land Health Standard 2 — Riparian — Wetland Site

Riparian-wetland areas are in proper functioning condition.

There are no riparian areas located within the Monument; therefore, this land health standard was

not applicable and was not evaluated.

F.5.3.3. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resource Conditions

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

Productive and diverse uplands are paramount to the Monument’s biological resource goals

and objectives. The desired resource conditions will address the land health indicators for

the Monument’s biological objects and, when achieved, will ensure that the ecosystem is in

functioning condition. Desired resource conditions are not identified by several stages. They

identify the vegetation attributes, such as composition, structure, and cover, which are desired

within the Monument. These include establishing vegetative characteristics necessary for soil

protection and providing forage and habitat for both wildlife and livestock. Site potentials (soil,

climate, topography) of the ecological sites establish the natural limits on what can be produced

in terms of vegetation and related resource values like forage, wildlife habitat, and watershed

characteristics.

The criterion for meeting desired resource conditions is achievement of or conditions leading to

the DPC objectives.

● The DPC objectives are specific to each ecological site and based on comparison area data

collected from the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BGR) and Area “A” by Pacific Biodiversity

Institute (PBI) and the BLM.

● These data were analyzed along with information from the National Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Descriptions and reference sheets to estimate the potential or

capability of the site to produce different kinds and amounts of vegetation so that the DPC

objectives are realistic in terms of what is possible to achieve. Due to the variability within

an ecological site the average value for each attribute tied to the indicators for land health

were used to quantify the DPC objectives.

● All key areas will be measured against the ecological site DPC objectives (see Conclusions).

The objectives will be used to determine whether standards for land health are being achieved

or not achieved, and if not achieved, is significant progress being made toward achievement.

F.5.3.4. Ecological Site-Level Desired Plant Community Objectives

F.5.3.4.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Sites

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 34 percent

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1099

● Maintain composition of palatable browse species at 14 percent

Rationale:

Based on the site potential, canopy cover at 34 percent should provide sufficient cover to

support wildlife and bird species (elf owl, western screech owl, mule deer, quail, etc.) and

prevent accelerated erosion of the site. Maintaining composition of palatable species (see Key

Management Species List (p. )) at 14 percent should provide adequate habitat and forage for

wildlife and livestock. No more than 7 percent composition of the 14 percent composition will be

allowed for wolfberry species (wolfberry species provide only limited seasonal forage for both

livestock and some wildlife species).

F.5.3.4.2. Potential Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Habitat (Sandy Wash

Ecological Site)

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 14 percent

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 40 percent with a multi-layered structure present.

Multi-layered structure as represented by:

○ Trees - ironwood, blue palo verde, mesquite (tree form)

○ Tall shrubs – catclaw, wolfberry, burrobush, big bursage (Ambrosia ambrosioides)

○ Low shrubs, forbs, annuals, i.e., white ratany, desert globemallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua)

Rationale:

Maintaining vegetative canopy cover at 40 percent and a multi-layered structure will provide

sufficient cover and structure to support cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. Total vegetative canopy

cover of 40 percent is identified in the sandy wash 7- to 10-inch precipitation zone ecological site

description as potential for the site.

Maintaining composition of palatable browse (See Key Management Species List (p. )) at 14

percent will maintain habitat and forage for wildlife. No more than 7 percent composition of the

14 percent 6 composition will be allowed for wolfberry species (wolfberry species provide only

limited seasonal forage for both livestock and wildlife).

Ecological site data collected from BGR/Area A comparison areas indicated no perennial grass

component in the sandy wash ecological site. (See Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots (p. ).)

It was determined that setting a DPC objective for perennial grass could not be quantified.

F.5.3.4.3. Loamy Swale Ecological Site:

● Maintain perennial grasses at 10 percent composition,

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 20 percent.

Rationale:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site
1100 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Maintaining composition of perennial grasses at 10 percent or more will provide forage for

wildlife and livestock. Appropriate canopy cover levels will prevent accelerated erosion and

provide cover for wildlife.

F.5.3.4.4. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent.

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Rationale:

Maintaining the ratany-bursage functional group, which consists of range ratany, white ratany,

white bursage, and triangle-leaf bursage, on this site provides habitat for wildlife and forage for

livestock. Appropriate vegetative cover levels will prevent accelerated erosion and provide

cover for wildlife.

F.5.3.4.5. Limy Upland Deep Ecological Site:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 10 percent.

● Maintain the ratany-bursage functional group at 12 percent of total composition.

Rationale:

Maintaining the ratany-bursage functional group, which consists of range ratany, white ratany,

white bursage and triangle leaf bursage, on this site provides habitat for wildlife and forage for

livestock. Appropriate vegetative cover levels will prevent accelerated erosion and provide

cover for wildlife.

F.5.3.4.6. Limy Upland Ecological Site:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 12 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 5 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Rationale:

Maintaining palatable browse (See Key Management Species List (p. )) will ensure perennial

forage for livestock and wildlife. This community provides habitat for bighorn sheep, desert

tortoise, mule deer, red-backed whiptail lizard, elf owl, western screech owl and other bird

and wildlife species. Appropriate vegetative cover levels will prevent accelerated erosion of

ecological sites (See NRCS ecological reference worksheets) and provide for wildlife habitat.

Maintaining the current recruitment rate for saguaros of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot (see Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study (p. )) is appropriate for this

ecological site north of I-8. Recruitment of saguaros is necessary to maintain CFPO and other owl

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1101

nesting sites and lesser long-nose bat feeding areas. The potential saguaro population varies by

elevation, aspect, precipitation, and soil type.

The highest densities of saguaros, referred to as the “saguaro forest” in the Monument

Proclamation, are found primarily within the limy upland and granitic hills ecological sites.

Maintaining vegetative canopy cover on the site will provide nurse plants for saguaros. The limy

upland ecological site is where livestock use in the “saguaro forest” is most likely to occur.

F.5.3.4.7. Granitic Hills Ecological Site:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 16 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of .83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Rationale:

This community provides habitat for bighorn sheep, desert tortoise, mule deer, red-backed

whiptail lizards, and other wildlife species. Based on slope, terrain, and other limiting factors,

livestock do not utilize the majority of this ecological site, particularly during the warmer

months. Appropriate vegetative cover levels will prevent accelerated erosion, provide cover for

wildlife, and provide nurse plants for saguaros. Maintaining the current recruitment rate for

saguaros of 0.83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter radius plot (see Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Saguaro Study (p. )) is appropriate for this ecological site located north of I-8. The BGR/Area

A saguaro study, which had a recruitment rate of 1.26 young saguaros per plot, conducted by

PBI, was located primarily in the volcanic hills 7- to 10-inch and 10- 13-inch precipitation zone

ecological sites, with the data being combined from both sites. The saguaro stem count values in

the BGR/Area A plots could potentially be greater due to the difference in the ecological sites and

increased precipitation. Recruitment of saguaros is necessary to maintain CFPO nesting sites

and lesser long-nose bat feeding areas. The potential saguaro population varies by elevation,

aspect, precipitation, and soil type. Comparison area data and the ecological site guide indicate

this site has low potential for agave species.

F.5.3.4.8. Sandy Loam Deep Ecological Site:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 15 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 16 percent.

Rationale:

Maintaining palatable browse (see Key Management Species List (p. )) will ensure perennial

forage for livestock and wildlife. This community provides habitat for bighorn sheep, desert

tortoise, mule deer, and other wildlife species. Appropriate vegetative cover levels will prevent

accelerated erosion of ecological sites (See NRCS ecological reference worksheets). This site

only occurs as a minor inclusion within the Monument; however, it is within the service use area

of the Big Horn station livestock water on the Big Horn allotment.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

SDNM Land Health Objectives by Ecological Site
1102 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.5.4. Utilization Guidelines

Monument utilization guidelines were quantified for the purposes of addressing future

management actions. Utilization, along with other monitoring data, is a useful indicator to

ascertain whether or not current livestock grazing is a significant causal factor for not achieving a

land health standard. For example, consistently high levels of utilization over a period of years

may indicate that livestock-grazing management practices or levels of use may need to be adjusted.

Utilization guidelines for the SDNM are as follows:

● Manage for slight use (20 percent or less) of current year’s growth on key perennial forage

species in wilderness areas,

● Manage for moderate use (40 percent or less) of current year’s growth on key perennial

browse species outside of wilderness areas,

● Manage for moderate use (45 percent or less) of current year’s growth on key perennial

grass species outside of wilderness areas.

The utilization guidelines addressed are intended to indicate a level of use or desired stocking rate

to be achieved over a period of years. “Desert forage plants can sustain about 40 percent use of

annual herbage production” (Holechek et al. 1999). Levels of utilization exceeding 40 percent on

shrubs may exceed the threshold for maintenance or improvement in the growth and reproduction

of the key forage species and have a long-term effect on vegetation canopy cover and composition.

These guidelines are intended to be met over the long term and not on a year-to-year basis. These

measurements, when properly timed and conducted using appropriate methods and sampling

procedures, can be used as an aid in:

● Analyzing distribution of animal use on a management unit,

● Interpreting cause-and-effect relationships for observed changes in resource attributes such as

soil cover, species composition, residual cover, etc.,

● Adjusting stocking rates or timing of grazing when used in conjunction with other monitoring

information.

Utilization and residue measurements are not terms and conditions or desired resource condition

objectives. They are monitoring and assessment tools used with other information in evaluating

whether desired resource conditions are being achieved.

F.6. Inventory and Monitoring Methodology

F.6.1. Rangeland Survey

A rangeland soil and vegetation survey was completed for all allotments within what is now the

SDNM in 1981 as part of the planning effort for the Lower Gila South RMP/EIS. Data were

collected for the survey from 1979 to 1981. The BLM’s rangeland inventory method and the Soil

Conservation Service’s (NRCS) methods were used for determining range condition and apparent

trend. For the purposes of this evaluation, the rangeland survey production data from several

locations was applied to the current ecological site descriptions to determine a similarity index.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Utilization Guidelines August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1103

F.6.2. Key Areas

Key areas were established by an interdisciplinary team on the SDNM allotments beginning in

2004. (See Map F-4,) A key area is a relatively small portion of an allotment selected because of

its location, proximity to water, livestock and wildlife habitat values, and value as a long-term

monitoring point. They are located in each of the major pastures and are selected in locations

that represent where livestock grazing pressure is occurring across the management area and

include representations of all major ecological sites. Data collected from 36 key areas were

used for this evaluation.

For collecting monitoring data, a 40- by 40 square cm frame with a point in the center was used

to collect between 100 and 200 quadrats of data for various attributes at each key area. The

dry-weight-rank technique was used to collect production and relative composition. Cover

data were collected by using the point-cover technique with the frame-center point. Species

composition was calculated using the production data. These monitoring methods are described

in BLM Technical Reference-1734-4, “Sampling Vegetation Attributes” (U.S. Department of the

Interior, 1996).

Land Health

The upland health of several key areas was evaluated using the BLM Rangeland Health Evaluation

Site Documentation Worksheet. (For detailed results, see Attachment 3 – Key Area Data.)

This assessment is a qualitative and quantitative approach to look at how the ecological processes

on a site are functioning. The product of the qualitative assessment is not a single rating of land

health, but an assessment of three components called attributes. The attributes are:

● Soil/site stability,

● Hydrologic function,

● Biotic integrity.

These observed attributes are placed into one of five categories depending on the degree of

departure from the ecological site description or reference area. Summing all of the attributes

makes a final upland health determination. The five categories are:

1. Extreme,

2. Moderate to extreme,

3. Moderate,

4. Slight to moderate,

5. None to slight.

Soil/site stability is the capacity of the site to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources

(including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water. Hydrologic function is the capacity of

the site to capture, store, and safely release water from rainfall, runoff, and snowmelt and to resist

reduction in this capacity and recover from disturbance. Biotic integrity is the capacity of the

site to support characteristic functional and structural vegetation communities and to resist loss

due to disturbance and recover following disturbance. Functional groups are species of similar

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Key Areas
1104 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

importance. Methods for the LHE are described in BLM Technical Reference 1734-6, Version 3,

“Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health” (2000).

The Indicators of Rangeland Health Assessment is a qualitative approach to examine how the

ecological processes on a site are functioning. The product of the qualitative assessment is not

a single rating of rangeland health, but an assessment of three components called attributes.

Seventeen interrelated indicators are used in the assessment. The rating for each indicator in the

evaluation area is based on that indicator’s degree of departure from the Reference Sheet of each

Ecological Site (i.e. none to slight, slight to moderate, moderate, moderate to extreme, and

extreme). Refer to Table F.3, “Rangeland Health Attributes” (p. 1104) for the Indicators of

Rangeland Health assessment.

Table F.3. Rangeland Health Attributes

Soil/Site Stability

The capacity of the site to limit redistribution and loss of soil resources

(including nutrients and organic matter) by wind and water. Indicators

are ground cover and signs of erosion.

Hydrologic Function

The capacity of the site to capture, store and safely release water from

rainfall, runoff and snowmelt, to resist reduction in this capacity and

recover from disturbance.

Biotic Integrity

The capacity of the site to support characteristic functional and structural

vegetation communities and to resist loss due to disturbance and recover

following disturbance. Indicators are vegetation composition, structure,

and distribution.

Source: Technical Reference 1734-6

Utilization studies

Utilization data were collected in the Conley and Big Horn allotments at several of the key areas

in 2008 and 2009 using the Key Species Method found in BLM Technical Reference 1734-3,

“Utilization Studies and Residual Measurements” (1996). See Table F.7, “Utilization Estimates

on Key Areas Within the Big Horn and Conley Allotments” (p. 1106). The landscape appearance

method found in this technical reference was used to map out zones of utilization for use-pattern

mapping throughout the Monument. This method is used to identify use patterns in order to plan

for range improvements and identify necessary changes in grazing management to improve

distribution. When interpreting these data, the amount of utilization observed at each location was

less important than the overall use patterns across the allotment.

F.6.3. Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site Data

In 2002 Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) was subcontracted by The Nature Conservancy

through an assistance agreement with the BLM to collect data within the Monument. Estimates of

vegetative canopy cover by species were collected on 12.5 meter radius plots (approximately 0.12

acres). This was designed to be used as baseline information to help assess changes and trends

in the condition of the natural communities. Analysis of the applicable vegetative community

data for 48 study sites (interchangeably referred to as plots) is included in this evaluation. The

study design was a linear transect extending out from a disturbance site (livestock waters, etc.).

The first plot was located within the disturbance, the second 50 meters from the disturbance; the

third 100 meters, and the fourth 500 meters. Several additional plots were located at further 500

meter intervals from the disturbance. For the purposes of this evaluation, only plots located at

1,000 meters (.62 miles) or more from the disturbance sites were used. PBI study sites that were

located close to livestock waters were not used because these areas are not representative of what

is occurring within the larger area. In addition, some study sites that crossed multiple ecological

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1105

sites were not used. Depending on the location and position on the landscape, PBI study sites

were analyzed to address vegetation attributes specific to wildlife habitat (bighorn sheep) values.

In some instances, these sites were located in areas that receive no livestock use or negligible

livestock use. Data were also collected by PBI in the Barry M. Goldwater Range (BGR) and the

southern portion of Area A. (See Map F-4). Historical records indicate that livestock use in this

area has been recently absent or relatively light.

F.7. Management Evaluation and Summary of Studies Data

F.7.1. Actual Use

Actual livestock use data were ascertained from past permitted use. The 10-year average livestock

use has varied from year to year due to annual fluctuations in forage conditions and ephemeral

operations. Operators have voluntarily removed livestock as requested by the BLM during drier

periods. In some cases, the operators have applied for non-use and reactivated use in the same

grazing year as conditions improved. The data in Table F.4, “Grazing Allotment Use, Permitted

and 10 Year Average” (p. 1105) below is presented allotment-wide on Public Lands within the

Planning Area as actual use data is not available by Decision Area.

Table F.4. Grazing Allotment Use, Permitted and 10 Year Average

Allotment # Allotment name Type Permitted Use (AUMs)

10-Year Average

Permitted Use*

3009 Big Horn cattle 6,104 5,659

3007 Beloat cattle 2,988 2,262

3018 Conley cattle 4,158 3,821

3053 Lower Vekol cattle 1,164 528

3042 Hazen cattle 1,181 1,066

3004 Arnold cattle 0 N/A**

* Average use based on paid grazing bills, 1998-2007

**The Arnold allotment is ephemeral use only

F.7.2. Precipitation

Precipitation data for the Monument were acquired from the Western Regional Climate Center

monitoring sites located in Gila Bend and Maricopa. The 20-year average annual precipitation for

the Gila Bend area is approximately 6.28 inches. The precipitation by month for the period of

1999 to 2008 is shown in Table F.5, “Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Gila Bend, Arizona,

1999 to 2008” (p. 1105). The average for this period was 6.16 inches. Extremes in precipitation

include a low of 2.90 inches in 2002 and a high of 10.61 inches in 2003. The 20-year average

precipitation for the Maricopa area is 7.63 inches. The precipitation by month for the period of

1999 to 2008 is shown in Table F.6, “Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Maricopa, Arizona,

1999 to 2008” (p. 1106). The average for this period was 6.57 inches. Extremes in precipitation

include a low of 3.07 inches in 2002 and a high of 8.07 inches in 2005.

Table F.5. Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Gila Bend, Arizona, 1999 to 2008

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN.

1999 0.20 0.11 0.04 1.15 0.01 0.15 2.45 2.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.25

2000 0.08 0.12 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.02 0.84 0.00 2.22 0.80 0.00 6.13

2001 1.57 0.76 0.55 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.13 1.33 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.50 5.08

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Management Evaluation and Summary of

Studies Data
1106 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN.

2002 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.21 0.30 1.79 0.39 2.90

2003 1.37 2.06 0.90 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.85 2.46 0.00 1.29 0.50 10.61

2004 0.60 0.86 0.29 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.51 0.00 1.30 0.66 1.54 8.13

2005 1.28 2.46 0.50 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.33 1.14 0.11 0.32 0.00 0.00 6.31

2006 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.57 0.58 0.05 0.00 0.31 3.18

2007 0.01 0.08 0.64 0.14 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.64 0.21 0.00 0.80 1.30 5.04

2008 1.57 0.90 0.00 0.00 2.20 0.00 0.82 1.45 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.76 7.97

Yearly

Avg.

0.67 0.74 0.58 0.32 0.22 0.04 0.76 0.94 0.38 0.43 0.55 0.53 6.16

Table F.6. Average Precipitation (in Inches) for Maricopa, Arizona, 1999 to 2008

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN.

1999 0.02 0.34 0.50 1.05 0.00 0.02 2.45 0.54 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.82

2000 0.00 0.01 2.24 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.25 1.49 0.02 2.22 0.57 0.00 8.01

2001 2.04 0.40 0.97 1.19 0.00 0.08 0.63 0.37 0.00 0.68 0.25 0.78 7.39

2002 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.09 1.71 0.04 0.54 0.37 3.07

2003 0.50 1.34 0.22 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.52 1.03 0.47 0.04 0.63 0.26 5.10

2004 1.28 0.92 0.57 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.30 0.71 0.67 0.70 1.65 8.05

2005 2.08 3.55 1.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.86 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.01 8.07

2006 0.00 0.00 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.21 0.82 0.71 0.31 0.00 0.34 6.22

2007 0.58 0.23 1.23 0.12 0.33 0.00 0.69 1.56 0.40 0.00 0.81 0.00 5.95

2008 1.13 0.55 0.00 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.67 1.26 0.30 0.00 0.34 1.05 7.01

Yearly

Avg.

0.77 0.73 0.94 0.32 0.2 0.15 0.75 0.83 0.62 0.41 0.38 0.45 6.57

F.7.3. Key Area Data

See Key Area Data (p. ) and Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots (p. ).

F.7.4. Utilization and Use Pattern Mapping

See Map F-5.

The majority of livestock use occurred during the 2008 winter/spring season, which is typical of

most years. Additional years of utilization data needs to be collected; however, 2008 does reflect

patterns of use during a year with slightly above to average winter/spring precipitation levels and

moderate ephemeral production. Ephemeral forage production per acre was approximately 400 to

500 lbs. air dry weight per acre. In years of above average moisture, these sites are capable of

producing up to 2,000 lbs. air dry weight per acre.

Use-pattern mapping data were not collected on the Hazen allotment for livestock use as livestock

have not been on the allotment for several years. The use-pattern mapping was collected for

wildlife use around two wildlife waters located within the allotment.

Table F.7. Utilization Estimates on Key Areas Within the Big Horn and Conley Allotments

Big Horn Key Area Utilization – 2008

Key Area Key Species % Use Utilization Class

BH 2 White ratany 19% Slight

White ratany 24% Light

BH 3

Burrobrush 13% Slight

BH 5(W)* White ratany 39% Light

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1107

Big galleta 26% Light

BH 6(W)* Burrobrush 42% Moderate

White bursage 27% Light

Conley Key Area Utilization -- 2008

Key Area Key Species % Use Utilization Class

White bursage 14% Slight

C 5

Burrobrush 29% Light

C 7 (W)* Burrobrush 13% Slight

White ratany 31% Light

C 9

White bursage 9% Slight

Conley Allotment Utilization Study Sites

Site Key Species % Use Utilization Class Year

White ratany 14% Slight 2009

CU 2

White bursage 12% Slight 2009

CU 3 White ratany 12% Slight 2009

CU 4 White ratany 49% Moderate 2009

Burrobrush 18% Slight 2008

CU 5

Globemallow 24% Light 2008

CU 6 White ratany 34% Light 2008

CU7 White ratany 40% Light 2008

White ratany 23% Light 2008

CU8 (W)*

Burrobrush 35% Light 2008

White ratany 43% Moderate 2008

CU10

White bursage 26% Light 2008

*W - signifies wilderness area location

F.8. Conclusions

Conclusions are supported by the analysis of key area and PBI data, and information portrayed

within the evaluation to show whether land health standards are being achieved or not achieved

and whether significant progress towards achievement is being made. Conclusions are presented

only for Arizona Standards 1 and 3. For Standard 1, conclusions are summarized to the allotment

level for each allotment across all ecological sites. For Standard 3, conclusions are first

summarized to each ecological site within each allotment, and then summarized to the allotment

level for each allotment. Refer to ??? for the various management objectives for each ecological

site. Referring to the raw data in Key Area Data (p. ) and Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study

Plots (p. ) will aid in interpreting and verifying the conclusions presented.

Achievement of Standard 3 considers the inherent variability within ecological site potential.

Data variability was considered when making the final determination whether or not a site is

achieving Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement

of the objective, the site was considered achieving the objective if the canopy cover or the

composition vegetative attributes measured were within 80 percent of the attribute value.

The final determination of whether or not an ecological site is achieving Standard 3 was based

on a preponderance of evidence approach. More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots

representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the DPC objectives for the ecological

site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard 3. This approach was used because a

statistical approach was not feasible, as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each ecological

site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Conclusions
1108 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.9. Barry M. Goldwater Range/Area A Reference Site

In 1941, 78,000 acres (formerly known as Area “A”) were withdrawn for the BGR for military

purposes. It was later returned to the BLM and was not reopened to grazing use. Ecological sites

within the BGR/Area A were used as comparison areas to help quantify the resource-condition

objectives because, being closed to livestock grazing since the 1940s, they meet the desired

resource conditions for wildlife habitat and other resource values at the landscape level. Only

the data that could be correlated to ecological sites present in both the BGR/Area A and the

allotments north of I-8 were used as comparison data.

Table F.8. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site –

BGR/Area A

Meets St.

3*

Ecological

site

Key area/

PBI site

Canopy

cover

objective

Actual

canopy

cover

Composition

objective

Actual

composition

Achieved

canopy

cover**

Achieved

composition**

233 34% 38% 14% 7% Y N

252 34% 47.5% 14% 8% Y N

262 34% 23.5% 14% 17% N Y

271 34% 26% 14% 16% N Y

N Sandy wash

BHPP3S 34% 50% 14% 10% Y N

236 7% 6.5% 9% 0% Y N

237 7% 8% 9% 0% Y N

240 7% 8% 9% 12% Y Y

N Limy Fan

BHPP2S 7% 13% 9% 28% Y Y

269 10% 18% 12% 12% Y Y

272 10% 17% 12% 0% Y N

234 10% 8% 12% 37% Y Y

Y

Limy

Upland

deep

BHPP1S 10% 10% 12% 45% Y Y

Y Granitic

Hills

232 16% 16.0% N/A N/A Y N/A

*More than 50% of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the desired

plant community objectives, for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving land health

standard 3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether land health standard 3 was

achieved. This approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and

PBI plots on each ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination of whether or not a site is

achieving LH Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective,

if the canopy cover and/or the composition vegetative attributes measured were within 80% of the attribute value,

the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.10. Big Horn Allotment

F.10.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Big Horn allotment meet Standard 1.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Barry M. Goldwater Range/Area A Reference Site August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1109

Objective: Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to

soil type, climate, and landform (ecological site).

Rationale:

The findings are based upon the preponderance of evidence of all indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1.

The results of the upland assessment indicate a slight departure from the ecological site

descriptions, with only one site in the slight to moderate category (see soil/site stability and

hydrologic function attributes for Big Horn allotment in Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological

Site Description” (p. 1159)). The majority of the key areas and PBI plots (23 of 28) had vegetative

cover levels that are appropriate for the site (see Table F.9, “Attainment of Objectives by Key

Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big Horn Allotment” (p. 1113)) and the qualitative

assessments of the soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns, pedestals, bare ground, gullies, litter

movement, and soil compaction etc.) did not indicate any signs of accelerated erosion at any

site. PBI cover data indicates that microbiotic crusts are at appropriate levels in relation to the

BGR/Area A comparison area (see microbiotic crust cover data in Table F.19, “Average Cover of

Microbiotic Crusts (% by Plot)” (p. 1161)).

F.10.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

F.10.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.10.2.1.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Site

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the sandy wash ecological site is achieving Standard

3. All seven sites achieve the canopy cover objectives and the palatable browse objective. The

results of use-pattern mapping was light to moderate use and do not indicate that current livestock

management is the causal factor on the sites that are not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain sandy washes at 34 percent canopy cover. (applies to six sites: Key Areas BH-1 and

BH-4 and PBI sites 190 192, 202 and 203),

● Maintain canopy cover at 40 percent for the potential CFPO sandy wash sites (applies to

Key Area BH-8),

● Maintain sandy washes at 14 percent composition of palatable browse (all seven sites).

Discussion:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1110 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The canopy cover objective is being achieved or exceeded on all seven sites (see Table 8:

Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big Horn Allotment).

All of the vegetative components that form a multi-layered structure are present for potential

CFPO and other wildlife habitat. The tree layer is represented by blue palo verde and ironwood,

the tall shrub layer is represented by catclaw acacia, desert hackberry, and wolfberry, and the

low shrub layer is represented by big bursage, triangle-leaf bursage, and bricklebush. There

were no signs of accelerated erosion at any site (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological

Site Description” (p. 1159)).

All seven sites achieve or exceed the palatable browse composition objective (see Table 8).

F.10.2.1.2. Loamy Swale Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Standard 3 is being met for the loamy swale ecological site.

Objectives:

● Maintain perennial grasses at 10 percent composition,

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 20 percent.

Discussion:

Data from the loamy swale key area (BH-7) shows that the objectives are being achieved with

perennial grasses at 13 percent composition and vegetative cover at 36 percent (Table 8).

F.10.2.1.3. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy fan ecological site is meeting Standard 3.

Two sites are achieving both objectives and one site is not achieving the objectives. Utilization

levels on key species at Key Area BH-2 were slight to light (less than 40 percent) in 2008,

and use-pattern mapping was at moderate use. This does not indicate that current livestock

management is the causal factor on the sites that are not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Data from Key Area BH-3 (11 percent) and PBI study site 58 (8 percent) indicate that both

achieve the canopy cover objective. Key area BH-2 is close to achieving the objective at 5

percent canopy cover. Key area BH-3 and PBI study site 58 achieve the objective of 9 percent

composition for the ratany-bursage shrub group. BH-2 does not achieve the objective at 6 percent

(see Table F.9, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big

Horn Allotment” (p. 1113)).

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1111

F.10.2.1.4. Limy Upland Deep Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy upland deep ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. Only two of the five sites are achieving both objectives, and three sites are achieving

only one of two objectives. Long-term trend data are not available to ascertain whether significant

progress towards achievement is being made. Use-pattern mapping indicates 0-5 percent use on

key species at PBI sites 59 and 60 (see Map F-5) and indicate that current livestock management

is not the causal factor on the sites that are not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 10 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 12 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Key area BH-5 and PBI study site 61 achieve the canopy cover objective. Key areas BH-13 and

PBI sites 59 and 60 do not achieve the canopy cover objective. There were no indications of

accelerated erosion at any of the sites.

Key areas BH-5 and BH-13 and all three PBI study plots achieve the objective of 12 percent

composition in the ratany-bursage shrub group (see Table 8).

F.10.2.1.5. Limy Upland Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy upland ecological site is achieving Standard

3. Both sites achieve all three objectives. Use-pattern mapping indicates negligible livestock

utilization.

Objectives:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 12 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse species at 5 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Key areas BH-9 and BH-12 are achieving the canopy cover objective at 12 percent and 14 percent.

Both key areas achieve the palatable browse composition objective at 5 percent and 4 percent.

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.96 stems

per plot which achieves the objective (see Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study (p. )).

Young saguaros are defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short stems in

Attachment 5.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1112 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.10.2.1.6. Sandy Loam Deep Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Standard 3 is being achieved for the sandy loam deep ecological site. The key area achieves both

objectives. Use-pattern mapping indicates light utilization and key area utilization was at light use

for two key species and moderate (42 percent) use for one key species.

Objectives:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 15 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 16 percent.

Discussion:

Data from the sandy loam deep (BH-6) key area shows that the site is meeting the objective for

palatable browse at 16 percent composition and achieves the canopy cover objective at 13 percent

(see Table F.9, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big

Horn Allotment” (p. 1113)). Utilization levels in 2008 on key species at Key Area BH-6 were

light on big galleta (26 percent) and white bursage (27 percent) and moderate on burrobrush (42

percent). The wilderness area objective of 20 percent was exceeded (see Table F.7, “Utilization

Estimates on Key Areas Within the Big Horn and Conley Allotments” (p. 1106).).

F.10.2.1.7. Granitic Hills Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the granitic hills ecological site is achieving Standard

3. Nine sites achieve both objectives and one site is achieving one objective. Use-pattern mapping

indicates slight livestock utilization in the area around PBI site 63.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 16 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Eight of nine PBI study sites (63, 181, 183, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 201) achieve the

vegetative canopy cover objective. PBI site 63 does not achieve the objective at only 9.5 percent

canopy cover, but there were no signs of accelerated erosion present. The ten granitic hills sites

do not have DPC objectives for vegetative composition due to the fact that the majority of this

ecological site is inaccessible to livestock.

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.83

stems per plot, which is sufficient to maintain the population of saguaros (see Table F.23, “:

Saguaro Cover & Stem Count Information for the Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Community (PBI

2004)” (p. 1179)). Young saguaros are defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short

stems in Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study (p. ).

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1113

F.10.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the majority of the Big Horn allotment is achieving

Standard 3. One ecological site, the limy upland deep ecological site, does not achieve Standard 3

and represents 29,384 acres of the 92,204 acres within the allotment.

Rationale:

The upland land health was assessed for biotic integrity at four key areas representing the major

ecological sites within the allotment. This assessment indicates that the plant communities are

functioning close to expected for the site (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159).

Use-pattern mapping results (see Map F-5) indicate a general pattern of moderate (41 percent to

60 percent) utilization in the areas immediately surrounding some of the livestock waters. As

distance from livestock waters increases, the use pattern zone moves to light (21 percent to 40

percent) and slight (6 to 20 percent) use. The majority of the Big Horn allotment within the

SDNM falls within the slight use category.

Utilization at key areas and the results of use pattern mapping (short-term monitoring data)

indicate that current livestock management is a significant causal factor on 2,974 acres within the

limy upland deep ecological site, which is not achieving the Standard 3 objectives for canopy

cover.

Table F.9. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Big

Horn Allotment

Meets St.

3*

Ecological

Site

Key Area/

PBI Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

BH-1 34% 36% 14% 22% Yes Yes

BH-4 34% 48% 14% 20% Yes Yes

BH-8 40% 41% 14% 12 Yes Yes

190 34% 32% 14% 55% Yes Yes

192 34% 31% 14% 18% Yes Yes

202 34% 45.5% 14% 25.5% Yes Yes

Y Sandy wash

203 34% 43% 14% 19.5% Yes Yes

Y Loamy swale BH-7 20% 36% 10% 13% Yes Yes

BH-2 7% 5% 9% 6% No No

Y Limy fan BH-3 7% 11% 9% 20% Yes Yes

58 7% 8.25% 9% 12% Yes Yes

BH-5 10% 14% 12% 26% Yes Yes

BH-13 10% 6% 12% 17% No Yes

59 10% 7.25% 12% 13% No Yes

60 10% 5.5% 12% 36% No Yes

N Limy upland

deep

61 10% 15.5% 12% 14.5% Yes Yes

BH-9 12% 14% 5% 4% Yes Yes

Y Limy upland

BH-12 12% 12% 5% 5% Yes Yes

Y Sandy loam

deep

BH-6 15% 13% 16% 16% Yes Yes

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1114 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Meets St.

3*

Ecological

Site

Key Area/

PBI Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

63 16% 9.5% n/a n/a No n/a

181 16% 9.5% n/a n/a Yes n/a

183 16% 29.5% n/a n/a Yes n/a

194 16% 28.5% n/a n/a Yes n/a

196 16% 30% n/a n/a Yes n/a

198 16% 43.5% n/a n/a Yes n/a

199 16% 19% n/a n/a Yes n/a

200 16% 24.5% n/a n/a Yes n/a

Y Granitic hills

201 16% 59% n/a n/a Yes n/a

*More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination of whether or not a site is

achieving Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if

the canopy cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured were within approximately 80 percent of the

attribute value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.11. Beloat Allotment

F.11.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Beloat allotment are achieving Standard 1.

Objective:

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Rationale:

This finding is based upon the preponderance of evidence of the indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1. The results of the assessment indicate a slight departure from the

ecological site descriptions for one key area and slight to moderate departure for two key areas

(see Table 18: Departure from Ecological Site Description). The majority of the key areas and

PBI plots (16 of 18) had vegetative cover levels that are appropriate for the site and the qualitative

assessments of the soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns, pedestals, bare ground, gullies, litter

movement, and soil compaction, etc.) did not indicate any signs of accelerated erosion. PBI cover

data indicate that microbiotic crusts are at appropriate levels in relation to the BGR/Area A

comparison area (see Table F.19, “Average Cover of Microbiotic Crusts (% by Plot)” (p. 1161)).

F.11.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Beloat Allotment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1115

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

F.11.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.11.2.1.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Site

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the sandy wash ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. Both sites achieve the canopy cover objectives; however, only one of two sites

achieves the palatable browse objective. The results of use-pattern mapping were negligible to

light use and therefore indicate that current livestock management is not the causal factor for

the site that is not achieving the palatable browse objective.

Objectives:

● Maintain sandy washes that have 34 percent canopy cover,

● Maintain canopy cover at 40 percent for the potential CFPO sandy wash site (B-2),

● Maintain sandy washes at 14 percent composition of palatable browse species.

Discussion:

Key area B-4 meets the canopy cover objective at 41 percent. Key area B-2 achieves the CFPO

canopy cover objective. All of the vegetative components which form a multi-layered structure

are present for potential CFPO and other wildlife habitat. The tree layer is represented by blue

palo verde and ironwood, the tall shrub layer is represented by catclaw acacia, desert hackberry,

and wolfberry, and the low shrub layer is represented by big bursage, triangle-leaf bursage and

bricklebush.

Key area B-4 achieves the palatable species objective (15 percent). B-2 does not achieve the

composition objective at 8 percent (Table F.10, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific

Biodiversity Institute Site – Beloat Allotment” (p. 1118)).

F.11.2.1.2. Loamy Swale Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Standard 3 is being achieved for the loamy swale ecological site.

Objectives:

● Maintain perennial grasses at 10 percent composition,

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 20 percent.

Discussion:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1116 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Data from the loamy swale (B-5) key area indicates that the DPC objectives are being achieved

with perennial grasses at 23 percent composition and vegetative cover at 79 percent (Table F.8,

“Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – BGR/Area

A” (p. 1108)).

F.11.2.1.3. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence the limy fan ecological site is not achieving Standard

3. Only four of the eight sites (Key Area B-8 and 7 PBI sites) achieve both DPC objectives.

Use levels were negligible to slight (less than 20 percent) and indicate that current livestock

management is not the causal factor for not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Data from Key area B-8 does not achieve the canopy cover objective (Table F.10, “Attainment of

Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Beloat Allotment” (p. 1118)). All

seven PBI study plots (40-46) in the limy fan site achieve the canopy cover objective (Table 9).

There were no signs of accelerated erosion on any sites.

Key area B-8 achieves the ratany-bursage composition objective and four of the seven PBI sites

achieve the objective. PBI sites 40, 43, and 45 do not achieve the objective (Table 9).

F.11.2.1.4. Limy Upland Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

The limy upland ecological site is achieving Standard 3.

Objectives:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 12 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 5 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Key area B-9 is achieving the canopy cover objective at 13 percent and achieving the objective for

composition of palatable browse at 16 percent composition (Table 9). Results of the PBI Saguaro

Study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.96 stems per plot. Young saguaros

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1117

are defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short stems in Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Saguaro Study (p. ).

F.11.2.1.5. Granitic Hills Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence the granitic hills ecological site is achieving Standard

3. Five sites achieve both objectives. Key area B-1 is not achieving the canopy cover DPC

objective.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 16 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Eight of nine PBI study sites (63, 181, 183, 194, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 201) achieve the

vegetative canopy cover objective. PBI site 63 does not achieve the objective at only 9.5 percent

canopy cover, but there were no signs of accelerated erosion present. The ten granitic hills sites

do not have DPC objectives for vegetative composition because the majority of this ecological

site is inaccessible to livestock.

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.83

stems per plot, which is sufficient to maintain the population of saguaros. Young saguaros are

defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short stems in Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Saguaro Study (p. ).

F.11.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Beloat allotment is not fully achieving Standard 3.

The limy fan and sandy wash ecological sites, which comprise 17,969 acres out of 33,600 acres

within the allotment, are not achieving Standard 3.

Rationale:

The upland land health was assessed for biotic integrity at three key areas that represents the

major ecological sites within the allotment. This assessment indicates that the plant communities

are functioning close to expected for the site (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159)).

The results of use-pattern mapping (short-term monitoring data) indicate that current livestock

management is not a significant causal factor for those sites that are not achieving Standard 3.

Use-pattern mapping results for 2008 indicate a general pattern of slight (6 percent - 20 percent)

and light (21 percent to 40 percent) use in the area surrounding one livestock water and negligible

use (0 to 5 percent) around another. The majority of the Beloat Allotment within the SDNM

falls within the slight use category. (See ???).

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1118 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table F.10. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Beloat

Allotment

Meets

St. 3*

Ecological

Site

Key Area/

PBI Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

B-2 40% 76% 14% 8% Yes No

N Sandy wash

B-4 34% 41% 14% 15% Yes No

Y Loamy swale B-5 20% 79% 10% 23% Yes Yes

B-8 7% 4% 9% 9% No Yes

40 7% 7% 9% 0% Yes No

41 7% 11% 9% 9% Yes Yes

42 7% 8% 9% 25% Yes Yes

43 7% 7% 9% 0% Yes No

44 7% 11% 9% 45% Yes Yes

45 7% 8% 9% 3% Yes No

N Limy fan

46 7% 8.5% 9% 27% Yes Yes

Y Limy upland B-9 12% 13% 5% 16% Yes Yes

B-1 16% 8% n/a n/a No Yes

48 16% 8% n/a n/a No Yes

49 16% 46.5% n/a n/a Yes Yes

50 16% 31% n/a n/a Yes Yes

51 16% 37% n/a n/a Yes Yes

Y Granitic hills

52 16% 48% n/a n/a Yes Yes

*More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination of whether or not a site is

achieving Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if

the canopy cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured were within approximately 80 percent of the

attribute value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.12. Conley Allotment

F.12.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Objective:

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Conley allotment are achieving Standard 1.

Rationale:

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Conley Allotment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1119

This finding is based upon the preponderance of evidence of the indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1. The majority of the key areas had vegetative cover levels that are

appropriate for the site. Twelve of the sixteen sites achieve the canopy cover objectives.

Soil/site stability and hydrologic function were evaluated at seven key areas to determine the

departure from the site descriptions. The results of the assessment indicate at most a slight

departure from the ecological site descriptions (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159)) and the assessments of the soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns,

pedestals, bare ground, gullies, litter movement, and soil compaction, etc.) did not indicate

signs of accelerated erosion.

The analysis indicates soil stability and hydrologic functions on the allotment are appropriate to

prevent accelerated erosion, and that the watersheds are in properly functioning condition. Erosion

has been documented in localized areas around two stock tanks. These are more erosive soils that

have received heavy recreation use both on and off of the trails in addition to livestock use.

PBI cover data indicates that microbiotic crusts are at appropriate levels in relation to the

BGR/Area A comparison area (see Table F.19, “Average Cover of Microbiotic Crusts (% by

Plot)” (p. 1161)).

F.12.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

F.12.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.12.2.1.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Site

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the sandy wash ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. Only one of four key areas achieves both objectives.

Use-pattern mapping indicates that livestock use is light at Key Areas C-3 and C-7 and slight at

C-1, and that utilization of key species at C-7 was light (see Table F.7, “Utilization Estimates on

Key Areas Within the Big Horn and Conley Allotments” (p. 1106)), which indicate that current

livestock management is not the causal factor for non-achievement of Standard 3.

Objectives:

● Maintain sandy washes that have 34 percent canopy cover,

● Maintain sandy washes that have 14 percent composition of palatable browse species.

Discussion:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1120 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

All key areas achieve the canopy cover objective. Key Area C-7 achieves the palatable browse

composition objective at 35 percent. Key Areas C-1 and C-3 and PBI Site 4 do not achieve the

palatable browse composition objective at 9 percent, 2 percent, and 7 percent, respectively (see

Table F.11, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen

Allotment ” (p. 1122)).

F.12.2.1.1.1. Loamy Swale Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Land Health Standard 3 is being achieved for the loamy swale ecological site.

Objectives:

● Maintain perennial grasses at 10 percent composition,

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 20 percent.

Discussion:

Data from the loamy swale (C-9) key area shows that the objectives are being achieved with

perennial grasses at 15 percent composition and canopy cover at 47 percent (Table F.11,

“Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment

” (p. 1122)).

F.12.2.1.1.2. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy fan ecological site is not achieving Standard

3. The majority of the key areas and PBI sites do not achieve both objectives. Use levels were

slight (less than 20 percent) to light and indicates current livestock management is not the causal

factor for not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Key areas C-4 and C-2 and 2 – plots 3 and 5 of the four PBI sites, plots 3, 5, 16, and 29 – achieve

the canopy cover objective. PBI plots 16 and 29 do not achieve the objective at 5 percent and 3

percent, respectively.

Only PBI plot 5 achieves the objective to have the ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of

total composition. (Table 10).

F.12.2.1.1.3. Limy Upland Deep Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1121

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy upland deep ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. PBI site 6 achieves only one of two objectives. Long-term trend data are not available

to ascertain whether significant progress towards achievement is being made. Use-pattern

mapping indicates light use on key species (see ???) and indicates that current livestock

management is not the causal factor for not achieving the objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 10 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 12 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

PBI site 6 achieves the canopy cover objective at 8 percent; however, it does not achieve the

composition objective at 3 percent (Table F.11, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific

Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment ” (p. 1122)).

F.12.2.1.1.4. Limy Upland Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy upland ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. One key area is achieving all three objectives and one key area is achieving two of

three objectives. Use-pattern mapping at Key Area C-5 and C-10 was at slight use and utilization

on key species at C-5 was at light and slight use, which indicates current livestock grazing is the

causal factor for non-achievement of the objective.

Objectives:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 12 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 5 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Key area C-10 is achieving the canopy cover objective at 24 percent, but Key Area C-5 is not

achieving the objective at 8 percent. Key areas C-5 and C-10 are achieving the palatable browse

composition objective at 16 percent and 12 percent, respectively (Table F.11, “Attainment of

Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment ” (p. 1122)).

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.96 stems

per plot, which achieves the objective. Young saguaros are defined as less than 1 meter tall and

are referred to as short stems in Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study (p. ).

F.12.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

Conclusion:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1122 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, most of the Conley allotment is not achieving

Standard 3. The majority of the ecological sites, which comprise approximately 73,278 acres

out of approximately 77,708 acres within the allotment that are accessed by livestock, are not

achieving Standard 3.

Although Standard 3 is not being achieved throughout the entire allotment, the upland land

health assessing biotic integrity at seven key areas indicates that the plant communities are

functioning close to expected for the site (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159)). There were no indications of accelerated erosion at any of the key areas.

Utilization at key areas and the results of use-pattern mapping (short-term monitoring data)

indicate that current livestock management is a significant causal factor for not achieving

Standard 3 on a total of 5,517 acres.

Approximately 5,006 acres are within the limy fan ecological site, 320 acres are within the

limy upland ecological site, 191 acres are within the granitic hills ecological site, and 10 acres

are within the sandy wash ecological site (these 10 acres are not accounted for in the total

acres because this ecological site is a linear feature within the upland ecological sites). These

data were collected during a year with full permitted use and additional ephemeral livestock

authorizations. Several utilization transects were run in addition to those located at the key areas

for the purposes of this evaluation (see Table 6: Utilization Estimates on Key Areas Within the

Big Horn and Conley Allotments). Use levels at these nine additional sites were rated at slight

to light use with the exception of white ratany utilization at two sites (CU-4, CU-10), which

were in the moderate level. Sites CU-8 and CU-9 indicated light use; however, this exceeded

the utilization level set for wilderness areas.

Use-pattern mapping results indicate a general pattern of light (21 to 40 percent) to slight use

(6 to 20 percent) in the areas surrounding most livestock waters with small areas of heavier (61

to 80 percent) use around two waters. One small area was mapped as severe use along a road

used by livestock to travel between water sources. The majority of the allotment falls within the

slight and light use categories. (See Map F-5)

Table F.11. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen

Allotment

Meets

St. 3*

Ecological

Site

Key Area/

PBI Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

C-1 34% 71% 14% 9% Yes No

C-3 34% 68% 14% 2% Yes No

4 34% 55% 14% 7% Yes No

N Sandy wash

C-7 34% 31% 14% 35% Yes Yes

Y

Loamy

swale

C-9

20% 47% 10% 15% Yes Yes

C-2 7% 6% 9% 0% Yes No

C-4 7% 8% 9% 7% Yes No

3 7% 17% 9% 0% Yes No

5 7% 9.5% 9% 31% Yes Yes

16 7% 5% 9% 0% No No

N Limy fan

29 7% 3% 9% 0% No No

N Limy

upland deep

6

10% 8% 12% 3% Yes No

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1123

C-5 12% 8% 5% 16% No Yes

N Limy

upland C-10 12% 24% 5% 12% Yes Yes

7 16% 9% n/a n/a No n/a

N Granitic

hills 187 16% 18% n/a n/a Yes n/a

*More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination whether or not a site is achieving

Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if the canopy

cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured was within approximately 80 percent of the attribute

value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.13. Hazen Allotment

F.13.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Hazen Allotment achieve Standard 1.

Objective:

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Rationale:

This finding is based upon the preponderance of evidence of the indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1. The land health assessments from five key areas indicate two sites

with a slight departure from the ecological site descriptions and three sites at slight to moderate

departure (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site Description” (p. 1159)).

Nine of the eleven sites (key areas and PBI sites) had canopy cover levels that are appropriate for

the ecological site and soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns, pedestals, bare ground, gullies,

litter movement, and soil compaction, etc.) that did not indicate signs of accelerated erosion. PBI

cover data indicated that microbiotic crusts are at appropriate levels in relation to the BGR/Area A

comparison area (see Table F.19, “Average Cover of Microbiotic Crusts (% by Plot)” (p. 1161)).

F.13.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Hazen Allotment
1124 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.13.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.13.2.1.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Site

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the sandy wash ecological site is not achieving

Standard 3. Only two of four key areas and PBI sites achieve both objectives. It is more likely

than not that the failure of this site to meet Standard 3 is not due to existing grazing-management

practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at negligible (0 to 5 percent)

and slight (6 to 20 percent) levels.

Objectives:

● Maintain sandy washes at 34 percent canopy cover,

● Maintain canopy cover at 40 percent for the potential CFPO sandy wash site (Key Area H-7),

● Maintain sandy washes at 14 percent composition of palatable browse.

Discussion:

Key Area H-7 achieves the CFPO canopy cover objective at 62 percent. PBI plot 228 achieves

the canopy cover objective at 39 percent vegetative cover. Key area H-4 and PBI plot 230 do not

achieve the canopy cover objective at 20 and 25 percent, respectively (Table F.12, “Attainment of

Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment” (p. 1126)). PBI

plot 230 (20 percent), PBI plot 228 (11.5 percent) and Key Area H-4 (38 percent) achieve the

palatable browse composition objective (Table 11). Composition data were not collected at

Key Area H-7.

F.13.2.1.2. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy fan ecological site is not achieving Standard

3. Key area H-1 achieves both objectives; however, the two PBI sites are not achieving both

objectives. It is more likely than not that the failure of this site to meet Standard 3 is not due to

existing grazing-management practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use levels were at

negligible (0 to 5 percent) and slight (6 to 20 percent) levels.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1125

Key Area H-1 and PBI plots 227 and 229 achieve the canopy cover objective. Key Area H-1

achieves the ratany-bursage composition objective at 13 percent. PBI plots 227 (4 percent) and

229 (0 percent) do not achieve the objective (Table F.12, “Attainment of Objectives by Key

Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment” (p. 1126)).

F.13.2.1.3. Limy Upland Deep Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the limy upland deep ecological site is achieving

Standard 3. Both key areas achieve both objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 10 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 12 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Key areas H-6 and H-2 achieve the canopy cover objective at 12 percent and 8 percent. Both key

areas achieve the ratany-bursage composition objective with more than 12 percent composition

(See Table F.12, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site –

Hazen Allotment” (p. 1126)).

F.13.2.1.4. Granitic Hills Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the granitic hills ecological site is achieving Standard

3. PBI site 231 and Key Area H-5 achieve both objectives.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 16 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

PBI plot 231 achieves the objective with 21 percent canopy cover. Key Area H-5 also achieves

the canopy cover objective at 12 percent, as this location has a lower potential based on lower

precipitation (6-8 inches) than the reference area (See Table F.12, “Attainment of Objectives by

Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen Allotment” (p. 1126)).

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.83

stems per plot, which is sufficient to maintain the population of saguaros. Young saguaros are

defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short stems in Attachment 5 – Pacific

Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1126 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.13.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the majority of the Hazen allotment is achieving

Standard 3. The sandy wash and limy fan ecological sites, which comprise approximately 5,699

acres out of approximately 31,926 acres within the allotment that are accessed by livestock, are

not achieving Standard 3. It is more likely than not that the failure of these sites to meet Standard

3 is not due to existing grazing-management practices or levels of grazing use, as livestock use

levels were at negligible (0 to 5 percent) and slight (6 to 20 percent) levels. The remaining

26,227 acres are achieving Standard 3.

The upland land health was assessed at five key areas representing the major ecological sites

within the allotment. The biotic integrity attribute was evaluated at these sites to determine the

departure from the ecological site descriptions. Two of the five key areas were rated at none to

slight, and three were rated at slight to moderate (see Table 11). This would indicate that the

plant communities are functioning close to expected for the site and that biotic integrity on

the allotment is appropriate.

Use-pattern mapping was only collected near the two wildlife waters located within the allotment.

One area received slight (6 to 20 percent) use, and the other area received negligible use (0 to

5 percent) use. (See Map F-5) The utilization at both of these areas was from wildlife use as

livestock have not been on this allotment for several years.

Table F.12. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Hazen

Allotment

Meets

St. 3**

Ecological

Site

Key

Area/

PBI

Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover***

Achieved

Composition***

H-4 34% 20% 14% 38% No Yes

H-7 40% 62% n/a n/a Yes n/a

228 34% 39% 14% 11.5% Yes Yes

N Sandy wash

230 34% 25% 14% 20 No Yes

H-1 7% 7% 9% 13% Yes Yes

N Limy fan 227 7% 26% 9% 4% Yes No

229 7% 8% 9% 0% Yes No

H-2 10% 8% 12% 15% Yes Yes

Y Limy upland

deep H-6 10% 12% 12% 21% Yes Yes

H-5* 16% 12% n/a n/a Yes n/a

Y Granitic hills

231 16% 21% n/a n/a Yes n/a

*Key area H-5 lies within a lower precipitation zone of 6 to 8 inches precipitation per year, compared with the

reference area site that lies within a precipitation zone of 8 to 10 inches precipitation per year. Because of the lesser

precipitation, Key Area H-5 has a lower potential and greater variability in canopy cover produced. The criterion for

achieving an objective was relaxed to accept a lesser threshold in this case and it was determined that 12 percent

canopy cover was achieving the canopy cover objective.

**More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

*** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination whether or not a site is

achieving Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if

the canopy cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured was within approximately 80 percent of the

attribute value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1127

F.14. Lower Vekol Allotment

F.14.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Lower Vekol allotment achieve Standard 1.

Objective:

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Rationale:

This finding is based upon the preponderance of evidence of the indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1. The LHE at three key areas indicates all three sites had a slight

departure from the ecological site descriptions (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159)). All key areas and PBI plots had canopy cover levels that are appropriate

for the site and the assessment of the soil-related indicators (rills, flow patterns, pedestals, bare

ground, gullies, litter movement, and soil compaction, etc.) did not indicate signs of accelerated

erosion.

F.14.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

F.14.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.14.2.1.1. Sandy Wash Ecological Site

Conclusion:

The sandy wash ecological site is not achieving Standard 3. Key area LV-3 achieved only one

of two objectives for the ecological site. Use- pattern mapping at the key area was at light use,

indicating current livestock grazing may not be the causal factor for non-achievement of the

standard.

Objectives:

● Maintain sandy washes that have 34 percent canopy cover,

● Maintain sandy washes that have 14 percent composition of palatable browse species.

Discussion:

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Lower Vekol Allotment
1128 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Key area LV-3 achieves the canopy cover objective at 60 percent. The key area does not achieve

the palatable browse objective at 6 percent (Table F.13, “Attainment of Objectives by Key

Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Lower Vekol Allotment” (p. 1130)), resulting in not

achieving Standard 3 on 2 miles (7 acres; 11 percent) of the desert wash community.

F.14.2.1.2. Loamy Swale Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

Land Health Standard 3 is being achieved for the loamy swale ecological site.

Objectives:

● Maintain perennial grasses at 10 percent composition,

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 20 percent.

Discussion:

Data from the loamy swale (LV-1) key area shows that both objectives are being achieved with

perennial grasses at 46 percent composition and canopy cover at 69 percent (Table 12).

F.14.2.1.3. Limy Upland Deep Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

The limy upland deep ecological site is achieving Standard 3.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 10 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 12 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Key area LV-2 has 19 percent canopy cover which achieves the objective. Composition of the

ratany/bursage group exceeds 12 percent; therefore achieving the objective (Table 12).

F.14.2.1.4. Limy Upland Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

The limy upland ecological site is not achieving Standard 3. The key area achieves two of three

objectives and therefore does not achieve Standard 3. Use-pattern mapping indicated light use

at the key area; therefore current livestock grazing is not the causal factor for non-achievement

of the standard.

Objectives:

● Maintain total vegetative canopy cover at 12 percent,

● Maintain composition of palatable browse at 5 percent,

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources

Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1129

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.96 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

Key area LV-4 has 1 percent composition of palatable browse, which does not achieve the

objective of 5 percent (Table F.13, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Site – Lower Vekol Allotment” (p. 1130))

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.96 stems

per plot, which achieves the objective. Young saguaros are defined as less than 1 meter tall and

are referred to as short stems in Attachment 5 – Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro Study.

F.14.2.1.5. Granitic Hills Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

The granitic hills ecological site is achieving Standard 3.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 16 percent,

● Maintain recruitment of saguaros at the current rate of 0.83 young saguaros per 12.5 meter

radius plot.

Discussion:

All six PBI plots (185, 204-207 and 209) in the granitic hills site have canopy cover achieving or

exceeding the objective of 16 percent (see Table 12).

Results of the PBI saguaro study indicate recruitment of young saguaros is occurring at 0.83

stems per plot, which is sufficient to maintain the population of saguaros. Young saguaros are

defined as less than 1 meter tall and are referred to as short stems in Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Saguaro Study (p. ).

F.14.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

Based upon the preponderance of evidence, the Lower Vekol allotment is achieving Standard 3.

The sandy wash and limy upland ecological sites are not achieving Standard 3, but they represent

only 583 of the 15,409 acres.

The biotic integrity attribute was evaluated to determine the departure from the ecological site

descriptions. Two of the key areas were rated at none to slight, and one was rated at slight

to moderate, indicating that the plant communities are functioning close to what is expected

for the site.

Use-pattern mapping results indicate light (21 to 40 percent) to slight use (6 to 20 percent) within

the majority of the allotment. One area of heavy (61 to 80 percent) use occurred around one

livestock water, and an area of moderate (41 to 60 percent) use occurred in close proximity to

another livestock water. (See Map F-5) Utilization data indicate it is more likely than not that

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1130 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use are factors in failing to achieve

Standard 3 on 2 miles (7 acres; 11 percent) of the desert wash community.

Table F.13. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Lower

Vekol Allotment

Meets

St. 3*

Ecological

Site

Key

Area/

PBI

Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

N Sandy wash LV-3 34% 60% 14% 6% Yes No

Y Loamy swale LV-1 20% 69% 10% 46% Yes Yes

Y Limy upland

deep

LV-2 10% 19% 12% 25% Yes Yes

N Limy upland LV-4 12% 10% 5% 1% Yes No

185 16% 48% n/a n/a Yes

204 16% 38% n/a n/a Yes

205 16% 81% n/a n/a Yes

206 16% 40% n/a n/a Yes

207 16% 41% n/a n/a Yes

Y Granitic hills

209 16% 70% n/a n/a Yes

*More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

**Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination whether or not a site is achieving

Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if the canopy

cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured was within approximately 80 percent of the attribute

value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.15. Arnold Allotment

F.15.1. Land Health Standard 1 — Upland Sites

Conclusion:

Upland sites within the Arnold Allotment are achieving Standard 1.

Objective:

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site).

Rationale:

This finding is based upon the preponderance of evidence of the indicators used to determine

attainment of Standard 1. The LHE from Key Area A-4 indicates only a slight departure

from the ecological site description (see Table F.17, “Departure from Ecological Site

Description” (p. 1159)). Although the key area did not achieve the canopy cover DPC objective,

there were no signs of accelerated erosion based on the assessment of the soil-related indicators

(rills, flow patterns, pedestals, bare ground, gullies, litter movement, and soil compaction, etc.).

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Arnold Allotment August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1131

Soil and site stability and hydrologic function are appropriate to prevent accelerated erosion and

the watershed is properly functioning.

F.15.2. Land Health Standard 3 — Desired Resources Conditions

Objective:

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland communities of native species exist and

are maintained.

F.15.2.1. Analysis of Desired Plant Community Objectives by Key Areas

and PBI Sites

F.15.2.1.1. Limy Fan Ecological Site:

Conclusion:

The limy fan ecological site is not achieving Standard 3. The composition objective is being

achieved; however, the canopy cover objective is not. Use pattern mapping results indicate

slight use within the SDNM indicating current livestock grazing is likely not the causal factor

for non-achievement.

Objectives:

● Maintain vegetative canopy cover at 7 percent,

● Maintain ratany-bursage shrub group at 9 percent of total composition.

Discussion:

Key area A-4 does not achieve the canopy cover objective at 1 percent canopy cover

(Table F.14, “Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site – Arnold

Allotment” (p. 1132)). The key area achieves the ratany-bursage composition objective at 13

percent (Table 13).

F.15.2.2. Summary of Ecological Site Analysis

There is one key area (A-4) located within the SDNM on the Arnold Allotment. The Arnold

Allotment comprises only a minor percentage (1 percent) of acres (1,609) within the SDNM. The

key area does not achieve Standard 3 due to non-achievement of the canopy cover objective.

There were no PBI plots located within the Arnold Allotment.

The biotic integrity attribute was evaluated through the LHE to determine the departure from

the ecological site; the key area was rated at none to slight (see Table F.17, “Departure from

Ecological Site Description” (p. 1159)).

Use pattern mapping results indicate slight use (6 to 20 percent) in the allotment (see Map

F-5) within the SDNM indicating current livestock grazing is not likely the causal factor for

non-achievement of Standard 3.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Land Health Standard 3 — Desired

Resources Conditions
1132 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table F.14. Attainment of Objectives by Key Area/Pacific Biodiversity Institute Site –

Arnold Allotment

Meets

St. 3*

Ecological

Site

Key

Area/

PBI

Site

Canopy

Cover

Objective

Actual

Canopy

Cover

Composition

Objective

Actual

Composition

Achieved

Canopy

Cover**

Achieved

Composition**

N Limy fan A-4 7% 1% 9% 13% No Yes

*More than 50 percent of the key areas and PBI plots representing an ecological site had to be achieving all of the

desired plant community objectives for the ecological site within an allotment to be considered achieving Standard

3. This represents a preponderance of evidence approach to ascertain whether Standard 3 was achieved. This

approach was used because a statistical approach was not feasible as the number of key areas and PBI plots on each

ecological site were not adequate to statistically analyze each ecological site.

** Ecological site variability was considered when making the final determination whether or not a site is achieving

Standard 3 objectives. Rather than using the absolute value to determine achievement of the objective, if the canopy

cover or the composition vegetative attributes measured was within approximately 80 percent of the attribute

value, the site was considered achieving the objective.

F.16. Management Recommendations

The recommended adjustments to permitted livestock use and management practices will

allow for continued achievement and significant progress towards achievement of Land Health

Standards. It will also ensure continued protection of the objects of the Monument. This includes

adjustments to permitted use, terms and conditions, and management practices.

The following recommendations consider the paramount purpose of protecting the biological and

cultural objects of the Monument.

Table F.15. SDNM Grazing Allotments Permitted Use* (AUMs)

Allotment

Name

Current

Permitted Use

for Entire

Allotment

Current

Permitted Use

Within LSFO

Current

Permitted Use

Within SDNM

Recommended

Total Permitted

Use**

Recommended

Permitted Use

Within SDNM

Big Horn (95%

within SDNM)

2,960* 148 2,812 2,184 2,031

Beloat (26%

within SDNM)

2,988 2,212 776 2,752 541

Conley (88%

within SDNM)

3,867 464 3,403 2,036 1,572

Hazen (75%

within SDNM)

1,181 295 886 708 531

Lower Vekol

(71% within

SDNM)

1,164 338 826 912 646

Arnold*** 0 0 0 0 0

Total 5,321

* “Permitted use” means the forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use plan for livestock

grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs.

** Two AUM values were calculated to provide the final recommended Active preference. The Lower Gila South

RMP Resource Protection Alternative AUMs were prorated to the acres within the Monument for each allotment.

The current permitted AUMs were prorated for the allotment acres outside of the Monument. The AUMs for the

Big Horn allotment also reflect the reduction in permitted use due to the closure of the portion of the allotment

south of I-8.

*** The Arnold Allotment will remain authorized as ephemeral only.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Management Recommendations August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1133

Rationale:

● Utilization data indicate that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use

are factors in failing to achieve Standard 3 on 8,498 acres (within multiple polygons) of the

252,000 acres (3.4 percent) of the public lands north of I-8,

● The majority of desirable perennial forage is browse species and winter/spring annuals,

● Utilization limits (20 percent) established for the wilderness areas substantially limits forage

available for current permitted AUMs established from LGSRMP,

● Reduces potential competition for forage with special status and other wildlife species,

● Supported by inventory and monitoring data,

● Diet study for livestock based on the University of Arizona’s Big Horn Allotment Cattle

Diet Study (1982).

It also is recommended that the period and level of use be adjusted to primarily fall-winter-spring,

with reduced use levels during the summer months as follows:

● Approximately 65 percent of permitted use would occur from Oct. 1 to April 30, and 35

percent of permitted use would occur during the summer season, from May 1 through Sept. 30.

Rationale:

● Bimodal precipitation pattern with more consistent and widespread rainfall during winter

and spring seasons,

● Majority of desirable perennial forage are winter browse species and winter/spring annuals,

● Reduces potential competition with wildlife during critical hot summer months,

● Reduces effects of concentrated livestock use around watering facilities,

● Reflects general pattern of current grazing management practices,

● Majority of forage production occurs during the winter/spring season (in above average

precipitation years up to 2,000 lbs. + / acre),

● Supported by the University of Arizona’s Big Horn Allotment Cattle Diet Study (1982).

Monitoring and inventory data indicate that the majority of desirable perennial forage constitutes

important browse species. These browse species are utilized by both livestock and wildlife.

Reducing permitted use and adjusting the majority of the grazing use to the fall, winter, and

spring seasons will reduce potential competition with special status wildlife and other wildlife

species during the critical summer months.

During years of above average rainfall, ephemeral vegetation (annual species) adds materially

to the forage base (important browse species) for these allotments. Annual species germinate

rapidly and mature early under the combination of favorable temperature and adequate moisture.

However, they are short-lived, and field observations indicate they are available as forage for up

to 16 weeks, depending on available moisture. Some annuals, such as Indian wheat (Plantago

spp.), are used as forage even after curing, which is attributable to its high protein content. During

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Management Recommendations
1134 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

years with ephemeral vegetation, the ephemeral production (400 to 2,000 lbs per acre air dry

weight) can be many times the yearly perennial production.

Ephemeral grazing will still be authorized for these grazing permits if the authorized officer

determines that there will be available ephemeral forage. This determination must be

based on a prediction of ephemeral forage production and be consistent with Guideline 3-5

“Grazing on designated ephemeral rangeland” (See Appendix L, Guidelines for Grazing

Administration (p. 1253)).

F.17. References

Arizona Game and Fish Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl survey protocol.

Biological Opinion for the Lower Gila South Resource Management Land Use Plan

(2-21-85F-0069)

Crother, B.I. 2000. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North

America North of Mexico, with Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. Society

for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular Number 29.

Krausman, Paul R.; Kuenzi, Amy J.; Etchberger, Richard C.; Rautenstrauch, Kurt R.; Ordway,

Leonard L.; Hervert, John J. 1997. “Diets of Desert Mule Deer.” Journal of Range Management,

September.

Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer, Southwest Deserts Ecoregion, 2006. Mule Deer Working

Group.

The Nature Conservancy: Hall, J.A., P. Comer, A. Gondor, R. Marshall, and S. Weinstein.

2004. “Conservation Elements of and a Biodiversity Management Framework for the Barry M.

Goldwater Range, Arizona.” The Nature Conservancy of Arizona. 199 + ix p. + 15 unpaginated

figures.

Pima County. 2001. “Priority Vulnerable Species: Analysis and Review of Species Proposed for

Coverage by the Multi-Species Conservation Plan.” Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Pima

County Administrator’s Office, Tucson, Arizona.

Robinett, Daniel G. 1997. Rangeland section of the Soil Survey of Gila Bend–Ajo Area, Arizona.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Sampling Vegetation Attributes.

Technical Reference 1734-4. National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Co: U.S.

Department of Interior.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996. Utilization Studies and

Residual Measurements. Technical Reference 1734-3. National Applied Resource Sciences

Center, Denver, Co: U.S. Department of Interior.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants;

Determination of endangered status for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl in Arizona. Federal

Register 62: 10730-10747.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

References August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1135

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Interpreting Indicators of

Rangeland Health Version 3. Technical Reference 1734-6. National Science and Technology

Center Information and Communications Group, Denver, Co: U.S. Department of Interior.

University of Arizona. 1982. Big Horn Allotment cattle diet study.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 2nd edition. Houghton

Mifflin Company, Boston.

F.18. ATTACHMENT 1: Arizona Rangeland Health Standards

and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

F.18.1. Introduction

The Department of the Interior’s final rule for Grazing Administration, issued on February

22, 1995, and effective August 21, 1995, requires that Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

State Directors develop State or regional standards and guidelines for grazing administration in

consultation with BLM Resource Advisory Councils (RAC), other agencies and the public. The

final rule provides that fallback standards and guidelines be implemented, if State standards and

guidelines are not developed by February 12, 1997. Arizona Standards and Guidelines and the

final rule apply to grazing administration on public lands as indicated by the following quotation

from the Federal Register, Volume 60, Number 35, page 9955:

“The fundamentals of rangeland health, guiding principles for standards and the fallback

standards, address ecological components that are affected by all uses of public rangelands, not

just livestock grazing. However, the scope of this final rule, and therefore the fundamentals of

rangeland health of USC 4180.1, and the standards and guidelines to be made effective under

USC 4180.2, are limited to grazing administration.”

Although the process of developing standards and guidelines applies to grazing administration,

present rangeland health is the result of the interaction of many factors in addition to grazing by

livestock. Other contributing factors may include, but are not limited to, past land uses, land use

restrictions, recreation, wildlife, rights-of-way, wild horses and burros, mining, fire, weather, and

insects and disease.

With the commitment of BLM to ecosystem and interdisciplinary resource management, the

standards for rangeland health as developed in this current process will be incorporated into

management goals and objectives. The standards and guidelines for rangeland health for grazing

administration, however, are not the only considerations in resolving resource issues.

The following quotations from the Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 35, page 9956, February 22,

1995, describe the purpose of standards and guidelines and their implementation:

1. “The guiding principles for standards and guidelines require that State or regional

standards and guidelines address the basic components of healthy rangelands. The

Department believes that by implementing grazing-related actions that are consistent with

the fundamentals of CFR 4180.1 and the guiding principles of CFR 4180.2, the long-term

health of public rangelands can be ensured.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 1: Arizona Rangeland Health

Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration
1136 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2. “Standards and guidelines will be implemented through terms and conditions of grazing

permits, leases, and other authorizations, grazing-related portions of activity plans (including

allotment management plans), and through range improvement-related activities.

3. The Department anticipates that in most cases the standards and guidelines themselves will

not be terms and conditions of various authorizations but that the terms and conditions

will reflect the standards and guidelines.

4. The Department intends that assessments and corrective actions will be undertaken in

priority order as determined by BLM.

5. “The Department will use a variety of data including monitoring records, assessments, and

knowledge of the locale to assist in making the “significant progress” determination. It is

anticipated that in many cases it will take numerous grazing seasons to determine direction

and magnitude of trend. However, actions will be taken to establish significant progress

toward conformance as soon as sufficient data are available to make informed changes in

grazing practices.”

F.18.2. Fundamentals & Definitions of Rangeland Health

The Grazing Administration Regulations, at 43 CFR 4180.1, Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 35,

pg. 9970, direct that the authorized officer ensures that the following conditions of rangeland

health exist:

(a) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical

condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance

with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing

and duration of flow.

(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy

biotic populations and communities.

(c) Water quality complies with State water-quality standards and achieves, or is making

significant progress toward achieving, established BLM management objectives such as meeting

wildlife needs.

(d) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for

Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal candidate

and other special status species.

These fundamentals focus on sustaining productivity of a rangeland rather than its uses.

Emphasizing the physical and biological functioning of ecosystems to determine rangeland health

is consistent with the definition of rangeland health as proposed by the Committee on Rangeland

Classification, Board of Agriculture, National Research Council (Rangeland Health, 1994, pg.

4 and 5). This committee defines rangeland health “as the degree to which the integrity of the

soil and the ecological processes of rangeland ecosystems are sustained.” The committee also

emphasizes “the degree of integrity of the soil and ecological processes that are most important in

sustaining the capacity of rangelands to satisfy values and produce commodities.” The committee

also recommends that “The determination of whether a rangeland is healthy, at risk, or unhealthy

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Fundamentals & Definitions of Rangeland Health August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1137

should be based on the evaluation of three criteria: degree of soil stability and watershed function,

integrity of nutrient cycles and energy flow, and presence of functioning mechanisms” (Rangeland

Health, 1994, pg. 97-98).

Standards describe conditions necessary to encourage proper functioning of ecological processes

on specific ecological sites. An ecological site is the logical and practical ecosystem unit upon

which to base an interpretation of rangeland health. Ecological site is defined as “a kind of

land with specific physical characteristics which differs from other kinds of land in its ability to

produce distinctive kinds and amounts of vegetation and in its response to management” (Journal

of Range Management, 48:279, 1995).

Ecological sites result from the interaction of climate, soils, and landform (slope, topographic

position). The importance of this concept is that the “health” of different kinds of rangeland

must be judged by standards specific to the potential of the ecological site. Acceptable erosion

rates, water quality, productivity of plants and animals, and other features are different on each

ecological site.

Since there is wide variation of ecological sites in Arizona, standards and guidelines covering

these sites must be general. To make standards and guidelines too specific would reduce the

ability of the BLM and interested publics to select specific objectives, monitoring strategies, and

grazing permit terms and conditions appropriate to specific land forms.

Ecological sites have the potential to support several different plant communities. Existing

communities are the result of the combination of historical and recent uses and natural events.

Management actions may be used to modify plant communities on a site. The desired plant

community for a site is defined as follows: “Of the several plant communities that may occupy a

site, [the desired plant community is] the one that has been identified through a management plan

to best meet the plan's objectives for the site. It must protect the site at a minimum” (Journal of

Range Management, 48:279, 1995).

Fundamentals (a) and (b) define physical and biological components of rangeland health and are

consistent with the definition of rangeland health as defined by the Committee on Rangeland

Classification, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council, as discussed in the paragraph

above. These fundamentals provide the basis for sustainable rangelands.

Fundamentals (c) and (d) emphasize compliance with existing laws and regulation and therefore

define social and political components of rangeland health. Compliance with fundamentals (c)

and (d) is accomplished by managing to attain a specific plant community and associated wildlife

species present on ecological sites. These desired plant communities are determined in the BLM

planning process or, where the desired plant community is not identified, a community may be

selected that will meet the conditions of fundamentals (a) and (b) and also adhere to laws and

regulations. Arizona Standard 3 is written to comply with fundamentals (c) and (d) and provide a

logical combination of Standards and Guidelines for planning and management purposes.

F.18.3. Standards and Guidelines Definitions

Standards are goals for the desired condition of the biological and physical components and

characteristics of rangelands. Standards:

1. Are measurable and attainable; and

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Standards and Guidelines Definitions
1138 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2. Comply with various Federal and State statutes, policies, and directives applicable to

BLM Rangelands.

Guidelines are management approaches, methods, and practices that are intended to achieve a

standard. Guidelines:

1. Typically identify and prescribe methods of influencing or controlling specific public land

uses;

2. Are developed and applied consistent with the desired condition and within site capability;

and

3. May be adjusted over time.

F.18.3.1. Implementing Standards & Guidelines

The authorized officer will review existing permitted livestock use, allotment management

plans, or other activity plans which identify terms and conditions for management on public

land. Existing management practices and levels of use on grazing allotments will be reviewed

and evaluated on a priority basis to determine if they meet, or are making significant progress

toward meeting, the standards and are in conformance with the guidelines. The review will be

interdisciplinary and conducted under existing rules which provide for cooperation, coordination,

and consultation with affected individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribal governments,

private landowners, and interested publics.

This review will use a variety of data, including monitoring records, assessments, and knowledge

of the locale to assist in making the significant progress determination. Significance will be

determined on a case by case basis, considering site potential, site condition, weather and financial

commitment. It is anticipated there will be cases where numerous years will be needed to

determine direction and magnitude of trend.

Upon completion of review, the authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as

practicable but no later than the start of the next grazing year upon determining that the existing

grazing management practices or level of use on public land are significant factors contributing to

failure to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines that are made effective under

43 CFR 4180.2. Appropriate action means implementing actions that will result in significant

progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with

guidelines.

Livestock grazing will continue where significant progress toward meeting standards is being

made. Additional activities and practices would not be needed on such allotments. Where new

activities or practices are required to assure significant progress toward meeting standards,

livestock grazing use can continue contingent upon determinations from monitoring data that the

implemented actions are effective in making significant progress toward meeting the standards. In

some cases, additional action may be needed as determined by monitoring data over time.

New plans will incorporate an interdisciplinary team approach (Arizona BLM Interdisciplinary

Resource Management Handbook, April 1995). The terms and conditions for permitted grazing in

these areas will be developed to comply with the goals and objectives of these plans which will be

consistent with the standards and guidelines.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Standards and Guidelines Definitions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1139

F.18.4. Arizona Standards & Guidelines

Arizona Standards and Guidelines (Standards & Guidelines) for grazing administration have been

developed through a collaborative process involving the BLM State S&G Team and the Arizona

Resource Advisory Council. Together, through meetings, conference calls, correspondence, and

open houses with the public, the BLM State team and RAC prepared Standards & Guidelines

to address the minimum requirements outlined in the grazing regulations. The Standards &

Guidelines, including the criteria for meeting Standards and relevant indicators, is an integrated

document that conforms to the fundamentals of rangeland health and the requirements of the

regulations when taken as a whole.

Upland sites, riparian-wetland areas, and desired resource conditions are each addressed by a

Standard and associated Guidelines.

F.18.4.1. Standard 1: Upland Sites

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate and landform (ecological site).

F.18.4.1.1. Criteria for meeting Standard 1:

Soil conditions support proper functioning of hydrologic, energy, and nutrient cycles. Many

factors interact to maintain stable soils and healthy soil conditions, including appropriate amounts

of vegetative cover, litter, and soil porosity and organic matter. Under proper functioning

conditions, rates of soil loss and infiltration are consistent with the potential of the site.

Ground cover in the form of plants, litter, or rock is present in patterns, kind, and amounts

sufficient to prevent accelerated erosion for the ecological site and ground cover is increasing as

determined by monitoring over an established period of time.

Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal or diminishing for the ecological site as determined by

monitoring over an established period of time.

As indicated by such factors as:

● Ground cover,

● Litter,

● Live vegetation, amount and type (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees, etc.),

● Rock,

● Signs of erosion,

● Flow pattern,

● Gullies,

● Rills,

● Plant pedestaling.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Arizona Standards & Guidelines
1140 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

None

F.18.4.1.1.1. Guidelines:

Guideline 1-1: Management activities will maintain or promote groundcover that will provide for

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate for the ecological

sites within management units. The groundcover should maintain soil organisms and plants and

animals to support the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and energy flow. Groundcover and signs of

erosion are surrogate measures for hydrologic and nutrient cycles and energy flow.

Guideline 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.

F.18.4.2. Standard 2: Riparian-Wetland Sites

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning condition.

F.18.4.2.1. Criteria for meeting Standard 2:

Stream channel morphology and functions are appropriate for proper functioning condition

for existing climate, landform, and channel reach characteristics. Riparian-wetland areas are

functioning properly when adequate vegetation, land form, or large woody debris is present to

dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows.

Riparian-wetland functioning condition assessments are based on examination of hydrologic,

vegetative, soil and erosion-deposition factors. BLM has developed a standard checklist to

address these factors and make functional assessments. Riparian-wetland areas are functioning

properly as indicated by the results of the application of the appropriate checklist.

The checklist for riparian areas is in Technical Reference 1737-9 “Process for Assessing Proper

Functioning Condition.” The checklist for wetlands is in Technical Reference 1737-11 “Process

for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Lentic Riparian-Wetland Areas.” These checklists

are reprinted on the pages following the Guidelines for Standard 3.

As indicated by such factors as:

● Gradient,

● Width/depth ratio,

● Channel roughness and sinuosity of stream channel,

● Bank stabilization,

● Reduced erosion,

● Captured sediment,

● Ground-water recharge,

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Arizona Standards & Guidelines August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1141

● Dissipation of energy by vegetation.

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

● Dirt tanks, wells, and other water facilities for the purpose of providing water for livestock or

wildlife that have not been determined through local planning efforts to provide for riparian or

wetland habitat are exempt;

● Water impoundments permitted for construction, mining, or similar activities are exempt.

F.18.4.2.1.1. Guidelines:

Guideline 2-1: Management practices maintain or promote sufficient vegetation to maintain,

improve or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture,

groundwater recharge and stream bank stability, thus promoting stream channel morphology

(e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to

climate and landform.

Guideline 2-2: New facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas if they conflict with

achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland function. Existing facilities are used in a way that does

not conflict with riparian-wetland functions or are relocated or modified when incompatible with

riparian-wetland functions.

Guideline 2-3: The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and

associated resources shall be designed to protect ecological functions and processes.

F.18.4.3. Standard 3: Desired Resource Conditions

Productive and diverse upland and riparian-wetland plant communities of native species exist

and are maintained.

F.18.4.3.1. Criteria for meeting Standard 3:

Upland and riparian-wetland plant communities meet desired plant community objectives. Plant

community objectives are determined with consideration for all multiple uses. Objectives also

address native species, and the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act, Federal Land Policy and

Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and appropriate laws, regulations,

and policies.

Desired plant community objectives will be developed to assure that soil conditions and

ecosystem function described in Standard 1 and Standard 2 are met. They detail a site-specific

plant community objective, which when obtained, will meet rangeland health standards, State

water-quality standards, and adequate habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species.

Thus, desired plant community objectives will be used as an indicator of ecosystem function

and rangeland health.

As indicated by such factors as:

● Composition,

● Structure,

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Arizona Standards & Guidelines
1142 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Distribution.

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable):

● Ecological sites or stream reaches on which a change in existing vegetation is physically,

biologically, or economically impractical.

F.18.4.3.1.1. Guidelines:

Guideline 3-1: The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when

restoring or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, non-intrusive, non-native plant

species are appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) are not economically

feasible, (c) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native species, or (d) cannot

compete with already established non-native species.

Guideline 3-2: Conservation of Federal threatened or endangered, proposed, candidate, and other

special status species is promoted by the maintenance and restoration of their habitats.

Guideline 3-3: Management practices maintain, restore, or enhance water quality in conformance

with State and Federal standards.

Guideline 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 desired plant community

objectives.

Guideline 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 usable

levels at the time grazing begins;

● Sufficient surface and subsurface soil moisture exists for continued plant growth;

● Serviceable waters are capable of providing for proper grazing distribution;

● Sufficient annual vegetation will remain on site to satisfy other resource concerns, (i.e.,

watershed, wildlife, wild horses and burros); and

● Monitoring is conducted during grazing to determine if objectives are being met.

Guideline 3-6: Management practices will target populations of noxious weeds that can be

controlled or eliminated by approved methods.

Guideline 3-7: Management practices to achieve desired plant communities will consider

protection and conservation of known cultural resources, including historical and prehistoric sites

and plants of significance to Native American people.

F.18.5. Lotic and Lentic Checklist

General Instructions:

1. The concept “relative to capability” applies wherever it may be inferred;

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

Lotic and Lentic Checklist August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1143

2. This checklist constitutes the minimum national standards required to determine proper

functioning condition of lotic or lentic riparian-wetland areas;

3. As a minimum, an ID team will use this checklist to determine the degree of function of a

lotic or lentic riparian-wetland area;

4. Mark one box for each element. Elements are numbered for the purpose of cataloging

comments. The numbers do not declare importance;

5. For any item marked “No,” the severity of the condition must be explained in the

“Remarks” section and must be a subject for discussion with the ID team in determining

riparian-wetland functionality. Using the “Remarks” section to explain items marked “Yes”

is encouraged but not required;

6. Based on the ID team's discussion, “functional rating” will be resolved and the checklist's

summary section will be completed;

7. Establish photo points where possible to document the site.

Form may be obtained by contacting the BLM office.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Lotic and Lentic Checklist
1144 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.19. ATTACHMENT 2: SDNM Presidential Proclamation

Presidential Proclamation 7397 of January 17, 2001

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release, January 17, 2001

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT BY THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The Sonoran Desert National Monument is a magnificent example of untrammeled Sonoran

desert landscape. The area encompasses a functioning desert ecosystem with an extraordinary

array of biological, scientific, and historic resources. The most biologically diverse of the North

American deserts, the monument consists of distinct mountain ranges separated by wide valleys,

and includes large saguaro cactus forest communities that provide excellent habitat for a wide

range of wildlife species.

The monument's biological resources include a spectacular diversity of plant and animal species.

The higher peaks include unique woodland assemblages, while the lower elevation lands offer one

of the most structurally complex examples of palo verde/mixed cacti association in the Sonoran

Desert. The dense stands of leguminous trees and cacti are dominated by saguaros, palo-verde

trees, ironwood, prickly pear, and cholla. Important natural water holes, known as tinajas, exist

throughout the monument. The endangered acuña pineapple cactus is also found in the monument.

The most striking aspect of the plant communities within the monument are the abundant saguaro

cactus forests. The saguaro is a signature plant of the Sonoran Desert. Individual saguaro

plants are indeed magnificent, but a forest of these plants, together with the wide variety of

trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants that make up the forest community, is an impressive site to

behold. The saguaro cactus forests within the monument are a national treasure, rivaling those

within the Saguaro National Park.

The rich diversity, density, and distribution of plants in the Sand Tank Mountains area of the

monument is especially striking and can be attributed to the management regime in place since

the area was withdrawn for military purposes in 1941. In particular, while some public access

to the area is allowed, no livestock grazing has occurred for nearly 50 years. To extend the

extraordinary diversity and overall ecological health of the Sand Tanks Mountains area, land

adjacent and with biological resources similar to the area withdrawn for military purposes should

be subject to a similar management regime to the fullest extent possible.

The monument contains an abundance of packrat middens, allowing for scientific analysis of plant

species and climates in past eras. Scientific analysis of the midden shows that the area received

far more precipitation 20,000 years ago, and slowly became more arid. Vegetation for the area

changed from juniper-oak-pinion pine woodland to the vegetation found today in the Sonoran

Desert, although a few plants from the more mesic period, including the Kofa Mountain barberry,

Arizona rosewood, and junipers, remain on higher elevations of north-facing slopes.

The lower elevations and flatter areas of the monument contain the creosote-bursage plant

community. This plant community thrives in the open expanses between the mountain ranges,

and connects the other plant communities together. Rare patches of desert grassland can also be

found throughout the monument, especially in the Sand Tank Mountains area. The washes in

the area support a much denser vegetation community than the surrounding desert, including

mesquite, ironwood, paloverde, desert honeysuckle, chuperosa, and desert willow, as well as a

variety of herbaceous plants.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 2: SDNM Presidential Proclamation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1145

This vegetation offers the dense cover bird species need for successful nesting, foraging, and

escape, and birds heavily use the washes during migration.

The diverse plant communities present in the monument support a wide variety of wildlife,

including the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, a robust population of desert bighorn sheep,

especially in the Maricopa Mountains area, and other mammalian species such as mule deer,

javelina, mountain lion, gray fox, and bobcat. Bat species within the monument include the

endangered lesser long-nosed bat, the California leaf-nosed bat, and the cave myotis. Over 200

species of birds are found in the monument, including 59 species known to nest in the Vekol

Valley area. Numerous species of raptors and owls inhabit the monument, including the elf

owl and the western screech owl. The monument also supports a diverse array of reptiles and

amphibians, including the Sonoran desert tortoise and the red-backed whiptail. The Bureau of

Land Management has designated approximately 25,000 acres of land in the Maricopa Mountains

area as critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The Vekol Valley and Sand Tank Mountain areas

contain especially diverse and robust populations of amphibians. During summer rainfall events,

thousands of Sonoran green toads in the Vekol Valley can be heard moving around and calling out.

The monument also contains many significant archaeological and historic sites, including rock art

sites, lithic quarries, and scattered artifacts. Vekol Wash is believed to have been an important

prehistoric travel and trade corridor between the Hohokam and tribes located in what is now

Mexico. Signs of large villages and permanent habitat sites occur throughout the area, and

particularly along the bajadas of the Table Top Mountains. Occupants of these villages were the

ancestors of today's O'odham, Quechan, Cocopah, Maricopa, and other tribes. The monument

also contains a much used trail corridor 23 miles long in which are found remnants of several

important historic trails, including the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail, the Mormon

Battalion Trail, and the Butterfield Overland Stage Route.

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 Sonoran Desert 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 Sonoran Desert National Monument,

for the purpose of protecting the objects identified above, all lands and interest in lands owned or

controlled by the United States within the boundaries of the area described on the map entitled

“Sonoran Desert National Monument” attached to and forming a part of this proclamation. The

Federal land and interests in land reserved consist of approximately 486,149 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.

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 2: SDNM Presidential Proclamation
1146 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The establishment of this monument is subject to valid existing rights.

All Federal lands and interests in lands within the boundaries of this monument are hereby

appropriated and withdrawn from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or 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 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.

This proclamation does not reserve water as a matter of Federal law nor relinquish any water

rights held by the Federal Government existing on this date. The Federal land management

agencies shall work with appropriate State authorities to ensure that water resources needed for

monument purposes are available.

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. That portion identified as Area A on the map, however, shall be managed under the

management arrangement established by section 3 of Public Law No. 99-606, 100 Stat. 3460-61,

until November 6, 2001, at which time, pursuant to section 5(a) of Public Law No. 99-606, 100

Stat. 3462-63, the military withdrawal terminates. At that time, the Secretary of the Interior shall

assume management responsibility for Area A through the Bureau of Land Management.

The Secretary of the Interior shall prepare a management plan that addresses the actions,

including road closures or travel restrictions, necessary to protect the objects identified in this

proclamation. Laws, regulations, and policies followed by the Bureau of Land Management

in issuing and administering grazing permits or leases on all lands under its jurisdiction shall

continue to apply with regard to the lands in the monument; provided, however, that grazing

permits on Federal lands within the monument south of Interstate Highway 8 shall not be renewed

at the end of their current term; and provided further, that grazing on Federal lands north of

Interstate 8 shall be allowed to continue only to the extent that the Bureau of Land Management

determines that grazing is compatible with the paramount purpose of protecting the objects

identified in this proclamation.

Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to revoke any existing withdrawal, reservation, or

appropriation; however, the national monument shall be the dominant reservation.

Nothing in this proclamation shall preclude low level overflights of military aircraft, the

designation of new units of special use airspace, or the use or establishment of military flight

training routes over the lands included in this proclamation.

In order to protect the public during operations at the adjacent Barry M. Goldwater Range, and

to continue management practices that have resulted in an exceptionally well preserved natural

resource, the current procedures for public access to the portion of the monument depicted as

Area A on the attached map shall remain in full force and effect, except to the extent that the

United States Air Force agrees to different procedures which the Bureau of Land Management

determines are compatible with the protection of the objects identified in this proclamation.

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.

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 2: SDNM Presidential Proclamation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1147

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventeenth day of January, in the

year of our Lord two thousand one, and of the Independence of the United States of America

the two hundred and twenty-fifth.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

F.20. ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data

Table F.16. Vegetation Composition Data

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Big Horn Allotment

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Ditaxis ARNE2 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Ditaxis ARNE2 3% 3%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 13% 3%

Big Bursage AMAM2 2% 1%

Desert Lavender HYEM 1% 5%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 42% 10%

Creosote LATR2 5% 5%

Sweetbush Bebbia BEJU 1% 1%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 3% 3%

Ironwood OLTE 8% 8%

Mesquite PRVE 3% 3%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 7% 7%

BH-1

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 57%

Grasses

Annuals 8% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 8% 8%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 6% 6%

Saguaro CAGI10 1% 1%

Ratany KRPA 0% 0%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 2% 1%

Creosote LATR2 64% 60%

Staghorn Cholla CYVE3 1% 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 1% 1%

Ironwood OLTE 11% 1%

BH-2

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 83%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1148 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Ditaxis ARNE2 1% 0%

Annuals 8% 8%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 16% 16%

Ratany KRPA 4% 4%

Creosote LATR2 50% 50%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 4% 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 4% 1%

Ironwood OLTE 8% 1%

BH-3

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 85%

Grasses

Annuals 4% 4%

Forbs

Annuals 6% 6%

Ditaxis ARNE2 10% 7%

Mat Spurge EUPHO 3% 3%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 10% 4%

Sweetbush Bebbia BEJU 3% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 18% 13%

Creosote LATR2 4% 2%

Vine Milkweed FUCY 1% 1%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 22% 17%

Ironwood OLTE 5% 3%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 14% 14%

BH-4

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 75%

Grasses

Bush Muhly MUPO2 1% 1%

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Ditaxis ARNE2 3% 3%

Annuals 5% 5%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 20% 14%

Ratany KRPA 6% 4%

Creosote LATR2 57% 57%

Cholla OPUNTIA spp. 1% 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 2% 1%

BH-5

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Total 100% 89%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1149

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Big Galleta PLRI3 T T

Bush Muhly MUPO2 1% 1%

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 3% 3%

Globemallow SPAM2 1% 1%

Janusia JAGR T

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 20% 20%

Creosote LATR2 42% 19%

White Bursage AMDU2 13% 13%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 2% 1%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 2% 2%

Whitehorn Acacia ACCR2 2% 2%

Burro Bush HYSA 1% 1%

Trees

Mesquite PRVE 2% 2%

Ironwood OLTE 3% 3%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 5% 5%

BH-6

(2009)

Sandy Loam

Deep

Total 100% 76%

Grasses

Big Galleta PLRI3 13% 10%

Annuals 8% 8%

Forbs

Annuals 5% 5%

Ditaxis ARNE2 15% 9%

Globemallow SPAM2 2% 1%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 15% 2%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 3% 3%

Brittlebush ENFA 1% 0%

Trixis TRCA8 2% 2%

Desert Lavender HYEM 1% 0%

White Ratany KRGR 3% 3%

Creosote LATR2 21% 17%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 4% 3%

Ironwood OLTE 2% 2%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 6% 5%

BH-7

(2009)

Loamy Bottom

Total 100% 70%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1150 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 6% 6%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Mat Spurge EUPHO 1% 1%

Globemallow SPAM2 3% 3%

Shrubs

Limberbush JACA2 3% 1%

White Ratany KRGR 2% 1%

Big Bursage AMAM2 4% 1%

Christmas Cholla CYLE8 3% 3%

Desert Lavender HYEM 2% 1%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

ANDE4 4% 2%

Saguaro CAGI10 1% 1%

Jumping Cholla CYFU10 1% 1%

Coulter’s

Bricklebush

BRCO 1% 1%

Creosote LATR2 5% 2%

Desert Hackberry CEPA 1% 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 7% 7%

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 10% 10%

Ironwood OLTE 2% 2%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 8% 8%

Whitethorn Acacia ACCO2 8% 4%

BH-8

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 71%

Grasses

Fluffgrass ERPU14 1% 1%

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Ditaxis ARNE2 1% 1%

Mat Spurge EUPHO 5% 4%

Annuals 5% 5%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 34% 34%

Ratany KRPA 4% 3%

Creosote LATR2 17% 17%

Buck Horn Cholla CYACM 6% 5%

Saguaro CAGI10 T

Limberbush JACA2 T

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 18% 7%

Ironwood OLTE 4% 2%

BH-9

(2009)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 84%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1151

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 4% 4%

Forbs

Buckwheat ERIOG 4% 0%

Annuals 3% 3%

Shrubs

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 5% 5%

Fishook

Pincushion MAMMI 2% 1%

Hedgehog ECEN 1% 1%

Brittlebush ENFA 2% 2%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 12% 12%

Christmas Cholla CYLE8 13% 6%

Creosote LATR2 35% 19%

Trees

Ironwood OLTE 2% 1%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 14% 9%

Saguaro CAGI10 3% 2%

BH-12

(2009)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 65%

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 6% 6%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 7% 6%

White Bursage AMDU2 3% 3%

White Ratany KRGR 7% 7%

Creosote LATR2 71% 71%

Staghorn Cholla CYVE3 3% 1%

Teddybear Cholla CYBI9 1% 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 T T

BH-13

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Total 100% 98%

Beloat Allotment

Grasses

Annuals 10% 10%

Forbs

Annuals 5% 5%

Shrubs

Brittlebush ENFA 12% 10%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 25% 25%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 2% 2%

Creosote LATR2 18% 13%

Pincushion MAGRG4 1% 1%

Buckhorn Cholla CYACM 2% 2%

Trees

B-1

(2004)

Granitic Hills

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1152 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5

25% 15%

Total 100% 83%

Grasses

Annual 10% 10%

Forbs

Annual 15% 15%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 1% 1%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 7% 2%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 31% 10%

Creosote LATR2 26% 5%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 6% 6%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 2% 2%

Mesquite PRVE 2% 2%

B-2

(2004)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 53%

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Shrubs

Drummond’s

Clematis

CLDR 7% 2%

Janusia JAGR 1% 1%

Vine Milkweed SACY2 17% 8%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 1% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 15% 5%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 25% 20%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 22% 10%

B-4

(2004)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 59%

Grasses

Big Galleta PLRI3 23% 10%

Annuals 10% 10%

Forbs

Annuals 15% 15%

Globemallow SPAM2 1% 1%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 1% 0%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 29% 18%

Creosote LATR2 2% 2%

Vine Milkweed SACY2 12% 0%

Trees

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 7% 7%

B-5

(2004)

Loamy Bottom

Total 100% 64%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1153

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annual 10% 10%

Forbs

Annual 15% 15%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 9% 8%

Creosote LATR2 65% 60%

Christmas Cholla CYLE8 1% 1%

Trees

Mesquite PRVE 1% 1%

B-8

(2004)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 95%

Grasses

Annuals 4% 4%

Forbs

Spurge EUPHO 2% 0%

Desert Trumpet ERIN4 1% 1%

Annuals 3% 3%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 17% 17%

White Ratany KRGR 13% 10%

Mormon Tea EPHED 2% 2%

White Bursage AMDU2 1% 1%

Creosote LATR2 34% 19%

Hedgehog ECEN 1% 1%

Brittlebush ENFA 2% 2%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 19% 9%

Ironwood OLTE 1% 1%

B-9

(2004)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 70%

Conley Allotment

Grasses

Annuals 6% 6%

Bush Muhly MUPO2 2% 2%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Globemallow SPAM2 1% 1%

Arrowleaf

Milkweed

FUCY 1% 1%

Drommond’s

Clematis

CLDR 2% 2%

Ditaxis ARNE2 1% 1%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 22% 2%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 28% 9%

Creosote LATR2 10% 4%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 10% 10%

Ironwood OLTE 1% 1%

C-1

(2009)

Sandy Wash

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1154 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 2% 2%

Mesquite PRVE 7% 7%

Total 100% 55%

Grasses

Annual 5% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Shrubs

Creosote LATR2 84% 60%

Trees

Mesquite PRVE 2% 2%

C-2

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 55%

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 9% 9%

Ditaxis ARNE2 2% 2%

Tobacco NIOB 2% 2%

Wirelettuce STPA3 2% 2%

Shrubs

Big Bursage AMAM2 25% 4%

Drummond’s

Clematis

CLDR 2% 2%

Desert Broom BASA2 2% 1%

Creosote LATR2 1% 1%

Trees

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 6% 6%

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 42% 20%

Mesquite PRVE 2% 2%

C-3

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 56%

Grasses

Annual 6% 6%

Forbs

Annuals 9% 9%

Shrubs

Greythorn ZIOB 3% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 3% 1%

Barrel Cactus FEWI T

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 7% 7%

Creosote LATR2 70% 60%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 2% 1%

C-4

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 98% 85%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1155

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 4% 4%

Big Galleta PLRI3 1% 1%

Forbs

Annuals 2% 2%

Shrubs

White Ratany KRGR 4% 4%

Creosote LATR2 75% 19%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 2% 2%

White Bursage AMDU2 10% 10%

C-5

(2009)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 44%

Grasses

Annuals 8% 8%

Forbs

Annuals 10% 10%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 28% 3%

Arrowleaf

Milkweed

FUCY 1% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 17% 13%

Creosote LATR2 2% 1%

Big Bursage AMAM2 3% 2%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 11% 11%

Ironwood OLTE 7% 7%

Mesquite PRVE 2% 1%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 11% 9%

C-7

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 66%

Grasses

Big Galleta PLRI3 12% 10%

Bush Muhly MUPO2 3% 3%

Annuals 7% 7%

Forbs

Globemallow SPAM2 2% 2%

Ditaxis ARNE2 3% 3%

Annuals 7% 7%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 2% 2%

Creosote LATR2 4% 2%

Drummond’s

Clematis

CLDR 1% 0%

Arrowleaf

Milkweed

FUCY 1% 0%

Coulter’s

Brickelbush

BRCO 1% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 37% 18%

Trixis TRCA8 2% 2%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 10% 9%

C-9

(2009)

Loamy Bottom

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1156 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Mesquite PRVE 6% 6%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 2% 1%

Total 100% 73%

Grasses

Annuals 4% 4%

Forbs

Annuals 3% 3%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 8% 8%

Creosote LATR2 54% 19%

Ocotillo FOSP2 3% 2%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 1% 1%

White Ratany KRGR 11% 10%

Trees

Little-leaf Bursage AMDE4 8% 8%

Creosote LATR2 54% 19%

Ocotillo FOSP2 3% 2%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 1% 1%

White Ratany KRGR 11% 10%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 16% 8%

C-10

(2009)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 55%

Hazen Allotment

Grasses

Annual 5% 5%

Forbs

Annual 8% 8%

Shrubs

White Ratany KRGR 2% 2%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 11% 11%

Creosote LATR2 64% 60%

Saguaro CAGI10 2% 2%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 8% 2%

H-1

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 90%

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 2% 2%

Shrubs

White Ratany KRGR 2% 2%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 13% 13%

Wolfberry LYEX 5% 0%

Creosote LATR2 66% 66%

Greythorn ZIOB 4% 0%

Trees

H-2

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1157

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 5% 1%

Total 100% 87%

Grasses

Annual 5% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Arrowleaf

Milkweed

FUCY 1% 1%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 28% 5%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 3% 2%

Sweetbush Bebbia BEJU 3% 3%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 15% 5%

Creosote LATR2 4% 4%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 14% 14%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 5% 5%

Mesquite PRVE 8% 5%

Whitethorn Acacia ACCO2 3% 3%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 4% 4%

H-4

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 63%

Grasses

Annuals 10% 10%

Forbs

Annuals 7% 7%

Shrubs

Brittlebush ENFA 3% 3%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 7% 7%

Wolfberry LYEX 3% 3%

Creosote LATR2 38% 12%

Buckhorn Cholla CYACM 11% 10%

Barrel Cactus FECY 1%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 20% 15%

H-5

(2009)

Granitic Hills

Total 100% 67%

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 2% 2%

Shrubs

Ratany KRPA 12% 11%

White Bursage AMDU2 3% 2%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 6% 5%

Creosote LATR2 74% 74%

H-6

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Total 100% 97%

Lower Vekol Allotment

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1158 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Big Galleta PLRI3 44% 35%

Bush Muhly MUPO 22% 2%

Annuals 4% 4%

Forbs

Annuals 4% 4%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 15% 10%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 11% 9%

Creosote LATR2 6% 6%

Trees

Mesquite PRVE 6% 6%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 8% 6%

LV-1

(2009)

Loamy Bottom

Total 100% 82%

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 4% 4%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 15% 10%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 11% 9%

Creosote LATR2 6% 6%

Trees

Mesquite PRVE 6% 6%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 8% 6%

LV-2

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Total 100% 82%

Grasses

Annual 5% 5%

Forbs

Ditaxis ARNE2 1% 1%

Annual 7% 7%

Shrubs

Burrobush HYSA 1% 1%

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 9% 2%

Desert Hackberry CEPA 1% 1%

Anderson

Wolfberry

LYAN 5% 2%

Creosote LATR2 29% 8%

Trees

Blue Palo Verde PAFL6 11% 11%

Ironwood OLTE 1% 1%

Whitethorn Acacia ACCO2 8% 4%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 5% 3%

Mesquite PRVE 17% 7%

LV-3

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 53%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1159

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 3% 3%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 32% 32%

Ratany KRPA 1% 1%

Creosote LATR2 49% 19%

Ocotillo FOSP2 1% 1%

Staghorn CYVE3 1% 1%

Jumping Cholla CYFU10 5% 5%

Trees

Saguaro CAGI10 1% 1%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI5 4% 4%

LV-4

(2009)

Limy Upland

Total 100% 70%

Arnold Allotment

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Annuals 8% 8%

Ditaxis ARNE2 3% 3%

Spurge EUPHO 8% 8%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 6% 6%

Creosote LATR2 63% 46%

Ratany KRPA 7% 7%

A-4

(2009)

Limy Fan

Totals 100% 83%

*ESD: Ecological Site Descrption. Each NRCS Ecological Site Description provides a listing of plant species

composition that could be present (or “allowed”) on the site. The “% Present” column indicates what was present

on the site.

Table F.17. Departure from Ecological Site Description

Site Soil/Site Stability Hydrologic Function Biotic Integrity

Big Horn

BH-1 None to slight None to slight Slight to moderate

BH-2 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate None to slight

BH-4 None to slight None to slight None to slight

BH-5 None to slight None to slight None to slight

Beloat

B-2 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate Slight to moderate

B-4 None to slight None to slight Slight to moderate

B-5 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate Slight to moderate

Conley

C-1 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-2 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-3 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-4 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-5 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-7 None to slight None to slight None to slight

C-9 None to slight None to slight None to slight

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1160 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Hazen

H-1 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate Slight to moderate

H-2 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate Slight to moderate

H-4 None to slight None to slight None to slight

H-5 None to slight None to slight None to slight

H-6 Slight to moderate Slight to moderate Slight to moderate

Lower Vekol

LV-1 None to slight None to slight None to slight

LV-2 None to slight None to slight Slight to moderate

LV-3 None to slight None to slight None to slight

Arnold

A-4 None to slight None to slight None to slight

Table F.18. Ground Cover Data (%)

Key Area Ecological Site Vegetative Canopy (%)

Big Horn Allotment

BH-1 Sandy Wash 36%

BH-2 Limy Fan 5%

BH-3 Limy Fan 11%

BH-4 Sandy Wash 48%

BH-5 Limy Upland Deep 14%

BH-6 Sandy Loamy Deep 13%

BH-7 Loamy Bottom 36%

BH-8 Sandy Wash 41%

BH-9 Limy Upland 12%

BH-12 Limy Upland 12%

BH-13 Limy Upland Deep 6%

Beloat Allotment

B-1 Granitic Hills 8%

B-2 Sandy Wash 76%

B-4 Sandy Wash 41%

B-5 Loamy Bottom 79%

B-8 Limy Fan 4%

B-9 Limy Upland 13%

Conley Allotment

C-1 Sandy Wash 71%

C-2 Limy Fan 6%

C-3 Sandy Wash 68%

C-4 Limy Fan 8%

C-5 Limy Upland 8%

C-7 Sandy Wash 31%

C-9 Loamy Bottom 31%

C-10 Limy Upland 24%

Hazen Allotment

H-1 Limy Fan 7%

H-2 Limy Upland Deep 8%

H-4 Sandy Wash 20%

H-5 Granitic Hills 12%

H-6 Limy Upland Deep 12%

H-7 Sandy Wash 62%

Lower Vekol Allotment

LV-1 Loamy Bottom 69%

LV-2 Limy Upland Deep 19%

LV-3 Sandy Wash 60%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1161

LV-4 Limy Upland 10%

Arnold Allotment

A-4 Limy Fan 1%

Other cover data (litter, gravel and bare ground) were also collected at each key area. These were not included in

the overall data analysis. Litter cover can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on precipitation. Gravel

covers, which range from 5-60% are highly variable for these soil series and are not good indicators of rangeland

condition. Instead, ecological sites within the grazed portions of the SDNM were compared to similar ecological

sites in the ungrazed sites in BGR/Area A.

Table F.19. Average Cover of Microbiotic Crusts (% by Plot)

Vegetation Community

(Ecological Site)

BGR/Area A Big Horn Conley Beloat Hazen Lower Vekol

Creosote Bursage (Limy

Fan, Limy Upland Deep)

1.8 9.5 3.2 2.1 5.0 **

Xeroriparian (Sandy

Wash)

0.0 1.7 1.0 ** 1.5 **

Other cover data (litter, gravel and bare ground) were also collected at each key area. These were not included

in the overall data analysis. Litter cover can vary dramatically from year to year, depending on precipitation.

Gravel covers, which range from 5-60% are highly variable for these soil series and are not good indicators of

rangeland condition. Instead, ecological sites within the grazed portions of the SDNM were compared to similar

ecological sites in the ungrazed sites in BGR/Area A.

Table F.20. BMG/Area A Comparison Plots – Big Horn Allotment

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 2% 2%

Forbs

Mat Spurge EUPHO 1% 0%

Annuals 4% 4%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 34% 11%

Ratany KRPA 11% 7%

Creosote LATR2 34% 34%

Buckhorn Cholla CYACM 4% 1%

Hedgehog ECEN 1% 0%

Saguaro CAGI10 1% 1%

Ocotillo FOSP2 3% 2%

Trees

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI 4% 0.5%

Ironwood OLTE 1% 0.5%

BHPP1S

(2009)

Limy Upland

Deep

Total 100% 63%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1162 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Transect Ecological Site Plant species Symbol % Present % Allowed in

ESD*

Grasses

Annuals 3% 3%

Forbs

Annuals 5% 5%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 24% 17%

Ratany KRPA 4% 3%

Creosote LATR2 51% 51%

Mistletoe PHCA T

Burrobush HYSA 1% 0%

Buckhorn Cholla CYACM 3% 1%

Saguaro CAGI10 1% 1%

Limberbush JACA2 T

Trees

Ironwood OLTE 4% 1%

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 1% 0%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI 3% 1%

BHPP2S

(2009)

Limy Fan

Total 100% 83%

Grasses

Annuals 5% 5%

Forbs

Ditaxis ARNE2 1% 1%

Annuals 6% 6%

Spurge EUPHO 1% 1%

Shrubs

Triangle-leaf

Bursage

AMDE4 6% 2%

Coulter’s

Bricklebush

BRCO 2% 2%

Big Bursage AMAM 1% 1%

Creosote LATR2 30% 5%

Burrobush HYSA 1% 1%

Anderson Wolfberry LYAN 9% 7%

Trees

Catclaw Acacia ACGR 1% 1%

Ironwood OLTE 33% 14%

Little-leaf Palo

Verde

PAMI 4% 4%

BHPP3S

(2009)

Sandy Wash

Total 100% 19%

*ESD: Ecological Site Descrption. Each NRCS Ecological Site Description provides a listing of plant species

composition that could be present (or “allowed”) on the site. The “% Present” column indicates what was present

on the site.

Table F.21. BGR/Area A Pacific Biodiversity Institute Plots

Plot # Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Limy Fan

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 6% 92%

Cylindropuntia Acanthocarpa 0.25% 4%

Camegiea Gigantea 0.25% 4% 236

Total 6.5% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1163

Plot # Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 8% 100%

237

Total 8% 100%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 7% 88%

240 Krameria Grayi 1% 12%

Total 8% 100%

Limy Upland Deep

Muhlenbergia Porteri 1% 5%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 7% 38%

Krameria Grayi 2% 11%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 16%

Erioneuron Pulchellum 3% 16%

Cylindropuntia Leptocaulis 1% 5%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

269

Total 18% 97%

Pleuraphis Rigida 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 8% 46%

Cylindropuntia Fulgida 9% 53% 272

Total 17% 100%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 5% 63%

Krameria Grayi 2% 25%

Ambrosia Dumosa 1% 12% 234

Total 8% 100%

Granitic Hills

Parkinsonia Microphylla 4% 25%

Lycium 3% 18%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 2% 12%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 18%

Echinocereus Engelmannii 1% 6%

Cylindropuntia Acanthocarpa 1% 6%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 2%

Ambrosia Dumosa 1% 6%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 6%

232

Total 16% 100%

Sandy Wash

Ziziphus Obtusifolia 2% 5%

Sebastiania Bilocularis 0.25% 1%

Parkinsonia Florida 15% 40%

Olneya Tesota 15% 40%

Lycium Andersonii 3% 8%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 1% 3%

Condalia Warnockii 0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Ambrosioides 1% 3%

233

Total 38% 100%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data
1164 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 30% 63%

Olneya Tesota 10% 21%

Lycium 1% 2%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 2% 4%

Janusia Gracile 2% 4%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa 1% 2%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Acanthocarpa 0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Brickellia Coulteri 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

252

Total 47.5% 100%

Ziziphus Obtusifolia 0.25% 1%

Trixis Californica 0.25% 1%

Prosopis Velutina 1% 4%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 8% 34%

Lyrocarpa Coulteri 0.25% 1%

Lycium 1% 4%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 3% 13%

Krameria Grayi 0.25% 13%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 1%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Condalia Warnockii 1% 4%

Bebbia Juncea Aspera 2% 9%

Asclepias Subulata 1% 4%

Ambrosia Confertifolia 1% 4%

Ambrosia Ambrosioides 1% 4%

Acacia Greggii 3% 13%

262

Total 23.5% 100%

Ziziphus Obtusifolia 2% 8%

Prosopis Velutina 2% 8%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 3% 12%

Olneya Tesota 2% 8%

Lycium 4% 15%

Larrea Divaricata Tridentata 10% 38%

Ephedra Aspera 2% 8%

Atriplex Canescens 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

Acacia Greggii 0.25% 1%

Acacia Constricta 0.25% 1%

271

Total 26% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 3: Key Area Data August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1165

F.21. ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots

Table F.22. Pacific Biodiversity Institute Study Plots

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Big Horn Allotment

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

7% 85%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 12%

58 Limy Fan

Total 8% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

6% 80%

Ferocactus Cylindraceus 0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 13%

59 Limy Upland Deep

Total 7.25% 96%

Mammilliaria 0.25% 5%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

3% 54%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 5%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 2% 36%

60 Limy Upland Deep

Total 5.5% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 2% 13%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

11% 71%

Krameria Grayi 0.25% 1.5%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1.5%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 2% 13%

61 Limy Upland Deep

Total 15.5% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 6% 62%

Mammallaria Grahamii 0.25% 3%

Lycium 0.25% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

1% 10%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 3%

Ferocactus Emoryi 0.25% 3%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

0.25% 3%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 10%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 3%

63 Granitic Hills

Total 9.5% 100%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1166 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 6% 20%

Olneya Tesota 4% 14%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

0.25% 1%

Krameria Grayi 2% 7%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 10%

Fagonia Californica 2% 7%

Euphorbia 1% 3%

Erioneuron Pulchellum 1% 3%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

1% 3%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 9% 31%

181 Granitic Hills

Total 29.5% 100%

Granitic Hills 1% 2%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 20% 51%

Lycium 2% 5%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

1% 2%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 2%

Fagonia Californica 3% 8%

Eriogonum Inflatum 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

1% 2%

Draba Cuneifolia 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Caliandra Eriophylla 3% 8%

Aristida 1% 2%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 5% 13%

183 Granite Hills

Total 39.5% 99%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 18% 63%

Lycium 1% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

3% 11%

Hyptis Emoryi 1% 3%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 1%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 4% 14%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

0.25% 1%

Brickellia Coulteri 0.25% 1%

Aristida Purpurea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

194 Granitic Hills

Total 28.5% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1167

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 9% 30%

Lycium Parishii 1% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

8% 27%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 1%

Euphorbia 1% 3%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Fulgida 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 1% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 9% 30%

196 Granitic Hills

Total 30% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 20% 46%

Olneya Tesota 2% 4%

Mammillaria Grahamii 0.25% 1%

Lycium 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

1% 2%

Krameria Grayi 1% 2%

Janusia Gracile 0.25% 1%

Fouquieria Splendens 2% 4%

Fagonia Californica 1% 2%

Ditaxis Lanceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Aristida Purpurea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 14% 32%

198 Granitic Hills

Total 43.5% 100%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 1% 5%

Parkinsonia Florida 1% 5%

Notholaena Standleyi 0.25% 1%

Nicotaiana Obtusifolia 0.25% 1%

Muhlenbergia Porteri 0.25% 1%

Machaeranthera

Pinnatifida

0.25% 1%

Lycium 1% 5%

Janusia Gracile 0.25% 1%

Hyptis Emoryi 7% 37%

Fagonia Californica 1% 5%

Ephedra Aspera 1% 5%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

2% 11%

Ditaxis Lanceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Brickellia Coulteri 3% 16%

199 Granitic Hills

Total 19% 97%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1168 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Trixis Californica 0.25% 1%

Pleuraphis Rigida 0.25% 1%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 3% 13%

Mammillaria Grahamii 0.25% 1%

Hyptis Emoryi 4% 16%

Hibiscus Denudatus 4% 16%

Fouquieria Splendens 2% 8%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

8% 33%

Ditaxis Adenophora 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 4%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Aristida 1% 4%

200 Granitic Hills

Total 24.5% 100%

Selaginella Arizonica 25% 42%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 6% 10%

Krameria Grayi 3% 5%

Hyptis Emoryi 1% 2%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 5%

Euphorbia 1% 2%

Eriogonum Inflatum 1% 2%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

6% 10%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 1% 2%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Aristida Purpurea 3% 5%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 6% 10%

Acacia Constricta 2% 3%

201 Granitic Hills

Total 59% 100%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 0.25% 1%

Prosopis Velutina 2% 6%

Parkinsonia Florida 3% 9%

Olneya Tesota 3% 9%

Nicotiana Obtusifolia 1% 3%

Muhlenbergia Porteri 0.25% 1%

Lyrocarpa Coulteri 2% 6%

Hymenoclea Salsola 15% 47%

Euphorbia Polycarpa 1% 3%

Euphorbia Arizonica 0.25% 1%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Calliandra Eriophylla 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

Acacia Greggii 3% 9%

190 Sandy Wash

Total 32% 99%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1169

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 10% 32%

Parkinsonia Florida 7% 22%

Nicotiana Obtusifolia 0.25% 1%

Lyrocarpa Coulteri 0.25% 1%

Lycium Parishii 3% 10%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

4% 12%

Hymenoclea Salsola 3% 10%

Ditaxis Neomexicana 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Leptocaulis

0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Ambrosioides 0.25% 1%

192 Sandy Wash

Total 31% 100%

Viguiera Parishii 0.25% 0.5%

Trixis Californica 1% 2%

Pleuraphis Rigida 0.25% 0.5%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 20% 44%

Menodora Scabra 0.25% 0.5%

Lycium 1% 2%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

0.25% 0.5%

Janusia Gracile 3% 6%

Hyptis Emoryi 3% 6%

Hibiscus Denudatus 0.25% 0.5%

Heteropogon Contortus 0.25% 0.5%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 0.5%

Fagonia Californica 2% 4%

Eriogonum Inflatum 1% 2%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 1% 2%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% 0.5%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

2% 4%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 1% 2%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Carnegiea Gigantea 1% 2%

Calliandra Eriophylla 1% 2%

Ayenia Microphylla 0.25% 0.5%

Aristida 0.25% 0.5%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 5% 11%

202 Sandy Wash

Total 45.5% 96%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1170 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Trixis Californica 1% 2%

Selaginella Arizonica 0.25% 0.5%

Parkinsonia Florida 25% 58%

Lycium 1% 2%

Janusia Gracile 0.25% 0.5%

Hyptis Emoryi 2% 5%

Heteropogon Contortus 0.25% 0.5%

Fouquieria Splendens 2% 4.5%

Eriogonum Inflatum 0.25% 0.5%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 3% 7%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% 0.5%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

4% 9%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 1% 2%

Cylindroputina

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 0.5%

Aristida Purpurea 1% 2%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 0.5%

203 Sandy Wash

Total 43% 97.5%

Beloat Allotment

40 Limy Fan

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

7% 100%

Lycium Andersonii 0.25% 2%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

10% 89%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 9%

41 Limy Fan

Total 11% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

6% 75%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 2% 25% 42 Limy Fan

Total 8% 100%

43 Limy Fan

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

7% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

6% 53%

Euphorbia 0.25% 2%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 5% 45%

44 Limy Fan

Total 11% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 0.25% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

7% 88%

Ferocactus Wislizeni 0.25% 3%

Euphorbia 0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 3%

45 Limy Fan

Total 8% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

6% 70%

Krameria Grayi 0.25% 3%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 2% 24%

46 Limy Fan

Total 8.5% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1171

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Trixis Californica 0.25% T

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 2% 4%

Selaginella Arizonica 30% 47%

Porophyllum Gracile 0.25% T

Parkinsonia Microphylla 15% 23%

Mirabilis Laevis v.

Villosa

1% 2%

Menodora Scabra 1% 2%

Lycium Berlandieri 1% 2%

Lycium 0.25% T

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

0.25% T

Janusia Gracile 3% 5%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 2%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 3% 5%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% T

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

4% 6%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% T

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% T

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% T

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 2%

Acacia Greggii 0.25% T

48 Granitic Hills

Total 64% 100%

Trixis Californica 1% 2%

Viguiera Parishii 1% 2%

Stephanomeria

Pauciflora

0.25% T

Sphaeralcea 4% 9%

Selaginella Arizonica 7% 16%

Pleuraphis Rigida 1% 2%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 10% 23%

Lycium Exsertum 1% 2%

Lycium Berlandieri 5% 11%

Janusia Gracile 4% 9%

Hyptis Emoryi 0.25% T

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% T

Eriogonum Wrightii 0.25% T

Ephedra Aspera 1% 2%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

9% 20%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 1% 2%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% T

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% T

49 Granitic Hills

Total 46.5% 100%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1172 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Viguiera Parishii 2% 6%

Senna Covesii 0.25% 1%

Porophyllum Gracile 2% 6%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 5% 16%

Mirabilis Laevis v.

Villosa

1% 3%

Lycium 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

0.25% 1%

Krameria Grayi 2% 6%

Janusia Gracile 1% 3%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 3%

Eriogonum Inflatum 1% 3%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 1% 3%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

2% 6%

Echinocereus

Engelmannii

1% 3%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 4% 13%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

4% 13%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Dumosa 3% 10%

50 Granitic Hills

Total 31% 99%

Viguiera Parishii 3% 8%

Tridens Muticus 0.25% 1%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 3% 8%

Selaginella Arizonica 1% 3%

Porophyllum Gracile 1% 3%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 4% 9%

Opuntia Chlorotica 1% 3%

Muhlenbergia Porteri 1% 3%

Mirabilis Laevis v.

Villosa

1% 3%

Lycium Berlandieri 3% 8%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

5% 13%

Krameria Grayi 2% 5%

Janusia Gracile 5% 13%

Gymnosperma

Glutinosum

0.25% 1%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 3%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 2% 5%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

3% 8%

Celtis Pallida Pallida 0.25% 1%

Agave Deserti Simplex 0.25% 1%

51 Granitic Hills

Total 37% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1173

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Viguiera Parishii 0.25% 0.5%

Stephanomeria

Pauciflora

0.25% 0.5%

Selaginella Arizonica 22% 46%

Salsola Tragus 0.25% 0.5%

Prophyllum Gracile 0.25% 0.5%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 0.25% 0.5%

Mammillaria Grahamii 0.25% 0.5%

Lycium Berlandieri 0.25% 0.5%

Lycium 0.25% 0.5%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

3% 6%

Krameria Grayi 0.25% 0.5%

Janusia Gracile 0.25% 0.5%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 6%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 0.25% 2%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

0.25% 31.5%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 0.5%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

52 Granitic Hills

Total 48% 99%

Conley Allotment

29 Limy Fan

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

3% 100%

3 Limy Fan

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

17% 100%

Prosopis Velutina 1% 11%

Lycium Andersonii 0.25% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

5% 52%

Ferocactus 0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 3% 31%

5 Limy Fan

Total 9.5% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

5% 95%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 5% 16 Limy Fan

Total 5% 100%

Sphaeralcea Coulteri 0.25% 0%

Prosopis Velutina 0.25% 0%

Parkinsonia Florida 35% 64%

Lycium Andersonii 15% 27%

Larrea Tridentata 4% 7%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 0%

4 Sandy Wash

Total 55% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

7% 90%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 3%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 3%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 0.25% 3%

6 Limy Upland Deep

Total 8% 99%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1174 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 0.25% 3%

Lycium Andersonii 0.25% 3%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

1% 10%

Hyptis Emoryi 1% 10%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

6% 65%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 3%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 3%

Aristida 0.25% 3%

7 Granitic Hills

Total 9% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 4% 22%

Olneya Tesota 0.25% 1%

Mammillaria 0.25% 1%

Lycium 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

2% 11%

Krameria Grayi 1% 6%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Euphorbia 2% 11%

Eriogonum Inflatum 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

3% 17%

Echinocereus 0.25% 1%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

2% 11%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 6%

Allionia Incarnata 1% 6%

187 Granitic Hills

Total 18% 99%

Hazen Allotment

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 0.25% 1%

Parkinsonia Florida 12% 46%

Olneya Tesota 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

12% 46%

Hymenoclea Salsola 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 4%

227 Limy Fan

Total 26% 100%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

5% 59%

Echinocereus

Engelmannii

0.25% 3%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 3% 35%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 3%

229 Limy Fan

Total 9% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1175

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Viguiera Parishii 2% 10%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 1% 5%

Senecio 0.25% 1%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 2% 10%

Mammillaria Grahamii 0.25% 1%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

2% 10%

Hyptis Emoryi 1% 5%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 1%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

5% 24%

Echinocereus

Engelmannii

0.25% 1%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 4% 19%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 5%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Aristida 1% 5%

231 Granitic Hills

Total 21% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 2% 5%

Olneya Tesota 20% 51%

Lycium Berlandieri 10% 26%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

4% 10%

Hyptis Emoryi 0.25% 1%

Hymenoclea Salsola 1% 2.5%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

0.25% 1%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 2.5%

228 Sandy Wash

Total 39% 100%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 7% 29%

Olneya Tesota 3% 12%

Lycium Berlandieri 2% 8%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

4% 17%

Krameria Grayi 2% 8%

Fagonia Californica 1% 4%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

1% 4%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 4%

Aristida 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Dumosa 1% 4%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 3% 12%

230 Sandy Wash

Total 25% 100%

Lower Vekol Allotment

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1176 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Parkinsonia Microphylla 25% 52%

Lycium 6% 13%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 6%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

3% 6%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 10% 21%

185 Granitic Hills

Total 48% 100%

Viguiera Parishii 0.25% 1%

Trixis Californica 0.25% 1%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 0.25% 1%

Senecio Lemmonii 0.25% 1%

Selaginella Arizonica 4% 10%

Pleuraphis Rigida 0.25% 1%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 7% 19%

Mirabilis Laevis v.

Villosa

1% 2%

Mammaillaria Grahamii 0.25% 1%

Lycium 3% 8%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

0.25% 1%

Krameria Grayi 1% 2%

Hyptis Emoryi 3% 8%

Hibiscus Denudatus 0.25% 1%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 2%

Fagonia Californica 0.25% 1%

Eriogonum Inflatum 1% 2%

Ephedra Aspera 1% 2%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

9% 24%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 1% 2%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ayenia Microphylla 0.25% 1%

Aristida 1% 2%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 1% 2%

Adenophyllum

Porophylloides

0.25% 1%

Acleisanthes Iongiflora 0.25% 1%

204 Granitic Hills

Total 38% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1177

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Viguiera Parishii 15% 18%

Stephanomeria

Pauciflora

1% 1%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 2% 3%

Senecio Lemmonii 2% 3%

Selaginella Arizonica 20% 25%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 2% 3%

Nicotiana Obtusifolia 0.25% T

Mirabilisi Laevis v.

Villosa

0.25% T

Menodora Scabra 1% 1%

Lycium 5% 6%

Larrea Divaricata

Tridentata

5% 6%

Krameria Grayi 1% 1%

Janusia Gracile 10% 12%

Hyptis Emoryi 0.25% T

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 4%

Eriogonum Wrightii 2% 3%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 0.25% T

Ephedra Aspera 1% 1%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

2% 3%

Celtis Pallida Pallida 1% 1%

Brickellia Coulteri 1% 1%

Aloysia Wrightii 0.25% T

Agave Desert Simplex 2% 3%

Adenophyllum

Porophylloides

0.25% T

Acacia Greggii 3% 4%

205 Granitic Hills

Total 81% 99%

Granitic Hills 1% 2%

Selaginella Arizonica 10% 24%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 9% 22%

Menodora Scabra 0.25% 1%

Lycium Andersonii 0.25% 1%

Krameria Grayi 2% 5%

Janusia Gracile 0.25% 1%

Fouquieria Splendens 0.25% 1%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 2% 5%

Ephedra Aspera 0.25% 1%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

1% 2%

Ditaxis Ianceolata 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 5% 12%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

0.25% 1%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Aristida 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 8% 19%

206 Granitic Hills

Total 40.25% 100%

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Study Plots
1178 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Plot # Ecological Site Scientific Name % Cover % Composition

Selaginella Arizonica 8% 20%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 10% 26%

Lycium 2% 5%

Krameria Grayi 1% 2%

Janusia Gracile 1% 2%

Fouquieria Splendens 1% 2%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 1% 2%

Ephedra Aspera 1% 2%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

3% 7%

Echinocereus 0.25% 1%

Cylindropuntia Bigelovii 1% 2%

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 2%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% 1%

Ambrosia Deltoidea 8% 20%

Agave Deserti Simplex 0.25% 1%

Acacia Constricta 2% 5%

207 Granitic Hills

Total 41% 100%

Viguiera Parishii 4% 6%

Stephanomeria

Pauciflora

3% 4%

Sphaeralcea Ambigua 2% 3%

Senecio Lemmoni 1% 1%

Selaginella Arizonica 25% 36%

Parkinsonia Microphylla 2% 3%

Menodora Scabra 1% 1.5%

Lycium 1% 1.5%

Krameria Grayi 2% 3%

Janusia Gracile 2% 3%

Hyptis Emoryi 2% 3%

Fouquieria Splendens 3% 4%

Eriogonum Fasiculatum 15% 22%

Ephedra Aspera 2% 3%

Encelia Farinosa

Farinosa

1% 1.5%

Echinocereus 0.25% T

Cylindropuntia

Acanthocarpa

1% 1.5%

Carnegiea Gigantea 0.25% T

Aristida 0.25% T

Agave Deserti Simplex 0.25% T

Adenophyllum

Porophylloides

1% 1.5%

Acacia Greggii 1% 1.5%

209 Granitic Hills

Total 70% 100%

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 4: Pacific Biodiversity Institute

Study Plots August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1179

F.22. ATTACHMENT 5: Pacific Biodiversity Institute Saguaro

Study

Table F.23. : Saguaro Cover & Stem Count Information for the Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

Community (PBI 2004)

Location

Dependent Variable

Former Area A and BMGR

(mean ± SD)

Remainder SDNM

(mean ± SD)

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti-Mixed Scrub on Bajadas (Includes Limy Upland Ecological Site)

Sample Size (n) 5 30

# Total Stems 2.00 ± 1.00 2.44 ± 3.38

# Short Stems 0.00 ± 0.00 0.96 ± 1.81

# Medium Stems 0.60 ± 0.89 0.70 ± 1.26

# Tall Stems 1.40 ± 1.14 0.78 ± 1.42

% Cover 0.40 ± 0.34 0.67 ± 0.76

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti-Mixed Scrub on Rocky Slopes (Includes Granitic Hills Ecological Site)

Sample Size (n) 28 36

# Total Stems 4.33 ± 4.35 2.67 ± 3.92

# Short Stems 1.26 ± 1.43 0.83 ± 1.42

# Medium Stems 2.11 ± 2.78 1.33 ± 2.28

# Tall Stems 0.96 ± 1.22 0.50 ± 0.90

% Cover 0.62 ± 0.55 0.34 ± 0.25

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 5: Pacific Biodiversity

Institute Saguaro Study
1180 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

F.23. ATTACHMENT 6: Resource Condition Objectives Related

to Grazing Management

Objectives from the Lower Gila South RMP (LGSRMTAP), 1988

● Maintain ecological rangeland conditions currently in good to excellent condition and improve

those areas in poor to fair condition.

Resource objectives from the Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public

Lands in Arizona (TP), 1990.

● Ensure that livestock use is consistent with the category goals, objectives and management

actions of the Rangewide Plan and this strategy. This may include limiting, precluding, or

deferring livestock use as documented in activity plans or other site-specific plans. The

Habitat Category Goals are: Category I - Maintain stable, viable populations and protect

existing tortoise habitat values; increase populations, where possible. Category II - Maintain

stable, viable populations and halt further declines in tortoise habitat values. Category III -

Limit tortoise habitat and population declines to the extent possible by mitigating impacts.

● Manage livestock to allow adequate and suitable native forage and cover for tortoises

throughout the year.

● Where ecological site potential permits, manage livestock grazing to increase native perennial

grasses, forbs and shrubs that are required by tortoise.

● Allow utilization of tortoise forage and cover plants by livestock only to levels which allow

for long-term plant vigor and adequate standing vegetation for late summer-fall tortoise use.

● Ephemeral ranges are managed for the protection of perennial vegetation and dependent

wildlife species.

F.24. ATTACHMENT 7: Key Management Species List

Important browse species list for livestock and mule deer:

● Parry dalea (DAPA)

● White burrobush (HYSA)

● Lance-leaf ditaxis (DILA)

● Saltbush (ATCA)

● White bursage (AMDU)

● Slender janusia (JAGR)

● Drummond’s clematis (CLDR)

● Ratany (KR spp.)

● Twinberry (MESC)

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for the

Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 6: Resource Condition Objectives

Related to Grazing Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1181

● Mormon tea (EP spp.)

● Desert lavender ((HYEM)

● Wolfberry (LY spp.)

● Whitestem paperflower (PSCO)

● Goldeneye (VIDE)

● Coulter lyrefruit (LYCO)

● White flythicket (BRIN)

● Trumpet buckwheat (ERIN)

● Abutilon (AB spp.)

● Sweetbush bebbia (BEJU)

● Trixis (TRCA)

● Bricklebush (BRCO)

● Desert hibiscus (HIDE)

● False mesquite (CAER)

● Flattop buckwheat (ERFA)

August 2011

Appendix F Arizona Land Health Evaluation for

the Sonoran Desert National Monument

ATTACHMENT 7: Key Management Species List
TABLE TOP

SOUTH MARICOPA

MTNS

NORTH MARICOPA

MTNS

BIG HORN

ARNOLD

HAZEN BELOAT

CONLEY

LOWER

VEKOL

KIRIAN

VEKOL

TABLE

TOP

PALO

VERDE

MTNS.

SOUTH

VEKOL

SANTA

ROSA

STOUT

Sonoran Desert National Monument 

General Reference

Interstate 

State Route

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown. 

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy 

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no 

planning authority under the municipal or county planning 

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Land Health Evaluation

SDNM Location

and

Grazing Allotments

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

Allotment Boundaries

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness

State

Private

0 2 4 8 Miles

± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information: 

BLM September 2010

1375,000

Anza National Historic Trail

 
?Í

Aó

!`

TABLE TOP

SOUTH MARICOPA

MTNS

NORTH MARICOPA

MTNS

s283

s399

s288

s289

s293

s280

s278

s277

s285

s279

s310

s276

s9585

s296

s430

s317

Sonoran Desert National Monument 

General Reference

Interstate 

State Route

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown. 

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy 

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no 

planning authority under the municipal or county planning 

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: March 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Map 2

Land Health Evaluation

SDNM Soils

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

0 2 4 8 Miles

± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information: 

BLM September 2010

1375,000

Cherioni - Hyder - Cipriano (s289)

Gunsight - Chuckawalla (s288)

Gunsight - Rillito - Denure (s399)

Mohall - Dateland (s283)

Quilotosa - Rock Outcrop - Momoli (s293)
TABLE TOP

SOUTH MARICOPA

MTNS

NORTH MARICOPA

MTNS

Sonoran Desert National Monument 

General Reference

County Boundary

Interstate 

State Route

No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

for the use of this map for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the

accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information shown. 

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy 

Standards. This information may be updated without notification.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducts land use

planning only in the areas administered by BLM. BLM has no 

planning authority under the municipal or county planning 

legislation of the State of Arizona.

Map Last Revised: Jan. 2010

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Coconino

Yavapai

Mohave

La Paz

Yuma

Pima

Santa

Cruz

Maricopa Gila

Greenlee

Pinal

Navajo

Apache

Graham

Cochise

Map 3

Land Health Evaluation

SDNM Wildlife

Lower Sonoran and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Draft RMP/EIS

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness

State

Private

0248 Miles ± Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information: 

BLM September 2010

1375,000

50 Mile Radious from Old Mammon Mine -

Lesser Long Nosed Bat

50 Mile Radious from Blue Bird Mine -

Lesser Long Nosed Bat

Desert Tortoise

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Bighorn Sheep Habitat


Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1183

Appendix G. Sonoran Desert National

Monument Recreational Target Shooting

Analysis

G.1. Summary

This analysis was undertaken to ascertain the suitability of recreational target shooting in

Arizona’s Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM). Increased use of public lands for

recreational target shooting, the resultant impacts to resources from this activity, and concerns for

visitor safety have raised awareness of management issues related to target shooting. The analysis

was conducted in two parts: 1) a geographic information system (GIS) analysis was conducted to

find areas with significant presence of Monument objects and high natural or cultural resource

sensitivity, and to locate areas where the natural slope of the terrain may be conducive to safe

target shooting; and 2) field visits to all areas not excluded from target shooting by the GIS

analysis were made, whereby significant presence of Monument objects and high natural and/or

cultural resource sensitivity, visitor safety and experience, and site accessibility were assessed.

The GIS analysis indicated that approximately 389,989 acres, or 80 percent, of the SDNM could

be adversely impacted by recreational target shooting and is unsuitable for such activity. The

GIS analysis also indicated that of the remaining 96,411 acres, or 20 percent, of the SDNM, eight

sites appear to have sufficient slope to allow safe target shooting. Field visits to these eight sites

indicate that one 84-acre area may be highly suitable for target shooting and one area totaling

approximately 107 acres may be moderately suitable for target shooting. The remaining six sites

are unsuitable due to concerns for visitor safety, potential impacts to Monument objects, or

inaccessibility by motor vehicles.

G.2. Introduction

Invoking his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906, President Clinton designated the

SDNM with Presidential Proclamation 7397 on Jan. 17, 2001. Since designation of the SDNM,

impacts from recreational target shooting have increasingly become a management concern. Such

impacts commonly include damage to protected plants, particularly saguaro; areas denuded of

vegetation, both at sites from which shooting occurs and at target areas; accumulation of debris

used as targets, such as discarded appliances, propane bottles, glassware, furniture, automobile

tires, plywood, sheet metal, and numerous other types of trash; and safety of other visitors,

particularly with regard to inadequate backstops. Currently, recreational target shooting is

dispersed throughout the SDNM; however, the activity is concentrated near the northern boundary

along the El Paso Natural Gas Company pipeline road, and at smaller sites adjacent to State Route

238 and Vekol Valley Road. During October-November, 2008 the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) removed six tons of debris from recreational target shooting sites in these areas. (See

??? (p. 1194) and ??? (p. 1195) for photos of the sites).

Proclamation 7397 directed the BLM to manage the SDNM for the paramount purpose of

protecting its “objects.” The following analysis was undertaken to determine areas of the SDNM

where continued recreational target shooting would cause unacceptable impact to the objects for

which the SDNM was designated, as well as to identify areas where such activity is compatible

with such objects.

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Summary
1184 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

G.3. Method of Analysis

The BLM established a two-part process using two sets of criteria with which to evaluate the

potential impacts of recreational target shooting on the SDNM (see Table G.1, “Shooting Analysis

Criteria” (p. 1184)). Known concentrations of Monument objects or significant presence of high

natural and/or cultural resource sensitivity were determined using GIS analysis. Portions of the

SDNM that scored high for these variables from this analysis were determined to be unsuitable

for continued recreational target shooting and excluded from further analysis.

Table G.1. Shooting Analysis Criteria

Phase 1: Criteria applied through GIS analysis Phase 2: Criteria applied through on-site field visits

1. Significant presence of Monument objects or high

natural resource sensitivity.

2. Presence of suitable terrain for shooting (existing

natural backstop or berm).

1. Significant presence of Monument objects or high

natural and cultural resource sensitivity that was

not captured through GIS analysis.

2. Visitor safety and experience where shooting is

incompatible with other uses or where it could

result in adverse impacts to facilities, public use

sites, or other BLM and private assets.

3. Accessibility by motor vehicle.

4. Physical suitability of terrain for shooting activity.

In areas that were not excluded due to concerns for Monument objects, GIS analysis was further

used to distinguish areas where the natural slope of the terrain indicated that target shooting

might be conducted safely. In order for dispersed, undeveloped target shooting to occur in a safe

environment on public lands without risk to others, a natural backstop or berm with sufficient

dimensions must be located behind the target. There are vast, flat areas in the SDNM where target

shooting would not meet minimum safety standards due to the absence of any natural backstops.

Following the GIS analysis, field criteria were developed for areas where significant presence of

Monument objects was not expected and where adequate slopes were found. Each of these areas

was visited in the field and assessed against these criteria, which are presented above in Table 1.

G.3.1. Phase One: GIS Analysis

G.3.1.1. GIS Criteria 1: Presence of Monument Objects

Three data sets, or “overlays,” indicating significant present of Monument objects and high

natural resource sensitivity were used. The overlays were 1) presence of palo verde-mixed cacti

vegetation community; 2) presence of high quality desert tortoise habitat; and 3) presence of

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail corridor segments. These data sets were analyzed

cumulatively, or merged, in the order presented above, and the cumulative acreage of the SDNM

found to be unsuitable for continued recreational target shooting was tabulated. Each of these

areas was visited in the field and assessed against these criteria, which are presented above in

Table G.1, “Shooting Analysis Criteria” (p. 1184).

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Method of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1185

G.3.1.1.1. Presence of Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community

Rationale: The palo verde-mixed cacti vegetation community, described and mapped by the U.S.

Geological Survey (2004), provides the best-known image of the Sonoran Desert: dense “forests”

of saguaro (Carnegia gigantea) and other cacti, and thick woodlands of palo verde (Cercidium

microphyllum), mesquite (Prosopis sp.), and ironwood (Olneya tesota) trees covering the slopes

and outwash plains of jagged, isolated mountain ranges. Map G-1 shows the extent of this

vegetation community within the SDNM. These dominant cactus and trees species provide forage,

nesting, and cover habitat for numerous wildlife species and are particularly vulnerable to damage

from shooting. Intentional or incidental destruction of saguaros and trees is common at shooting

sites. For examples of such damage, see ??? (p. 1196) and ??? (p. 1197). See Comparison of

Imapcts Documented at Shooting and Non-Shooting Sites (p. ).

G.3.1.1.2. Presence of High Quality Desert Tortoise Habitat

Rationale: The Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is a signature species of the Sonoran

Desert and is managed by the BLM as a federally listed candidate species. The goal of BLM

management with regard to the desert tortoise in Arizona is to “[c]onserve and improve where

feasible, the distribution, quantity and quality of desert tortoise habitat on public lands with no

net loss in quantity or quality of Category I and Category II habitats on public land” (BLM

1990). See Map G-2 showing the extent of Category I and Category II habitat on the SDNM. The

desert tortoise excavates and inhabits burrows in rocky hillsides against which target shooters

often place targets. Sustained target shooting may cause direct mortality to desert tortoise and

indirect impacts to tortoise habitat through loss of forage and cover due to damage or loss of

vegetation, increased vulnerability to predation as predators are attracted to areas of trash and

garbage, and ingestion of plastic and other trash.

G.3.1.1.3. Presence of Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail

Corridor

Rationale: The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail (Anza NHT) was designated in

1990 by amendment of the NHT Act and is the premier historic cultural site of the SDNM. See

Map G-3 for the trail’s location within the SDNM. The Anza NHT is managed in a corridor

approximately 1 mile wide across the SDNM, with the general landscape view largely unchanged

from that of 1776 when the Anza Expedition occurred. The Anza NHT corridor is frequently

used by visitors to the SDNM for sightseeing, camping, and youth group educational events.

Recreational target shooting poses safety concerns where the trail passes through the North

Maricopa Mountains. Here, user groups are forced into close proximity to existing and potential

shooting sites by the mountainous terrain, and the level terrain to the east and west of the

mountains does not provide suitable backstops in the corridor.

G.3.1.2. GIS Criteria 2: Presence of Suitable Terrain

In areas that were not excluded due to concerns for Monument objects, GIS analysis was further

used to distinguish areas where the natural slope of the terrain indicated that target shooting might

be safely conducted. Only one overlay indicating presence of suitable terrain was used, which

was the presence of existing natural backstop or berm.

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase One: GIS Analysis
1186 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

G.3.1.2.1. Presence of Existing Natural Backstop or Berm

Rationale: There are vast, flat areas in the SDNM where safe target shooting is naturally

precluded by the absence of natural backstops. Based on recommendations for managed shooting

ranges (Daughtry, 2007; Luke, 1996), a minimum height of 15 feet for a shooting backstop is

acceptable, but 20 to 25 feet is recommended. Further, the recommended slope for a backstop is

45 degrees or greater. Because these criteria were established for constructed ranges and not for

unmanaged, open shooting areas, they were taken as guidelines but not strict requirements when

evaluating the natural terrain’s capability to provide target-shooting backstops in the SDNM. For

example, areas with a 45-degree slope are scarce in the SDNM, so this was not included as a

primary criterion to locate safe shooting areas. On the other hand, a hill rising to 15 or 20 feet

may not be sufficiently safe depending on the slope of the hill, the position of shooter, or other

factors. ??? (p. 1198) shows examples of potentially appropriate backstops.

To locate all areas in the SDNM with potentially appropriate backstop dimensions expected to be

safe for target shooting, the BLM conducted a GIS terrain analysis to identify areas of the SDNM

with slopes greater than 15 degrees. This lower threshold was employed so that all areas with

significant elevation changes could be identified and examined for their potential as safe shooting

areas. Map G-4 depicts the natural slopes in the SDNM.

G.3.2. Phase Two: Field Analysis

Areas of the SDNM not determined through GIS analysis to be unsuitable for recreational target

shooting were each visited in the field. The objective of the field visits was to determine if such

areas remained potentially suitable for recreational target shooting after evaluation against the

four field criteria presented in Table G.1, “Shooting Analysis Criteria” (p. 1184). The criteria are:

1. Significant presence of Monument objects or high natural and cultural resource sensitivity

that was not captured through GIS analysis,

2. Visitor safety and experience in areas where shooting is incompatible with other uses or

where it cold result in adverse impacts to facilities, public use sites, or other BLM and

private assets,

3. Accessibility by motor vehicle, and

4. Physical suitability of terrain for shooting activity.

G.3.2.1. Field Criteria 1: Monument Objects or High Resource Sensitivity

Rationale: The data overlays used in the GIS analysis included specific types of natural and

cultural resources that represented extensive areas with a significant presence of Monument

objects or with high natural and cultural resource sensitivity. The overlays do not represent

comprehensive surveys of all Monument objects and resources. For example, the SDNM has not

been fully surveyed for cultural resources; geological features such as prominent rock outcrops

are not represented by the GIS data overlays; and resources, such as raptor nesting sites, could

only be considered in the field. Target shooting sites located in such areas would be incompatible

with protection of Monument objects. (For examples, see ??? (p. ) and ??? (p. ).) The BLM

developed the guidelines listed below in Table G.3, “Field Criteria for Visitor Safety and Nearby

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1187

Uses and Facilities” (p. 1188) to rank suitability for target shooting at specific sites with regard

to protection of Monument objects.

Table G.2. Field Criteria for Resources and Monument Objects

Low Suitability for Target

Shooting

● High diversity of vegetation

● Exemplary plants and assemblages present

● Dense vegetative cover and canopy

● Within sensitive wildlife habitats

● Known desert tortoise burrowing sites in area

● Raptor nesting sites in area

● High potential for defacing and damaging geological features

● Cultural resources present

Moderate Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Moderate diversity of vegetation

● No exemplary plants and assemblages present

● Moderate vegetative cover and canopy

● Away from sensitive wildlife habitats

● No known desert tortoise burrowing sites in area

● No raptor nesting sites in area

● Minimal potential for defacing and damaging geological features

● No known cultural resources present

High Suitability for Target

Shooting

● Low vegetation diversity

● No exemplary plants or assemblages present or adjacent

● Free of vegetative cover or sparsely vegetated

● Away from sensitive wildlife habitats

● No known desert tortoise burrowing sites in area

● No raptor nesting sites in area

● No potential for defacing and damaging geological features

● No known cultural resources present

G.3.2.2. Field Criteria 2: Visitor Safety and Experience

Rationale: The location of other uses, sites, and facilities on the SDNM relative to the location of

target shooting activity is an important factor in determining visitor safety, incompatible uses,

and protection of property. Nearby uses and facilities that could be affected by target shooting

include designated campsites, large group sites, and staging areas; corrals, stock ponds, water

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis
1188 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

tanks, wells, windmills, and drinking troughs; wildlife waters; dispersed recreation areas such as

trailheads; cultural sites designated for public use; utility corridors and facilities; and the location

of frequently used roads and trails. Additionally, the following state laws and BLM regulations

govern the discharge of firearms on public lands in Arizona:

● Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) 17-309a(4): It is unlawful for a person to discharge a firearm

while taking wildlife within one-fourth mile of an occupied farmhouse or other residence,

cabin, lodge or building without permission of the owner or resident.

● A.R.S. 17-301b: No person may knowingly discharge any firearm or shoot any other device

upon, from, across, or into a road or railway.

● 43 CFR 8365.1-4(a): No person shall cause a public disturbance or create a risk to other

persons on public lands by engaging in activities, which include ... (2) Creating a hazard or

nuisance.

● 43 CFR 8365.2-5: On developed recreation sites and areas, unless otherwise authorized, no

person shall: (a) Discharge or use firearms, other weapons, or fireworks.

These laws and regulations were used as guidelines in the field to assess the potential for

hazardous situations involving target shooting with respect to proximity to nearby residences,

facilities, and other areas where visitors commonly drive or gather. The BLM developed the

criteria listed below in Table G.4, “Field Criteria for Motor Vehicle Accessibility” (p. 1189) to

rank suitability for target shooting based on considerations for visitor safety and other nearby uses.

Table G.3. Field Criteria for Visitor Safety and Nearby Uses and Facilities

Low Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Site is within 1⁄4-mile of livestock waters or corrals, designated campsites, trailheads, and

other temporarily occupied sites;

● The sites's shooting fan is within a 1–mile radius of roads or trails, livestock and

wildlife waters, designated campsites, trailheads and other temporarily occupied sites, or

communication sites, utilities and other surface facilities;

● The site's shooting fan is within 1.5–2.5 miles of occupied residences.

Moderate

Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Site is at least 1⁄4-mile of livestock waters or corrals, designated campsites, trailheads, and

other temporarily occupied sites;

● The site's shooting fan is 1–1.5 miles from roads or trails, communication sites, utilities,

and other surface facilities;

● The site's shooting fan is at least 1.5 miles from the closest residences or areas likely to

be developed for residential use.

High Suitability

for Target

Shooting

● Site is at least 1⁄4-mile from livestock waters or corrals, designated campsites, trailheads,

and other temporarily occupied sites;

● The site's shooting fan is at least 1.5 miles from roads or trails, communication sites,

utilities, and other surface facilities;

● The site's shooting fan is 3.5 miles from occupied residences;

● The site's shooting fan is 2 miles from the closest residence or area likely to be developed

for residential use.

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1189

G.3.2.3. Field Criteria 3: Accessibility by Motor Vehicle

Rationale: Target shooting in an undeveloped setting on public lands is almost exclusively

associated with sites that are readily accessible by motorized vehicle, with shooting activity

occurring very near the vehicle. Accessibility by motor vehicle is considered in this analysis in

order to assure that areas identified as suitable will satisfy the preference of most shooters to

remain near their vehicles. Sites not located within a short walking distance (up to 400 yards)

from an existing, designated BLM vehicle route are considered by most to be unsuitable for

recreational target shooting.

Driving time from residence and from a paved highway is also an important consideration.

Interviews conducted in the Tucson area revealed that recreational target shooters “want shooting

opportunities within a 15-30 minute drive from home” (Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution, 2006). Daughtry (2007) estimated that Tucson shooters were willing to travel

approximately 45 minutes, which is supported by interviews conducted with shooters throughout

Arizona that indicated most travel about 45 minutes to shoot on federal lands (Responsive

Management, 2008). The SDNM is accessible by three paved highways: Arizona Highway 85,

Arizona and Maricopa Route 238, and Interstate 8. For the purposes of this analysis, driving

time was calculated as the time it took to drive from any of these three primary access routes to

a site. The BLM developed the criteria listed below in Table G.5, “Field Criteria for Physical

Suitability of Target Shooting” (p. 1190) to rank suitability for target shooting at specific sites

with regard to access by motor vehicle.

Table G.4. Field Criteria for Motor Vehicle Accessibility

Low Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Site is accessible by four wheel-drive, high clearance vehicles only

● Requires one hour or more driving time to arrive from paved highway

● Is not accessible by a BLM-designated existing vehicle route

● No legal public access

Moderate Suitability

for Target Shooting

● Site generally is accessible by two-wheel-drive, high clearance vehicles

● Is located within a forty-minute drive from paved highway

● Is located adjacent to a BLM-designated vehicle route

High Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Site is accessible by passenger cars

● Located within a twenty to forty minute drive from paved highway

● Located adjacent to a BLM-designated vehicle route

G.3.2.4. Field Criteria 4: Physical Suitability of Terrain

Rationale: For dispersed, non-facilitated target shooting to occur in a safe environment on public

land without risk to others, a natural backstop or berm and down range safety fan of sufficient

dimensions must be present behind the target.

Recommendations given for developed shooting ranges provide that acceptable backstops be a

minimum height of 15 feet (although 20 to 25 feet is desirable), wide enough to allow a horizontal

shooting fan of 45 degrees or greater, and have a vertical slope of 20 degrees or greater (Daughtry,

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis
1190 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2007; Luke, 1996). Although these recommendations were established for constructed and

intensely managed shooting ranges rather than unmanaged shooting areas, they were taken as

guidelines for evaluating the capability of natural terrain to provide appropriate target shooting site

backstops in the SDNM. Examples of backstops considered safe are illustrated in ??? (p. 1198).

The BLM developed the criteria listed below in Table G.5, “Field Criteria for Physical Suitability

of Target Shooting” (p. 1190) to rank physical suitability of terrain for target shooting.

Table G.5. Field Criteria for Physical Suitability of Target Shooting

Low Suitability

for Target

Shooting

● Only one shooting party at a time could be supported

● Backstop provides narrow horizontal shooting fan that is less than 15 degrees and a vertical

fan less than 5 degrees

● Backstop surface composed predominantly of hard rock or hard pan material

● Site located in uneven, broken terrain with drainages, washes, dense vegetation, or other

obstacles that hinder observation of others during target setup/retrieval and shooting

Moderate

Suitability for

Target Shooting

● Site could support two to three shooting parties at one time

● Backstop provides horizontal shooting fan from 15 to 45 degrees and a vertical fan from 5

to 20 degrees

● Backstop surface composed of mixed hard rock and unconsolidated material

● Site located in uneven, broken terrain with drainages or vegetation that could impede

observation of others during target setup/retrieval and shooting

High Suitability

for Target

Shooting

● Site could support multiple shooting parties at one time (more than three parties)

● Backstop provides wide horizontal shooting fan that is greater than 45 degrees and a vertical

shooting fan greater than 20 degrees

● Backstop surface composed predominantly of unconsolidated, loose soil material

● Site located in even, open terrain with little or low vegetation that allows for ready

observation of others during target setup/retrieval and shooting

G.3.2.5. Field Rating

Using the “Field Rating Sheet” illustrated in Attachment G-2, the field criteria presented in

Tables 3 through 6 were applied to areas of the SDNM that remained potentially suitable for

recreational target shooting following application of the GIS analysis. The potentially suitable

areas were assessed by traveling the existing vehicle route system and recording observations

relating to the field criteria on the form. Representative photographs of each area were taken, as

were photographs of outstanding features or additional considerations.

G.4. Results of Analysis

G.4.1. Phase One: GIS Analysis

G.4.1.1. Results from Significant Presence of Monument Objects

The results of step one ‐ GIS analysis for significant presence of Monument objects or high

natural resource sensitivity ‐ are presented below in Table G.6, “GIS Overlays and Cumulative

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Results of Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1191

Acreage of the SDNM Not Suitable for Recreational Target Shooting” (p. 1191) and in Map G-5.

Approximately 389,989 acres, or 80.2 percent, of the SDNM were determined to not be suitable

for recreational target shooting based on the cumulative application of the GIS criteria presented

in Table G.1, “Shooting Analysis Criteria” (p. 1184).

Table G.6. GIS Overlays and Cumulative Acreage of the SDNM Not Suitable for

Recreational Target Shooting

Data Overlay Total Acres Cumulative Acres

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti Vegetation Community 303,308 303,308

Desert Tortoise Habitat, Category I and II 290,706 81,646

Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Corridor 7,793 5,035

Total 601,807 389,989

Excluding the acres determined through GIS analysis to be unsuitable for recreational target

shooting, 12 areas remained (totaling approximately 96,411 acres, or 19.8 percent, of the SDNM)

where potentially suitable target shooting sites might be found. Each of these potentially suitable

target-shooting areas was given a geographic name and is illustrated on Map G-6. Results from

the GIS analysis were used to formulate Alternative B in the Lower Sonoran-SDNM Draft RMP.

(See Section 2.8.4, “Recreation Management (RM)” (p. 158) and Map 2-13b.)

G.4.1.2. Results from Presence of Suitable Terrain

The results of the terrain analysis of the SDNM are shown on see Map G-6. Within the twelve

areas where potentially suitable target-shooting sites may be found, eight locations exhibited

slopes of 15 degrees or greater. These areas total approximately 1,726 acres in extent, and range

from 37 acres (Hidden Valley [B]) to 682 acres (Gap Tank [B]).

G.4.2. Phase Two: Field Analysis

G.4.2.1. Step 1: Summary Rankings by Area and Field Criteria

A summary of the field analysis for each of the eight potentially suitable target-shooting sites

of the SDNM is provided below in Table G.7, “Summary of Field Analysis for Sites Potentially

Suitable for Recreational Target Shooting in the SDNM” (p. 1191). These rankings offer an

indication of the overall suitability of each site; however, the BLM also believes it is important to

provide a single summary ranking for each potential site to contrast overall suitability between

sites and compare findings. To do this, values were assigned to each ranking: High = 2, Moderate

= 1, and Low = 0. Then, each category of field criteria was weighted to reflect the significance of

the criteria with regard to the purpose of the shooting analysis.

Table G.7. Summary of Field Analysis for Sites Potentially Suitable for Recreational Target

Shooting in the SDNM

SDNM Sites Potentially Suitable Field Criteria

for Target Shooting

(see ???)

Presence of

Monument Objects*

Visitor Safety and

Nearby Uses

Motor Vehicle

Access

Physical

Suitability

Gap Tank (A) (427 acres) L H L M

Gap Tank (B) (682 acres) H H L H

Gap Tank (C) (56 acres) L L H M

Gap Well (A) (107 acres) L M H M

Hidden Valley (A) (94 acres) H L M H

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis
1192 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

SDNM Sites Potentially Suitable Field Criteria

for Target Shooting

(see ???)

Presence of

Monument Objects*

Visitor Safety and

Nearby Uses

Motor Vehicle

Access

Physical

Suitability

Hidden Valley (B) (37 acres) H M L M

Hidden Valley (C) (84 acres) H M H H

Pipeline 1 (A) (239 acres) M L H H

Total Acres: 1,726

*H = High; M = Moderate; L = Low

G.4.2.2. Step 2: Numeric Suitability Rankings by Area and Field Criteria

Management concerns related to target shooting on the SDNM focus more on resource damage

than any other factor. The paramount purpose of the SDNM is protection of Monument objects,

and the primary consideration relating to target shooting on the SDNM is the protected status

of the biological, cultural, and geological resources of the SDNM. Therefore, areas found to

be of “low” suitability with regard to presence of Monument objects were excluded from

further consideration. Human safety is of concern with target shooting activities; therefore, the

criteria for safety and nearby uses and facilities were given a weight of three (3). Although

the physical suitability of an area partially addresses safety issues, these criteria also focus on

accommodation of shooting and the manageability of an area. These are less significant factors

in determining appropriate shooting locations, so this category was given a weight of two (2).

Finally, although accessibility was a necessary factor to consider in this analysis, access by motor

vehicle was probably the least significant because it is relative to each shooter. For this reason,

the accessibility factor was given a weight of one (1). Site rankings based on values assigned to

each rating and weights given to each category are shown in Table G.9, “Summary of Potentially

Suitable Target Shooting Sites by Numeric Ranking” (p. 1193).

Table G.8. Numeric Suitability Rankings for Sites Potentially Suitable for Target Shooting

in the SDNM

Site

Resources &

Monument

Objects

(Weight = 3)

Safety, nearby

uses and

facilities

(Weight = 3)

Motor Vehicle

Access (Weight = 1)

Physical

Suitability

(Weight = 2)

Numeric

Suitability

Ranking (Total

Score = 0 to18)

Gap Tank (A) Excluded for presence of Monument objects

Gap Tank (B) 6 6 0 4 16

Gap Tank (C) Excluded for presence of Monument objects

Gap Well (A) Excluded for presence of Monument objects

Hidden Valley (A) 6 0 1 4 11

Hidden Valley (B) 6 3 0 2 11

Hidden Valley (C) 6 3 2 4 15

Pipeline 1 (A) 3 0 2 4 9

G.4.2.3. Step 3: Site Categorization Based on Numeric Ranking

The next step of the process was to categorize each site based on its numeric suitability ranking.

By dividing the 18-digit scale in thirds to generate ranges for Low (0-6), Moderate (7-12), and

High (13-18), the sites fall into the categories summarized in Table G.10, “Comparison of Impacts

Documented at Shooting & Non-Shooting Sites in the SDNM, 2003-2005” (p. 1203).

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Phase Two: Field Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1193

Table G.9. Summary of Potentially Suitable Target Shooting Sites by Numeric Ranking

Low Suitability (0-6) Moderate Suitability (7-12) High Suitability (13-18)

Gap Tank (A) (427 acres)

Gap Tank (C) (56 acres)

Gap Well (A) (107 acres)

Total Acres: 590

Hidden Valley (A) (94 acres)

Hidden Valley (B) (37 acres)

Pipeline 1 (A) (239 acres)

Total Acres: 370

Gap Tank (B) (682 acres)

Hidden Valley (C) (84 acres)

Total Acres: 766

G.5. Summary Conclusions

Based on the criteria used for this analysis, two areas were identified on the SDNM that may be

highly suitable for recreational target shooting: Gap Tank (B) and Hidden Valley (C). Hidden

Valley (C) is currently used as a target shooting area but is only moderately safe as a shooting

site using the criteria presented in this analysis (see ??? (p. 1201) (C), view to the north and

??? (p. 1201) (C), view to the south), and Gap Tank (B) is not accessible by motor vehicle. Three

areas were identified to be moderately suitable for recreational target shooting; however, one of

these, Hidden Valley (B), is not accessible by motor vehicle and two others, Hidden Valley (A)

and Pipeline 1 (A), were determined to be unsafe shooting sites (see Map G-7).

These findings are important because they show that very few locations on a landscape level

qualify as appropriate places for recreational target shooting activity on the SDNM. The results of

this analysis also indicate that shooting activity, for reasons of potential impacts to Monument

objects, visitor safety, accessibility, and physical suitability of terrain, would likely be limited

to one area, the Hidden Valley (C) location.

The combination of moderated and highly potentially suitable areas for recreational target

shooting were used to formulate Alternative C in the DRMP (Section 2.8.4, “Recreation

Management (RM)” (p. 158) and Map 2–13c). These areas total 1,136 acres, or 0.2 percent of

the SDNM; however, four of these areas received only moderate or low rankings for concerns

over visitor safety.

The BLM does not compromise on the safety of its visitors. Improving user and visitor safety

at the Hidden Valley (C) location would require direct management, funding, and development.

Current policy guidance provides two methods for allocating public lands for target shooting:

direct sale under Section 203 of FLPMA or through patents issued under the Recreation

and Public Purposes (R&PP Act) of 1926 (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No.

2008-074). Neither of these methods would be compliant with the provisions provided under

the Monument proclamation or management goals and objectives identified in the DRMP,

and they are not presented or analyzed as alternatives in the DRMP. From these concerns,

as well as concerns about impacts to Monument objects discussed throughout this analysis,

Alternatives D and E were formulated in the DRMP (see Section 2.8.4, “Recreation Management

(RM)” (p. 158)). Under these alternatives, 486,400 acres, or 100 percent, of the SDNM will be

unavailable for recreational target shooting.

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Summary Conclusions
1194 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

G.6. Figures

Examples of shooting areas denuded of vegetation and littered with debris.

Figure G.1. Litter in Shooting Sites

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1195

Examples of shooting areas that are inappropriate or do not have backstops.

Figure G.2. Inappropriate Shooting Sites

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures
1196 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Examples of damage to saguaros from firearms use at recreational target-shooting sites in the SDNM.

Figure G.3. Damage to Saguaros

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1197

Bullets lodged in trees, broken branches, and bullet-scarred trees and shrubs are common at shooting sites in

the SDNM.

Figure G.4. Damage to Trees

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures
1198 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Figure G.5. Potentially Appropriate Backstops

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1199

Figure G.6. Damage to Rocks

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures
1200 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Figure G.7. Examples of Artifacts and Wildlife Habitat

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1201

Hidden Valley (C), view to the south

Figure G.8. Potential Shooting Site

Hidden Valley (C), view to the north

Figure G.9. Potential Shooting Site

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Figures
1202 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

G.7. References

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1990. Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on

Public Lands in Arizona. Arizona State Office.

Daughtry, David. 2007. [Pima County Shooting Sports Program Manager]. Personal

communication from meeting at BLM Tucson Field Office, October 10, 2007.

Foti, Pam, and Nina Chambers. 2005. Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreation Impact

Inventory: Final Report. Prepared for BLM-Phoenix District.

Responsive Management. 2008. Sport Shooter’s and Archer’s Attitudes on Shooting and

Appropriate Behavior on Public Lands and the Messages to Which They Will Respond. A Survey

Conducted for the Federal Lands Hunting and Shooting Sports Roundtable. Report available at:

http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/Shoot_Public_Lands_Report.pdf

Luke, David. 1996. “Baffles, Berms and Backstops.” Article reprinted from

the Third National Shooting Range Symposium. Article available at: http://

www.rangeinfo.org/resource_library/resLibDoc.cfm?filename=facility_mngmnt/design/baffles

berms.htm&CAT=Facility%20Management

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2004. Southwest Regional GAP Analysis Project Final Report.

USGS Gap Analysis Program, NatureServe, and Utah State University.

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. 2006. Final Report: Tucson

Basin Shooting on Public Lands Workshop Project. Tucson. Report available at:

http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Tucson_Basin_Final.pdf

G.8. Attachment G-1: Comparison of Impacts Documented at

Shooting and Non-Shooting Sites

G.8.1. Data Analysis

During 2003-2005, the extent of recreation impacts to the Sonoran Desert National Monument

was determined with a comprehensive inventory of all recreation impact sites visible from the

vehicle route network. At each site, impacts were assessed for a variety of impact variables and

sites were categorized into five levels of relative impact based on the presence of these impacts.

Sites were also categorized as “non-shooting sites” or “shooting sites,” based primarily on the

presence of shooting-related litter such as spent ammunition casings and clay pigeons (Foti and

Chambers, 2005). This inventory identified 243 recreation sites that predominantly were used for

activities other than target shooting and 63 sites that were predominantly used for target shooting

(see Recreation Impact Sites in the SDNM (p. 1208)). Impacts identified at the two types of sites

were analyzed to determine if significant differences existed between non-shooting and shooting

sites with respect to management of Monument objects.

The major types of impacts relevant to this analysis were defined as follows:

Damage to Saguaro Cactus. Evidence of human-caused damage such as chopping, shooting,

painting, and vehicle collisions; number of incidents counted.

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

References August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1203

Damage to Rock Formations. Evidence of human-caused disturbance or damage such as bullet

marks, painting, and displacement; number of incidents counted.

Damage to Trees. Evidence of human-caused damage such as chopping, breaking, burning, and

vehicle collisions; number of incidents counted and grouped into classes of occurrence.

Damage to Shrubs. Evidence of human-caused damage such as chopping, breaking, uprooting,

and crushing (particularly with vehicles); number of incidents counted and grouped into classes

of occurrence.

Presence of Litter. One piece of litter ranged from the very small, such as a bottle cap, to the

very large, such as a discarded home appliance; number of pieces counted and grouped into

classes of occurrence.

Presence of Off-Road Vehicle Impact. Number of vehicle tracks; number of tracks counted and

grouped into classes of occurrence.

Number of Barren Cores. A common measurement of recreation site impacts, the “barren

core” is that area that has been disturbed to the point of being cleared for recreational use, often

for campsites. The barren core size was measured as the area observed to be disturbed due to

recreation activities. On the SDNM, one barren core is a minimum of 400 square feet in area.

Number of barren cores counted.

Table G.10. Comparison of Impacts Documented at Shooting & Non-Shooting Sites in the

SDNM, 2003-2005

Number of Sites Exhibiting

Evidence of Impact

Percentage of Sites Exhibiting

Evidence of Impact (%)

Type of Impact Non-Shooting

Sites

(n=243)

Shooting Sites

(n=63)

Non-Shooting

Sites

Shooting Sites

Difference is

Significant

(p < 0.01)

Damage to Saguaro

Cactus

13 18 5.3 28.6

Yes

Damage to Rock

Formations

72 29 29.6 46.0

No1

Damage to Trees

0 incidents of damage 88 0 36.2 0.0

1 to 5 incidents of

damage

84 12 34.6 19.0

6 to 30 incidents of

damage

57 23 23.4 36.5

31 to 60 incidents of

damage

12 23 4.9 36.5

61 to 90 incidents of

damage

2 3 0.8 4.8

More than 90 incidents

of damage

0 2 0.0 3.2

Yes

Damage to Shrubs

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Data Analysis
1204 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Number of Sites Exhibiting

Evidence of Impact

Percentage of Sites Exhibiting

Evidence of Impact (%)

Type of Impact Non-Shooting

Sites

(n=243)

Shooting Sites

(n=63)

Non-Shooting

Sites

Shooting Sites

Difference is

Significant

(p < 0.01)

0 incidents of damage 21 8 8.6 12.7

1 to 5 incidents of

damage

100 9 41.1 14.3

6 to 30 incidents of

damage

82 27 33.7 42.9

31 to 60 incidents of

damage

29 15 11.9 23.8

61-90 incidents of

damage

7 1 2.9 1.6

More than 90 incidents

of damage

4 3 1.6 4.8

Yes

Presence of Litter

0 pieces of litter 16 7 6.6 11.1

1 to 5 pieces of litter 83 1 34.2 1.6

6 to 30 pieces of litter 72 5 29.6 7.9

31 to 60 pieces of litter 34 9 14.0 14.3

61 to 90 pieces of litter 7 10 2.9 15.9

More than 90 pieces of

litter

31 31 12.8 49.2

Yes

Presence of Off-Road Vehicle Impact

0 incidents 125 17 51.4 27.0

1 to 5 incidents 61 15 25.1 23.8

6 to 30 incidents 49 18 20.2 28.6

31 to 60 incidents 5 9 2.1 14.3

61 to 90 incidents 1 1 0.4 1.6

More than 90 incidents 2 3 0.8 4.8

Yes

Number of Barren Cores

0 barren core 5 6 2.1 9.5

1 barren core 175 29 72.0 46.0

2 barren cores 35 11 14.4 17.5

3 barren cores 13 7 5.3 11.1

4 barren cores 8 4 3.3 6.3

5 barren cores 4 2 1.6 3.2

6 barren cores 2 2 0.8 3.2

7 barren cores 0 0 0.0 0.0

8 barren cores 0 2 0.0 3.2

9 barren cores 1 0 0.4 0.0

Yes

1Difference is significant at p < 0.05.

G.8.2. Statistical Analysis

G.8.2.1. Method

Data for “Damage to Saguaro Cactus” and “Damage to Rock Formations” were tested for

significant differences by normal approximation of binomial probabilities. A normal probability

distribution was used to approximate binomial probabilities because only two mutually exclusive

outcomes were possible (impact or no impact), the observations were independent, the probability

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Statistical Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1205

of observations remained constant at each location, and the number of observations was greater

than 30 in both populations. The tests were conducted with a 1 percent chance of rejecting the

null hypothesis that the proportions of impacts observed at non-shooting sites and shooting sites

were not different when, in fact, they were different.

Data for other variables was collected in classes; therefore, testing for differences between

non-shooting and shooting sites was conducted against a chi-square probability distribution. The

tests were conducted with a 1 percent chance of rejecting the null hypothesis that the frequencies

of impacts observed at non-shooting sites and shooting sites were not different when, in fact,

they were different.

G.8.2.1.1. Standard Normal Approximation

Three steps are involved to analyze the relative proportions of two populations, culminating in

determination of the “z statistic,” or the standardized value of a normal distribution equating the

sample population mean to zero (0) and standard deviation to one (1). The calculated z statistic is

then compared to the critical value of z to determine the likelihood of rejecting the null hypothesis

based on the level of significance required, i.e. 1 percent.

Step 1. Pool the two sample proportions:

I = n1p1 + n2p2 / n1+n2

Where: I = pooled sample proportions; n1 = number of observations in population 1; n2 = number

of observations in population 2; p1 = proportion of population 1 exhibiting variable 1; p2 =

proportion of population 2 exhibiting variable 2

For “Damage to Saguaro Cactus,” I = [(243 * 0.05350) + (63 * 0.28571)] / (243+63)

= 0.10131

Step 2. Determine the standard error of difference between the two sample

proportions:

Qp1-p2 = Square Root I(1-I)/n1 + I(1-I)/n2

Where: Qp1-p2 = standard error of difference

For “Damage to Saguaro Cactus,” Qp1-p2 = Square Root [0.10131(1-0.10131)/243 +

0.10131(1-0.10131)/63]

= 0.04254

Step 3. Calculate the value of the standard normal z statistic for testing the null

hypothesis that there is no difference between the two population proportions:

z = p1 – p2 / Qp1-p2

Where: z = standard normal value where population mean = 0 and standard deviation = 1

For “Damage to Saguaro Cactus,” z = 0.05350-0.28571 / 0.04254

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Statistical Analysis
1206 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

= -5.45863

Interpretation of Standard Normal Approximation. The null hypothesis stated that the

proportion of “Damage to Saguaro Cactus” observed at non-shooting sites is no different than the

proportion of “Damage to Saguaro Cactus” observed at shooting sites.

Given a 1 percent chance (p = 0.01) of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true, the

critical z statistic is +/- 2.58. The calculated z statistic for “Damage to Saguaro Cactus” is

-4.35015, less than the critical z statistic of -2.58. Thus, there is a less than 1 percent chance that

the observed higher proportion of damage to saguaro cactus at shooting sites is not different than

the proportion of damage to saguaro cactus observed at non-shooting sites.

G.8.2.1.2. Chi-Square Test

Two steps are required to test for differences among several population proportions, culminating

in calculation of a chi-square statistic. The calculated chi-square statistic is then compared to the

critical value for chi-square corresponding to the relevant proportion of the chi-square distribution

for a given level of significance, i.e. 1 percent, with X degrees of freedom. Degrees of freedom

are the number of variables free to vary within the calculation, and are calculated by multiplying

the number of data classes (r), less one, by the number of sample populations (k), less one.

Step 1. Calculate the expected frequency of observation in each population:

f

e = (fr * fk) / n

Where: f

e = Expected Frequency; fr = Sum of Observed Frequency for Data Category, r; fk =

Sum of Observations for Population, k; n = Total Observations

For “Damage to Trees, 0 incidents of damage, Non-Shooting Sites”

f

e = [(88 + 0) * 243] / 306

= 69.9

Step 2. Calculate Chi-Square

Chi-Square = Sum of [(f

o - fe)2 / fe]

Where: f

o = Observed Frequency for Data Category; fe = Expected Frequency for Data Category

For “Damage to Trees,” Chi-Square = [(88-69.9)2/69.9] + [(96-76.2)2/76.2] + [(80-63.5)2/63.5] +

[(35-27.8)2/27.8] + [(5-4)2/4] + [(2-1.6)2/1.6]

= 85.97

and degrees of freedom = (6-1) * (2-1) = 5

Interpretation of Chi-Square Test. The null hypothesis stated that the frequency of “Damage to

Trees” observed at non-shooting sites is not different from the frequency of “Damage to Trees”

observed at shooting sites.

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Statistical Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1207

Given a 1 percent chance (p = 0.01) of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true, and with

five (5) degrees of freedom, the critical chi-square statistic is 15.09. The calculated chi-square

statistic for “Damage to Trees” is 85.97, greater than the critical value for chi-square. Thus, there

is a less than 1 percent chance that the observed higher frequency of damage to trees at shooting

sites is not different than the frequency of damage to trees observed at non-shooting sites.

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Statistical Analysis
1208 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

SDNM recreation sites surveyed as part of a 2005 NAU study.

Map G.1. Recreation Impact Sites in the SDNM

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Statistical Analysis August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1209

G.9. Attachment G-2: Sample Field Rating Sheet

Figure G.10. Sample Field Rating Sheet

August 2011

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Attachment G-2: Sample Field Rating Sheet
1210 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Appendix G Sonoran Desert National Monument

Recreational Target Shooting Analysis

Attachment G-2: Sample Field Rating Sheet August 2011
?Í

Aó

!`

Appendix G - Map 1

SDNM Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

Vegetation Community

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Palo Verde-Mixed Cacti

Vegetation Community

Legend

SDNM

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

State

Indian Reservation

Barry M. Goldwater Range

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Land Management
?Í

Aó

!`

Appendix G - Map 2

SDNM Desert Tortoise Habitat

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

SDNM

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

Category I & II

Desert Tortoise Habitat

Legend Surface Management

State

Indian Reservation

Barry M. Goldwater Range

Bureau of Land Management

BLM Wilderness

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum
Appendix G - Map 3

Anza National Historic Trail

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

State

Barry M. Goldwater Range

BLM Wilderness

Indian Reservation

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

SDNM

Legend

Juan Bautista de Anza

National Historic Trail
?Í

Aó

!`

Appendix G - Map 4

Slope of Terrain

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Legend

Slope 40 Degrees and Greater

Slope 30 to 39.9 Degrees

Slope 20 to 29.9 Degrees

Slope 15 to 19.9 Degrees

Slope 0 to 14.9 Degrees SDNM

General Reference

BLM Wilderness

Interstate

State Route
?Í

Aó

!`

Appendix G - Map 5

Areas Not Suitable for

Target Shooting in SDNM

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

Surface Management

State

Indian Reservation

Barry M. Goldwater Range

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Land Management SDNM

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

Cumulative Areas Not Suitable for

Target Shooting Based on

Monument Objects

Legend

(GIS Analysis - Criteria 1;

389,989 acres; Alternative B

in LS-SDNM DRMP)
?Í

Aó

!`

Appendix G - Map 6

Areas Potentially Suitable for

Target Shooting Sites in the SDNM

NW Corner

Pipeline 1

Pipeline 2

Butterfield North

Hidden Valley 1

Hidden Valley 2

Butterfield South

Sand Tank

Mountains

South Maricopa

Mountains

Gap Tank

Vekol Valley

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

Gap Well

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

SDNM

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

Areas Where Potentially

SuitableTarget Shooting

Sites May be Found

Legend Surface Management

State

Indian Reservation

Barry M. Goldwater Range

BLM Wilderness

Bureau of Land Management

(GIS Analysis - Criteria 1;

12 areas - 96,411 acres;

Alt. B in LS-SDNM DRMP)
?Í

Aó

!`

Legend

Appendix G - Map 7

Sites Potentially Suitable for

Target Shooting in the SDNM

Slope of Terrain

NORTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

SOUTH MARICOPA

WILDERNESS

TABLE TOP

WILDERNESS

SAND TANK MOUNTAINS

SDNM

General Reference

Interstate

State Route

Pipeline 1

Hidden Valley 1

Gap Tank

Gap Well

Map Last Revised: April 2011

Bureau of Land Management

Lower Sonoran Field Office

Gila and Salt River Meridian

Universal Transverse Mercator

Zone 12, Units Meters

GRS 1980 Spheroid

NAD83 Datum

A

A A

A

B

C

C

B

40 Degrees and Greater

30 to 39.9 Degrees

20 to 29.9 Degrees

15 to 19.9 Degrees

0 to 14.9 Degrees

(GIS Analysis - Criteria 2;

8 areas - 1,726 acres)

Potential Site Areas

Sites Potentially Suitable

for Target Shooting Based

on Suitable Terrain

Data Sources:

Alternatives: BLM 2010

Base Information: BLM 2010

Surface Management Information:

BLM September 2010

1:350,000

±

0 2.5 5 10 Miles
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1211

Appendix H. Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are land and resource management techniques determined

to be the most effective and practical means of maximizing beneficial results and minimizing

conflicts and negative environmental impacts from management actions. BMPs can include

structural and nonstructural controls, specific operations, and maintenance procedures. BMPs

can be applied before, during, and after activities to reduce or eliminate negative environmental

impacts. BMPs are not one-size-fits-all solutions. BMPs should be selected and adapted through

interdisciplinary analysis to determine which management practices are necessary to meet the

goals and objective of the resource-management plan (RMP). The best practices and mitigation

measures for a particular site are evaluated by considering site-specific conditions, local resource

conditions, and a suite of techniques that guide or may be applied to management actions to aid in

achieving desired outcomes. BMPs are often developed in conjunction with land-use plans, but

they are not considered a land-use plan decision unless the land-use plan specifies that they are

mandatory. They may be updated or modified without a plan amendment if they are not mandatory.

Standard Operating Procedures

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are procedures carried out daily during proposal

implementation which are based on laws, regulations, executive orders, BLM planning manuals,

policies, instruction memoranda, and applicable planning documents. SOPs describe the flow of

actions as well as identifying roles and responsibilities. Policy and planning procedures either

already exist or have been identified through collaborative planning processes which are used as

a guide during the implementation of management decisions. It is the goal of SOP to maintain

operational efficiency and consistency during the planning and implementation processes.

H.1. Resources

H.1.1. Cave Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

● Survey priorities will be assigned to those areas that are most likely to include significant

cave resources, are relatively accessible to the public, and/or vulnerable to damage or loss

from land use activities.

H.1.2. Cultural Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

● Where impacts are occurring, implement protection measures to stop, limit, or repair damage

to sites. A variety of protection measures, described in BLM Manual 8140, may be used to

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Best Management Practices
1212 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

protect the integrity of sites at risk such as signing, fencing or barriers, trash removal, target

shooting closures, erosion control, backfilling, repairing, shoring up, or stabilizing structures,

restricting uses and access, and closures. Structural and material stabilization techniques may

use chemical, mechanical, or structural elements to retard deterioration of cultural resources.

● Ensure that all proposed undertakings and authorizations are reviewed and conducted in

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and other applicable

laws.

● Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

1. All undertakings will be subject to thorough cultural resource inventory in order to identify

all cultural resources that lie within the Area of Potential Effect (APE).

2. All identified cultural resources within the APE will be evaluated for National Register

eligibility.

3. All undertakings shall be scrutinized for ways to design or re-design proposed projects

to avoid cultural resources. Every effort shall be made to minimize impacts on cultural

resources.

● Those cultural resources within the APE that have the characteristics that would make them

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) would be mitigated using

appropriate treatment strategies, in order to reduce the intensity of the impact to the lowest

level possible.

● Evaluate project designs and proposed activities and mitigate or adjust activities to avoid

disturbing or removing Native American human remains and associated items to the maximum

extent possible and practicable. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, the BLM will consult

with associated tribes under NAGPRA. Avoid directing site visitors toward areas where

these items would be observed or disturbed.

● Complete Class II (sample) and Class III (intensive) field inventories to identify cultural

resources and evaluate the condition of sites, in accord 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. Priorities for inventory will be determined based on resource use and an area's or

site's protection priority.

H.1.3. Paleontological Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

● The collection of “reasonable” amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils would be

allowed without a permit when not aided by mechanical or motorized devices (43 CFR 3620).

● Paleontological inventory of project areas would be done prior to authorizing

surface-disturbing activities to protect vertebrate or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate

or plant fossils.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Paleontological Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1213

● Survey priorities will be assigned to those areas that are most likely to include significant

paleontological resources, are relatively accessible to the public, and/or vulnerable to damage

or loss from land use activities.

● For all authorized surface-disturbing activities, inventories will be conducted on a

case-by-case basis, as deemed necessary by the authorized officer, for each proposed

surface-disturbing activity to ensure maintenance or integrity of paleontological values.

● The following stipulations may be applied to surface-disturbing activities:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. User/operators shall not resume until written authorization to proceed is issued by the

authorized officer.

4. 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.

5. The user/operator shall be responsible for the cost of any mitigation required by the

authorized officer.

6. Upon verification from the authorized officer that the required mitigation has been

completed, the operator shall be allowed to resume operations.

H.1.4. Soil Resources

Best Management Practices

● Best management practices would be applied when authorizing vegetative or surface

disturbances to limit soil loss and erosion and protect water quality.

● Disturbance to surface resources would be minimized when constructing new developments

or reconstructing existing facilities. Mitigation plans would be developed, disturbed surfaces

would be restored, and soils would be stabilized in accordance with restoration objectives.

H.1.5. Vegetation Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

● Several treatment methods and standard operating procedures would be used in a vegetation

treatment program. Bureau of Land Management's policies and guidance for public land

treatments would be followed in implementing all treatment methods. SOPs and guidelines

are provided in the following documents:

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Soil Resources
1214 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1. Manual Section 1740, BLM Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health (Land Health

Standards)

2. "Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic

EIS" (BLM 2007) and "Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States

Programmatic Environmental Report (ER)" (BLM 2007)

3. Other general and specific program policy, procedures, and standards for implementing

renewable resource improvements

● The programmatic EIS and ER described above provide information regarding the application

of herbicides and pesticides and identify procedures and guidelines that would be followed by

the BLM to ensure that risks to human health and the environment from treatment actions

would be kept to a minimum. Included are SOPs those for the prevention of weeds and

weed control, and a compilation of treatment-specific procedures and guidelines based

on various guidance in BLM manuals, handbooks, regulations, and standard agency and

industry practices. For resource specific SOPs and guidelines including those for fire use,

and mechanical, manual, biological and chemical methods, see Table 2-5 in the ER. These

methods would be used under all alternatives.

H.1.6. Visual Resource Management

Standard Operating Procedures

Facility Construction. Facility construction will achieve resource management and use benefits

and focus on resource protection, resource management, and public safety. Facilities will be

constructed to be visually unobtrusive while emphasizing protection of resources. Facilities

will be located in areas where they are visually unobtrusive and will cause minimal damage to

resources. Recreational facilities, including visitor centers, will be preferentially located off site

in nearby communities and built through the use of partnerships.

Scenic quality. Measures to mitigate potential visual impacts include the use of natural materials,

screening, painting, project design, location sighting, or restoration.

H.1.7. Wildlife Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

● Coordinate with AZGFD on migratory bird inventories when migratory bird inventories are

proposed by BLM or required of third parties.

● Coordinate with AZGFD when Sonoran desert tortoise inventories are proposed by BLM or

required of third parties. The inventories should be completed using standardized protocols

such as those developed by AZGFD.

● Wildlife water developments proposed in Wilderness Areas would have to meet the

non-impairment criteria.

Best Management Practices

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Visual Resource Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1215

● Reasonable administrative vehicular access to wildlife water facilities would be granted

to AGFD, BLM and authorized permittee personnel for the purposes of constructing,

maintaining, and/or repairing facilities or conducting research or surveys.

● The use of new technologies, products, and construction designs that provide for the lowest

degree of maintenance and a visually obscure wildlife water development that is compatible

with the surrounding terrain would be emphasized.

● See manuals 6500 (Wildlife and Fisheries Management) and 6780 (Habitat Management

Plans)

● Fences constructed will comply with applicable wildlife fence standards (Fences – BLM

Manual Handbook H-1741-1). Existing fences that impede big game movement or that

otherwise conflict with wildlife may be modified to comply with applicable wildlife fence

standards on a case-by-case basis.

● The PDO will consult agency species management plans and other conservation plans as

appropriate to guide management and devise mitigation measures when needed. Examples of

these plans include but are not limited to the North American Landbird Conservation Plan,

National and Arizona Partners in flight Bird Conservation Plans, Arizona Bat Conservation

Plan, and the Arizona State Wildlife Action Plan (Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy).

● The PDO would comply with the BLM Migratory Bird Treaty Act- Interim Management

Guidance (Instructional Memorandum 2008-050)

H.2. Resource Uses

H.2.1. Lands & Realty

Standard Operating Procedures Access

Access:

● Reasonable public and administrative access to BLM-administered land will be obtained in

the following ways:

1. Require reciprocal access easements to meet specific program needs;

2. Consider and manage the use of public land for right of way[s] (ROW)s, ROW reservations,

easements, permits, leases, licenses, agreements, etc, except for those areas identified as

exclusion areas;

3. Secure access easements as needed to prevent closing of access to public land.

Corridors & Communication Sites:

● A corridor is used for one or more of the following major facilities:

1. Natural gas and other pipelines that are at least 10 inches in diameter;

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Resource Uses
1216 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2. Electric transmission facilities that have a capacity of 115 kilovolt lines or greater voltage;

3. Major telephone transmission, cable, or fiber optic lines;

4. Significant canals that provide delivery of water to urban areas;

5. Transportation facilities that 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;

6. Utilities, whether interstate, intrastate, or local, should be collocated in designated corridors

to the maximum degree possible to minimize impacts to public lands;

7. Transportation routes, whether interstate, intrastate, or local, should be collocated with

utilities in designated corridors to the maximum degree possible to minimize impacts to

public lands.

● The BLM will strive to coordinate applicable transportation-related planning efforts for the

Lower Sonoran Planning Area with ADOT, Maricopa County Department of Transportation,

Maricopa Association of Governments, and Pinal, Pima, Yuma, and Gila counties.

● Smaller utility lines needed for local service in the vicinity of the corridors should be

co-located within a corridor unless doing so would limit the opportunity to collocate additional

major utility lines in the corridor.

● Avoidance of sensitive or special resources is a primary consideration in future planning

and designation of utility corridors.

● BLM 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 BLM-administered lands will be consistent

with all 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 to minimize

adverse visual impacts to the surrounding land and vistas.

● The BLM’s utility corridor designations must be consistent with authority granted under

FLPMA Title V, Sections 501–511 (43 United States Code [USC] 1761–1771), the Mineral

Leasing Act of 1928 (CFR 2880) and the BLM ROW 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.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Lands & Realty August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1217

● The BLM will continue to cooperate as a full partner with the U.S. Forest Service, Arizona

Public Service Company, and Salt River Project in Arizona 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 United States.

● The BLM will, as appropriate, coordinate communication-related planning efforts with the

Federal Communications Commission.

● Bureau of Land Management 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 land and

facilities available for communication sites.

● New ROWs will make maximum use of existing routes and will share facilities whenever

possible, including joint use by different types of utilities, such as transmission line towers

and communication sites.

● Communications related planning efforts will be coordinated with the Federal

Communications Commission, as needed.

● If areas are discovered that require the protection of a withdrawal, the withdrawal will be

processed. If other Agency withdrawals are revoked - the BLM will manage the lands the

same as the adjacent lands.

● New utilities within the El Paso Natural Gas multiuse corridor must comply with the

adopted IOPs for the administration of energy transport development. These IOPs meet

the requirements of Section 368 to expedite the permitting process (see Appendix B of the

Approved Resource Management Plan/ Record of Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy

Corridors on BLM Administered Lands in 11 Western States, 2009). The IOPs provide

coordinated, consistent interagency management procedures for permitting ROWs within the

corridors. The IOPs also identify mandatory requirements that will help ensure that future

projects developed within Section 368 corridors are planned, constructed, operated, and

eventually decommissioned in a manner that protects and enhances environmental resources

and long-term sustainability.

H.2.2. Livestock Grazing

Standard Operating Procedures

● 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 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 (DCP) objectives.

● Deferment of livestock will be considered, where possible in cooperation with lease and

permit holders, to 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.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Livestock Grazing
1218 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Administrative vehicular access to repair range improvements by the grazing lessee is assured

through issuance of the grazing permit.

● Any compensation for a loss of range improvements 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.

H.2.3. Mineral Resources

Standard Operating Procedures

Specific to the Lower Sonoran Decision Area:

● Unless otherwise restricted, all Federal mineral estates administered by the BLM within

the Planning Area are available for orderly and efficient development of mineral resources.

Mineral exploration and development is generally encouraged on public lands in keeping with

BLM’s multiple use concept. 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 Energy

and Minerals Policy of August 26, 2008.

● Exploration and development of all mineral resources will be conducted in accordance with

all applicable laws and regulations.

● Acquired land will be opened to mineral entry unless critical resource values (T&E species,

riparian habitat, scenic values, etc.) or public health and safety require closure. Issuing ROWs

where there are active mining claims is routine and covered by legislation and regulation. The

ROW purchaser or permittee is informed of the rights of the mining claimant. Mining might

intermittently or temporarily obstruct the ROW.

H.2.4. Recreation

Standard Operating Procedures

The following provisions are set forth by regulation or bureau policy and thus do not require

planning decisions to be implemented as part of management actions.

General standard operating procedures:

● Encourage “Tread Lightly” and “Leave No Trace” travel and camping techniques.

● Adopt measures to increase visitor responsibility for campfire etiquette and to reduce

proliferation of campfire rings.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Mineral Resources August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1219

● Implement procedures for systematic monitoring of sites developed or authorized for public

visitation. Restrict visitor access or group tours if necessary to prevent damage from visitor

use.

● Determine areas where comprehensive site assessments are needed to determine existing

physical and social impacts of recreation activities, to define desired conditions and standards,

or to establish monitoring plans to manage camping and other uses.

● Develop and maintain partnerships and identify cooperative, sustainable recreation and

tourism-based economic opportunities with nearby communities.

● Develop and maintain partnerships with local clubs and organizations to help maintain and

monitor motorized and non-motorized trails.

● Post applicable toll-free phone numbers on kiosks, maps, brochures, permits, and other public

outreach conveyances to keep the public involved in reporting emergencies and criminal

activities, including damage to resources.

● 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.

● Pursue interpretation and environmental educational opportunities, outreach development,

and implementation of on-site and off-site programs for adults and children.

● Develop school curricula focusing on the BLM's mission with staffs from schools, school

districts, and other learning institutions.

● 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.

● 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 and distribute brochures, maps, access guides, and information sheets to

provide information on recreational opportunities, interpreted sites, resource protection,

designated trails and travel routes, safe travel, and safe shooting practices.

Special recreation permits: The BLM issues special recreation permits (SRPs) to manage visitor

use; to protect natural and cultural resources; to meet the goals and objectives of the field office

recreation program as outlined in a land-use plan; and to authorize specific types of recreational

activities. Special recreation permits (including academic, educational, scientific, or research use)

are issued to qualified applicants on a first-come, first-served and a case-by-case basis based on

resource values and how the SRPs meet resource and public health and safety concerns. Permit

authorization numbers will be set and could be adjusted based on monitoring of areas to be used

to accurately accommodate level of use, and to sustain resources while maintaining desired

social and managerial settings.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Recreation
1220 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Special recreation permit stipulations. In addition to the conditions and stipulations listed on

the Special Recreation Application and Permit form, supplemental office and resource-specific

stipulations are included with approved permits that are designed to protect the land and resources

involved, reduce user conflicts, and/or minimize health and safety hazards. These stipulations

must be followed to keep the permit in good standing. Failure to comply with the stipulations

may result in the loss of permit privileges.

Standard SRP stipulations are listed below. Not all stipulations may apply in every SRP, and

stipulations may be added, modified, or deleted on a case-by-case basis based on the specific

event being permitted.

General SRP stipulations:

● 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 SRP. Any additional use fees will be due at the end of the 6-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 as set (currently 3 percent of gross

revenue or the minimum annual fee of $95, whichever is greater).

● Post-use reports and estimated fee payments for annual and multi-year permits will be

submitted to the BLM on a fiscal year semi-annual basis. They are due within 15 days after

the 6 month use period (April 15 and October 15).

● The permittee is required to contact private landowners and other governmental agencies

whose property is affected by the use associated with the permit (this includes the Arizona

State Land Department for State Trust land). Evidence that authorization has been obtained

must be available to the BLM authorized officer upon request.

● Any changes to the approved Plan of Operations must first be approved by the BLM

authorized officer. This includes the use of subcontractors.

● The permit does not authorize exclusive use and shall not be construed in any way so as to

prevent public use or access on any public land except as expressly allowed under the permit.

● 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 as set (currently $300,000

per occurrence and $600,000 annual aggregate for bodily injury, and $30,000 property damage

per occurrence and $50,000 annual aggregate, if the policy specifies aggregate limits).

● It is the responsibility of the permittee to ensure valid insurance coverage including general

public liability, with the limits listed above, is provided for all equipment and services

supplied by subcontractors. A copy of the valid insurance coverage must be made available to

the BLM authorized officer upon request.

● A copy of this permit and the stipulations must be carried by guides during all tours conducted

on BLM-administered land, and must be made available to any BLM employee or client

upon request.

● Any violation of the permit terms, conditions, and stipulations may be subject to penalties

prescribed in 43 CFR 8372.0-7, which may include fines as set (currently up to $1,000

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Recreation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1221

and/or imprisonment up to 12 months). Additionally, any such violation may result in permit

probation, suspension, or revocation. Examples that can lead to permit violations include, but

are not limited to delinquent post use reports and/or payments, deviations to operating plan

not approved by authorized official, violation of laws and regulations, significant resource

damage, and public endangerment.

● All signs on public land must be authorized by the BLM in writing.

● The permittee is responsible for ensuring the safety of all clients and support personnel,

assuring that all permit actions are in conformance with local, State, and Federal health and

safety standards and providing for appropriate emergency attention.

● All injuries requiring emergency hospital care will be reported to the BLM authorized officer

within 2 days of the occurrence and a Death and Injury Report submitted to the BLM

authorized officer within 10 days of the occurrence.

● The BLM reserves the right to alter the terms, condition, or stipulations of a permit at any

time for reasons such as significant policy, administrative procedure, or stipulation change.

● 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.

1. Require holders of special recreation permits (SRPs) to give site visitors suitable educational

information on archaeological site etiquette and resource conservation.

2. SRP applicants will be strongly encouraged to have a working knowledge of Leave No

Trace and Tread Lightly principles. Additionally, applicants will be asked to incorporate

Leave No Trace and Tread Lightly principles into their tour, program, or event activities.

Resource protection stipulations:

● All activities are to remain on the approved roads, trails, washes, and/or staging areas. No

deviation to these routes is permitted without prior approval from the BLM authorized officer.

Motorized vehicles are not permitted in riparian areas or in running washes except at road

crossings.

● Employees and clients will be instructed that it is unlawful to disturb, deface, excavate,

or remove any archaeological or paleontological objects or structures (i.e., "look but do

not touch!"). Rock art may be photographed but not touched. Collection of prehistoric or

historic artifacts is not allowed. Any prehistoric or historic cultural site or human remains

discovered by the permittee, employees, or clients will be left undisturbed and reported as

soon as possible to the BLM authorized officer.

● Permittee must notify the BLM authorized officer of any specific archaeological sites proposed

for inclusion on tours. Tours to sites are subject to BLM approval and protective stipulations.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Recreation
1222 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Historical mine sites should not be disturbed. Collecting artifacts from these sites is strictly

prohibited. • All persons operating under the SRP, including subcontractors, are prohibited

from entering abandoned mines.

● Proposed activities will be conducted in a manner that will not interfere with mining or

exploration operations. No minerals are to be collected from areas encumbered by active

mining claims unless authorized by the claimant(s).

● Harassment of livestock, wildlife, and 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 T&E plant or animal is prohibited.

● Collection, harassment, and disturbance of desert tortoises and Gila monsters are prohibited

by Arizona State Law. If encountered on roads or trails, the animals 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.

● Vegetation clearing, trimming, or removal is not permitted without prior approval from the

BLM authorized official.

● 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.

● In order to minimize the importation or spread of noxious weeds, all vehicles are to be washed

thoroughly (including the undercarriage and engine compartment) before entering public land

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 land. All vehicles used for activities approved by this permit are

subject to inspection by the BLM.

● The permittee will be committed to preserving and protecting public lands by learning,

practicing, and promoting the “Leave No Trace” principles as presented by the Leave No

Trace Center for Outdoor Ethics (see www.lnt.org).

Motorized vehicle-use stipulations:

● Motorized routes and non-motorized trails will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for use in

permitted events and suitability for future use, closure, re-routing, rehabilitation, upgrading or

authorization as an approved and permitted course will be determined.

● 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 H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Recreation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1223

● Per 43 CFR 9268, 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:

1. No person shall operate an OHV on public land in a reckless, careless or negligent manner;

in excess of established speed limits; while under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or

drugs; or in a manner causing, or likely to cause, significant undue damage to or disturbance

of the soil, wildlife, wildlife habitat, improvements, cultural resources or vegetation.

2. Drivers shall yield the ROW to pedestrians, saddle horses, pack trains, and animal drawn

vehicles.

3. Drivers are prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless the driver and each front seat

passenger are restrained by a properly fastened safety belt.

● The permittee will be committed to preserving and protecting the public land by learning,

practicing, and promoting the “Tread Lightly!” principles as presented by the Tread Lightly

non-profit organization (see www.treadlightly.org).

Hunting outfitter/guide supplemental stipulations: The following stipulations for hunting

outfitters and guides are in addition to the terms and conditions listed on the back of the special

recreation application and permit form and the standard stipulations for BLM's Phoenix District

and LSFO. The stipulations listed below are part of the permit: Failure to comply with them may

result in the loss of permit privileges.

● Hunters shall not hunt within 1⁄4 of a mile of any developed recreation or archaeological site.

● Hunters may not use motorized vehicles of any type to retrieve injured or killed animals,

including hunters with Challenged Hunter Access/Mobility Permits. Outside of wilderness

areas, the use of wheeled game carts is allowed and recommended.

● No base camps may be established in undisturbed areas for hunting groups larger than eight

people without the prior approval of the BLM.

● The BLM shall be notified of any base camp stays anticipated to occur over the standard

14-day camping limit. This notification shall be received at least three business days prior

to the fourteenth day of occupancy. Under no circumstances is the base camp occupancy to

exceed the length of the hunting season for which the hunt permit/tag is drawn.

● Portable self-contained chemical toilets are the preferred method for human waste disposal

and are required for groups larger than eight people. "Catholes" may be used for groups less

than eight people and must be located at least 200 feet from water sources or dry wash beds.

Toilet paper and feminine hygiene products are to be packed out and properly disposed. Waste

from self-contained toilets shall be disposed of at State approved sewage disposal facilities.

● The permittee must notify the BLM three business days in advance if horses or pack stock

animals are to be used for hunting activities.

● The permittee shall provide the BLM contact with the following information at least three

business days prior to the start of the hunt:

1. Hunt number and Game Management Units for which the permit-tag was drawn

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Recreation
1224 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

2. Anticipated area of concentration for hunt and location of overnight base camps

3. If applicable, the following additional information needs to be provided: 1) Name of the

lead guide, 2) Vehicle information including make, model, color and license number

Parking, Staging Areas, Roads, and other Facilities and Sites. Facilities to manage

concentrated recreation use typically are planned and authorized by site-specific planning that is

conducted at the project level on a case-by-case basis:

● Facilities (such as camping locations, motorized and non-motorized activity staging

areas, toilets, scenic turnouts, cultural interpretive sites, directional and interpretive

signs, non-motorized trails, and roads) will be authorized where needed for resource

protection, visitor safety, resolution of visitor use conflicts, or to implement an RMP or

implementation-plan decision.

● To the greatest extent possible, all new construction and modifications for recreational

facilities, outdoor developed areas, and any related programs and activities will be accessible

to people with disabilities in accord 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:

1. Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards,

2. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines,

3. ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines (use whichever guidance is most stringent), and

4. Proposed Outdoor Developed Areas Guidelines (U.S. Access Board found

at http://www.access-board.gov and 43 CFR Part 17, Subpart E found at

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.)

● Roads and trails will be maintained as needed.

● Per 43 CFR 9268, 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.

● Vehicle and recreational uses and access to areas with known listed, sensitive, threatened,

or endangered species (plant and wildlife) will be avoided.

● Recreational use and vehicular traffic will be minimized when the soils are so wet or

abnormally dry that the route or surrounding resources may be damaged by use and during

high fire-threat conditions.

● The BLM will work with private property owners to reduce conflicts between private owners

and recreational activities.

● Coordinate with partners and nearby land owners and managers to develop joint campgrounds

on and off public lands.

● Develop partnerships and volunteer opportunities with local clubs, organizations, and

communities to maintain and monitor routes, recreation sites, and other areas.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Recreation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1225

● Develop brochures, maps, and information sheets to disseminate recreation use information to

the public.

Recreational target shooting. Public lands administered by the BLM generally are available for

recreational target shooting unless otherwise specifically closed to that use. To assure the safety of

themselves and other visitors to public lands, and to avoid undue degradation of natural resources,

the following best management practices on the part of shooters are advised:

● Have a safe backstop, defined as one that:

1. Is composed predominantly of unconsolidated, loose soil material and located in even,

open terrain with little or low vegetation that allows for ready observation of others during

target setup and retrieval;

2. Is a minimum of 15 feet in height, although 20 to 25 feet is desirable; wide enough to

allow a horizontal shooting fan of 45 degrees or greater; and has a vertical slope of 20

degrees or greater;

3. Has no facilities such as roads, trails, campsites, livestock waters and corrals,

communications sites, utilities, etc. within a downrange shooting fan of at least 3.5 miles;

and,

4. Is located more than 1⁄4-mile from any residence or occupied structure.

● Do not put others at risk by shooting toward or across areas where other people congregate

such as roads, hiking trails, vehicle parking and staging areas, and trailheads.

● Do not damage vegetation and other natural and cultural resources.

● Remove all targets, spent casings, and other materials used on-site. Failure to do so is littering.

● Under the CFR (43 CFR 8365.2-5(a)), no person shall, “[d]ischarge or use firearms” in a

developed recreation site. Under 43 CFR 8360.0-5(c), “Developed Recreation Sites and

Areas” are defined as “sites and areas that contain structures or capital improvements

primarily used by the public for recreation purposes.

H.2.5. Travel Management

Standard Operating Procedures

● The development of standards for monitoring the route system will be directed by compliance

with laws, regulations, and travel management plan goals and objectives

● Routes for permitted events will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and determined if they

are suitable or if they require action such as closure, re-routing, rehabilitation, upgrading, or

authorization as an approved permitted course.

● Route or area closures or mitigation will be enacted where OHV or special vehicle use is

determined to be inconsistent with established recreational management objectives, and/or

such use is causing harm to natural or cultural resources.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Travel Management
1226 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Motorized cross-country use will be permitted only when specifically authorized for

completing a BLM-approved task.

● Partnerships will be developed with local clubs and organizations to help maintain and

monitor motorized routes and non-motorized trails.

● Communities, user groups, and agencies can bring non-motorized trail or motorized route

proposals forward for management attention.

Non-motorized Trail Construction.

● Non-motorized trails are designed to minimize surface disturbance. • Linear areas of interest

would be marked with fiberglass posts or rock cairns to establish the footpath.

● Alternative types of transportation to link areas of interest should be considered.

● Specific to the Sonoran Desert National Monument Decision Area • Surface disturbance will

be minimized by using the designated roads system for motorized recreation.

● New route development would be considered only for resource protection or public safety

purposes when no other options meet the management need. If such development is required,

routes and management strategies will be planed, designated, and developed with community

and user input. Limits of acceptable change indicators and standards would be adopted and

user conflicts reduced.

H.2.6. Wildland Fire & Fuels Management

Standard Operating Procedures

● 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.

● Fire management activities will continue to avoid disturbing known archaeological sites

or sites found during such 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.

● In areas suitable for fire, the BLM will monitor existing air quality levels and weather

conditions to determine which prescribed fires can be ignited and which, if any, must be

delayed to ensure that air quality meets federal and state standards. If air quality approaches

unhealthy levels, the BLM will delay igniting prescribed fires.

● The BLM will update and maintain Fire Management Plans to include site-specific actions for

managing wildfire and fuels in accordance with Federal fire policies and this plan. These plans

will be coordinated with the FWS and AGFD to address site-specific concerns for Federally

protected species. These plans will incorporate the Conservation Measures (see Appendix K,

Conservation Measures from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinions (p. 1239)).

Consultation with the FWS will occur with these project-level plans, as necessary.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Wildland Fire & Fuels Management August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1227

● Avoid impacts to protected plants or their habitats by developing, modifying, redesigning,

mitigating, or abandoning projects. • 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.

● Use MIST, comply with the management plan to the maximum extent possible, and coordinate

with 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.

Best Management Practices

The appropriate management response concept represents a range of available management

responses to wildland fires, which can range from full fire suppression to managing fires for

resource benefits (i.e., fire use). Management responses applied to a fire will be identified

in the fire management plan and be based on objectives derived from the LUP and associated

implementation plans; relative risk to resources, the public, and fire fighters; potential complexity;

and the ability to defend management boundaries. Any wildland fire can be aggressively

suppressed and any fire that occurs in an area designated for fire use can be managed for resource

benefits if it meets the prescribed criteria from an approved fire management plan.

H.3. Special Designations

None identified.

H.3.1. Back Country Byways

● Site-specific analysis will be conducted if road is determined to qualify for nomination, and

appropriate agency, landowner and/or community partnerships have been obtained.

● Prior to the Back Country Byway nomination process, complete locale-specific visitor-use

and potential resource-impact studies to determine if byway designation is appropriate and

consistent with the RMP.

● Coordinate and partner with interested agencies and organizations, including Maricopa

County.

● Manage byways for compatibility with other resource allocations and uses.

● Install speed limit, directional, vehicle safety, and interpretive signs to enhance public use,

enjoyment, and stewardship of byways.

● Develop maps and brochures.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Special Designations
1228 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Continuously coordinate with the AGFD to develop limits of acceptable change for resources

and road conditions within byway corridors. Monitor for increases in byway width; sensitive

cultural resources; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species habitat; and negative effects

to wildlife populations adjacent to byway corridors. If impacts exceed limits of acceptable

change, management actions would be implemented to reduce resource impacts accordingly.

● For the Agua Caliente proposed byways, coordinate with the Yuma Field Office regarding

nomination, implementation and management of the byway.

H.3.2. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Standard Operating Procedures

● All authorized uses would be designed with mitigation to minimize surface disturbance.

● Fences would be designed to reduce adverse impacts to wildlife movement using specifications

in BLM Manual 1747, local directives, or subsequent guidance. Existing fences in wildlife

habitat that do not meet BLM specifications would be modified appropriately when scheduled

for replacement or maintenance.

H.4. Social & Economic

H.4.1. Public Health & Safety

Standard Operating Procedures

● Releases of hazardous materials will be minimized through compliance with current

regulations. When hazardous materials are released into the environment, their impacts on

each resource will be assessed and the appropriate response, removal, and remedial actions to

take will be determined.

● All actions (including land-use authorizations and disposals, mining and milling activities,

and unauthorized land uses) will be evaluated for hazardous materials, waste minimization,

and pollution prevention. Appropriate mitigation will be identified for surface-disturbing and

disruptive activities associated with all types of hazardous materials and waste management

and all types of fire management.

● Investigate all reported hazardous-materials and solid-wastes sites. Identify the probable

scope of needed containment and clean-up efforts. Plan necessary containment and/or cleanup

responses on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible upon report.

● Conduct active investigations to identify potentially responsible parties and recover planning,

containment, cleanup, monitoring, investigation, and enforcement costs associated with

spill/release responses.

● Site-specific inventories will be completed when land is being disposed or acquired. It is DOI

policy to minimize potential liability of the department and its bureaus (including the BLM)

by acquiring property that is not contaminated unless directed by Congress, court mandate,

or as determined by the Secretary.

Appendix H Best Management Practices & Standard

Operating Procedures

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1229

● Mining and milling sites will be inspected to determine appropriate management for

hazardous materials.

● Parties responsible for contamination will be identified and be liable for cleanup and resource

damage costs, as prescribed by law.

● Maintain current and develop new, as needed, law enforcement/public safety patrol, fire

suppression, and search and rescue programs.

● Complete site-specific inventories when lands are being disposed or acquired. It is

departmental policy to minimize potential liability of the Department of Interior (DOI) and its

bureaus by acquiring property that is not 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.

● 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. Minimize releases of hazardous materials through compliance with

current regulations. Identify appropriate mitigation for activities associated with all types of

hazardous materials and waste management and all types of fire management.

August 2011

Appendix H Best Management Practices &

Standard Operating Procedures

Public Health & Safety
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1231

Appendix I. Cultural Use Allocations

Site Allocation Categories and Descriptions

Guidance how to allocate to five cultural-use categories is prescribed in BLM Manual 8100.

Some sites may be allocated to two (or more) categories simultaneously. Some categories are

mutually exclusive. In order to manage a diversity of cultural sites, allocations to these categories

are necessary. Allocation is done as sites are identified, recorded, and evaluated. The categories

are as follows:

1. Scientific use: Applied to any cultural property determined to be available for consideration

as the subject of scientific or historical study using current techniques. Study includes

methods that would result in the property’s physical destruction. Sites that are most

important for the scientific or historical information they contain are allocated to scientific

use, based on the following: significance and uniqueness of site; potential to contribute

toward scientific understanding; capability of current available scientific methods to achieve

research goals; or appropriate research proposals that will further scientific understanding

or resource management.

2. Conservation for future use: Reserved for those properties that are unique, scarce, unusual,

architecturally interesting, or culturally important. These types of properties are deemed

worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural resource uses

that would threaten its present condition or setting. Sites allocated to this category are of

singular historic importance. Their unusual significance makes them unsuitable for scientific

or historical study that would result in their physical alteration.

3. Traditional use: Sites allocated to this category are those that are perceived by a

specified social or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural identity, heritage,

or well-being of Indian tribes or other cultural groups. Sites may be allocated to this

category based on consultations with affiliated tribes or groups. Management actions will

be developed in consultation with the affiliated tribe or groups that will recognize the

importance ascribed to them and seek to accommodate their continuing traditional uses.

4. Public use: Sites allocated to this category are those 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 following criteria will be applied in selecting sites suitable for

public use:

● Presence of aboveground features, such as structures or rock art, landscape

characteristics, or other features that are of interest to the public and are amenable to

interpretive development,

● The condition of the site and the feasibility of treating or stabilizing selected areas

to withstand visitation,

● Accessibility to travel routes,

● Visitor safety,

● Compatibility of other land uses and site values, such as traditional use by Native

Americans,

August 2011

Appendix I Cultural Use Allocations

Site Allocation Categories and Descriptions
1232 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Feasibility of regular inspections by BLM staff and volunteers,

● Partnership opportunities for interpretive and educational projects.

5. Experimental use: May be applied to a site judged to be suited for controlled experimental

study that may result in the property’s alteration, including the loss of integrity or destruction

of physical elements. Sites in this category would be considered for studies such as testing

and measuring the rate of natural or human-caused deterioration, testing the effectiveness

of certain protection measures, and testing the effects of fire. Studies would develop new

research or interpretation methods or would generate similar kinds of practical management

information. Experimental study would not be applied to cultural properties with strong

research potential, traditional cultural importance, or good public use potential if it would

significantly diminish those values. Justifications would be made in terms of weighing the

benefits of specific information to be gained versus the loss of cultural attributes or data that

may occur during the experiment or study.

6. Discharged from management: Sites that have no remaining identifiable use may be

assigned to this category. Sites discharged from management remain in the inventory but

are removed from further management attention and do no constrain other land uses.

These are limited to those having no remaining information potential and/or no traditional

values. Sites will be allocated to this category only on a case-by-case basis after inspection

and recordation in the field, and only after complying with Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Generally, this category will be limited to small surface

artifact scatters that have been thoroughly documented. Larger, more complex sites may

be discharged from management if they have been destroyed by human or natural causes.

This category is very rarely used.

Potential Site Allocations

Sites projected to occur may be allocated on the basis of existing data and landscape-level

considerations.

For example the following classes may be allocated to scientific use:

1. Sites from classes of prehistoric sites include:

● Village sites, camp sites, agricultural sites, rock shelters or cave sites;

● Lithic scatters, artifact scatters;

● Groundstone manufacturing sites;

● Rock features and alignments;

● Food and other resource processing sites, roasting pits;

● Hunting blinds and ambush sites;

● Trail sites.

2. Sites from classes of historic sites include:

● Ranches, homesteads, and associated features and components;

Appendix I Cultural Use Allocations

Potential Site Allocations August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1233

● Livestock raising related sites, agricultural features;

● Mines and prospecting sites;

● Settlements and camps;

● Roads, trails, and driveways, railroads and associated features, stage stops and stations;

● Public works sites, military camps and sites;

● Rock features and walls;

● Facilities used in commerce;

● Wells and water developments, water control features;

● Artifact scatters;

● Historic aboriginal sites;

● Historical rock art;

● Trash dumps.

Site Re-allocation Criteria

Reallocation is possible based on changing management and physical scenarios and does not

require a land-use plan amendment. Cultural site allocations may be revised if the following

conditions and criteria are met (per BLM Manual 8110):

● New data become known about the site;

● Land uses change;

● Development of lands causing direct or indirect impacts to site attributes or setting;

● Land tenure adjustments;

● Administrative changes (e.g., withdrawals, Recreation and Public Purposes Act, closures,

easements );

● Tribal interest;

● Severe or unusual weathering or erosion causes changes loss of site integrity;

● Changes in accessibility;

● Loss of site values (due to data recovery during mitigation, vandalism, and trespass activities

or other inadvertent damage).

August 2011

Appendix I Cultural Use Allocations

Site Re-allocation Criteria
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1235

Appendix J. Wildlife & Plant Priority

Species

Table J.1. Priority Species in the Lower Sonoran and SDNM Decision Areas

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE OTHER OCCURRENCE

Mammals

Allen’s (Mexican)

big-eared bat

Idionycteris phyllotis BS - - h

Arizona myotis Macrotus californicus BS - - h

California Leaf-nosed

Bat Macrotus californicus BS - - v

Cave myotis Myotis velifer BS - - v

Desert bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis mexicana - G - v

Greater western mastiff

bat

Eumops perotis

californicus

BS - - h

Javelina (collared

peccary)

Pecari tajacu - G - v

Lesser long-nosed bat

Leptonycteris curasoae

yerbabuenae

E - - v

Mountain lion Puma concolor - G - v

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus - G - v

Sonoran pronghorn

Antilocapra americana

sonoriensis

E - - v

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum BS - - h

Townsend's big-eared

bat

Corynorhinus (=Plecotus)

townsendii

BS - - v

White-tailed deer

Odocoileus virginianus

couesii

- G - v

Birds

American kestrel Falco sparverius - - R v

American peregrine

falcon

Falco peregrines anatum BS - BCC h

Bald eagle Falco peregrines anatum T - R v

Bald eagle (non-listed

DPS)

Haliaeetus leucocephalus BS - R v

Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii - - BCC v

Black vulture Coragyps atratus - - R v

Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis - - BCC h

Cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owl

Glaucidium brasilianum

cactorum

BS - BCC v

California black rail

Laterallus jamaicensis

coturniculus

BS - - h

Chestnut-collared

longspur

Calcarius ornatus - - BCC h

Common barn owl Tyto alba - - R v

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii - - R v

Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae - - BCC v

Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale - - BCC v

Crested caracara Caracara cheriway - - R v

Desert purple martin Progne subis hesperia BS - - v

Elf owl Micrathene whitneyi - - BCC v

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis BS - R v

Gambel’s quail Callipepla gambelii - G - v

August 2011

Appendix J Wildlife & Plant Priority Species

Site Re-allocation Criteria
1236 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE OTHER OCCURRENCE

Gilded flicker Colaptes chrysoides BS - BCC v

Golden eagle Aquila chrysatos BS - R h

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior - - BCC h

Great-horned owl Bubo virginianus - - R v

Harris’s hawk Parabuteo unicinctus - - R v

LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei BS - - v

Long-eared owl Asio otis - - R v

Lucy’s warbler Vermivora luciae - - BCC v

Merlin Falco columbarius - - R v

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura - G - v

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus - - R v

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

atricapillus

BS - - h

Pinyon jay

Gymnorhinus

cyanocephalus

BS - - v

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus - - BCC/R v

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis - - R v

Southwestern willow

flycatcher

Empidonax trailli extimus E - BCC h

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni - - R v

Western Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia

hypugaea

BS - BCC v

Western screech owl Megascops kennicottii - - R v

White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica - G - v

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C - BCC h

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia - - BCC v

Yuma clapper rail

Rallus longirostris

yumanensis

E - - v

Amphibians & Reptiles

Great Plains

narrow-mouthed toad

Bufo cognatus BS - - v

Lowland burrowing

treefrog

Pternohyla fodiens BS - - v

Lowland leopard frog Lithobates yavapaiensis BS - - v

Sonora mud turtle

Kinosternon sonoriense

sonoriense

BS - - v

Sonoran desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii C - - v

Sonoran green toad Bufo retiformis BS - - h

Tucson Shovel-nosed

snake

Chionactis occipitalis

klauberi

C - - v

Fish

Desert sucker Catostomus clarki BS - - v

Long-fin dace Agosia chrysogaster BS - - v

Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis BS - - v

Invertebrates

Hydrobiid spring snails

All species in genus

Pyrgulopsis

BS - - h

Succineid snails

All species in family

Succineidae

BS - - h

Plants

Acuña cactus

Echinomastus

erectocentrus var.

acunensis

C - -

Appendix J Wildlife & Plant Priority Species

Site Re-allocation Criteria August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1237

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATE OTHER OCCURRENCE

Arizona hedgehog

cactus

Echinocereus

triglochidiatus var.

arizonicus

E - - h

Kofa Mt barberry Berberis harrisoniana BS - -

Arizona Sonoran

rosewood

Vauquelinia californica

spp sonorensis

BS - -

Tumamoc globeberry Tumamoca macdouglii BS - -

Federal Status State Status Other Occurrence

E – Endangered G – Game species

BCC – Birds of Conservation

Concern/ FWS MTBA Focal Species

h– Probable,

Potential, or

Hypothetical

Occurrence

T — Threatened R – Raptor v– Occurring

C – Candidate

BS – BLM Sensitive

Note: The Arizona BLM Sensitive Species List is dynamic. The list is currently in revision to

reflect guidance from the revised BLM 6840 Manual dated June 2008. In addition, changes in

species taxonomy, information on species distribution, abundance, or new knowledge on security

or threats can come any time requiring changes to this list.

August 2011

Appendix J Wildlife & Plant Priority Species

Site Re-allocation Criteria
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1239

Appendix K. Conservation Measures

from Fish and Wildlife Service Biological

Opinions

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), provides for the protection of

threatened, endangered and proposed threatened or endangered (T/E) species of plants and

animals. The following requirements are prescribed in BLM Manual 6840:

● 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:

1. Determine, to the extent practical, the occurrence and distribution of all T/E species on

BLM public lands and evaluate the significance of these habitats in the conservation of

those species.

2. Identify BLM public lands that are essential habitat and designated critical habitat of

T/E species and prescribe management for the conservation of these habitats in land

use plans.

3. Develop and implement management plans that will ensure the conservation of T/E

species and their habitats.

4. Evaluate ongoing management activities to ensure T/E species conservation objectives

are being met.

5. Ensure that all activities affecting the populations and habitats of T/E species are

designed to be consistent with recovery needs and objectives.

● Ensure that all actions authorized, funded, or carried out by the BLM are in compliance with

the ESA. To accomplish this, the BLM shall:

1. Screen all proposed actions to determine whether T/E species or their habitat may be

affected. Normally the environmental analysis process is used.

2. Initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) as appropriate for those

that may affect T/E species or their habitats.

3. Until the consultation proceedings are completed and a final decision has been reached,

the BLM shall not carry out any actions that would cause irreversible or irretrievable

commitment of resources or reduce the future management options for the species involved.

4. Ensure that no BLM action will adversely affect the likelihood of recovery of any T/E

species.

● Cooperate with the FWS in planning and providing for the recovery of T/E species. To

accomplish this the BLM shall:

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Endangered Species Act
1240 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

1. Participate on recovery teams and in recovery plan preparation, as well as State or regional

working teams responsible for T/E species recovery.

2. Review technical and agency drafts of recovery plans for species affected by BLM

management to ensure that proposed actions assigned to the BLM are technically and

administratively feasible and consistent with the BLM's mission and authority.

3. Ensure that the decisions, terms, and conditions of land-use plans, as well as more detailed

site-specific plans, prepared for lands covered by previously approved recovery plans are

consistent with meeting recovery plan objectives.

● Retain in Federal ownership all habitats essential for the survival or recovery of any T/E

species, including habitat used historically by these species.

● 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 on any action that will adversely affect a

proposed species or proposed critical habitat.

● Candidate species will be managed so as not to contribute to the need for them to become

listed as threatened or endangered.

Conservation Measures for the Sonoran Pronghorn

The conservation measures below have been developed through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Biological Opinions and are adopted in this plan, as amended, below.

Measures from the Plan Amendment for the Lower Gila South RMP (02-21-85-F-069) and

an Amended Proposed Action for the Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of

Ajo, Arizona (02-21-94-F-192) 2004:

Sonoran Pronghorn (FE).

● FE-1. Install, operate, and maintain forage enhancement plots, in cooperation and

coordination with the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team as funding becomes available.

● FE-2. Install, operate, and maintain ground-level drinking troughs and associated existing

wells on the Cameron allotment area in cooperation and coordination with the recovery

team. Design, site selection, prioritization and implementation will be subject to recovery

team review and will fully comply with facility maintenance guidelines for the Sonoran

pronghorn and funding availability.

● FE-3. The BLM will only authorize ephemeral grazing on the Coyote Flat II and Childs

Allotments in accordance with ephemeral use criteria contained in the Arizona Land Health

Standards when the following conditions are met:

1. Ephemeral forage on the Coyote Flat II and Childs allotments is not an important part of

ephemeral available to pronghorn, either in terms of forage quality or acreage of greenup

because it is abundant and occurs across the range of the Sonoran pronghorn;

2. The U.S. Sonoran pronghorn population must be above 100 animals and increasing; and

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Conservation Measures for the Sonoran Pronghorn August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1241

3. Prior to authorizing ephemeral grazing, the BLM will work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (FWS) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) in evaluating the

above conditions.

● FE-4. Continue implementing the drought policy developed in 2003 Instruction Memorandum

AZ-020-03-003 Lower Sonoran Field Office Drought Policy for Four Ajo Block Allotments

and Sentinel Allotment for the Coyote Flat II, Childs and Sentinel allotments.

● FE-5. The BLM will, in coordination with the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team, install,

operate, and maintain forage enhancement plots in at least two locations and as many as eight

locations in pronghorn habitat. Design, site selection, prioritization, and implementation will

be subject to recovery team oversight and funding availability.

● FE-6. The BLM will operate and maintain the four existing wells on the Cameron Allotment

area for listed species management. Timing of the maintenance will be coordinated with the

Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team to avoid adverse impacts and will also fully comply with

the facility maintenance guidelines contained in the conservation measures for CFPO.

● FE-7. The BLM will, in coordination with the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team, install,

operate, and maintain ground-level drinking troughs at existing wells on the Cameron

allotment area. Design, site selection, prioritization, and implementation will be coordinated

with the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team and subject to funding availability.

● FE-8. The BLM will remove all interior fences and cooperate with Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument (OPCNM) and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) in the

removal of common boundary fences with the Cameron allotment area.

● FE-9. The BLM, in coordination with AGFD, will modify existing dirt tanks to minimize

conditions conductive to biting midge propagation, subject to an evaluation of need and

feasibility assessment.

● FE-10. The BLM will continue to seek funding to complete the ongoing study on the potential

of disease transmission from livestock to pronghorn.

● FE-11. The BLM will identify areas of heavy recreational impacts and, to the extent

practicable, initiate measures to rehabilitate these areas. Implementation will be subject

to availability of funding.

● FE-12. The BLM will enforce a maximum 14 day camping limit, or more restrictive as

determined by the RMP, in the Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), and direct

all camping activities to the Gunsight Wash camping area.

● FE-13. The BLM will continue to implement the annual seasonal closure to public use

between March 15 and July 15, or as agreed upon by the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team

excluding the camping area at Gunsight Wash. The area to be closed is the area west of state

route 85 and south of the Darby Well/Scenic Loop Road/Chico Shunie Road. (Area defined as

the Cuerda de Lena WHA, ACEC and/or Ajo SRMA in the various Draft RMP alternatives).

● FE-14. The BLM will consult with FWS concerning all vehicle routes within Sonoran

pronghorn habitat during the travel management route designation process to be conducted

within 5 years after the completion of the Lower Sonoran-SDNM Draft RMP.

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Conservation Measures for the Sonoran Pronghorn
1242 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● FE-15. The BLM will continue to support the priority recovery items for Sonoran pronghorn

as recommended by the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team.

Conservation Measures for Fire Management Activities

From the Arizona Statewide Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management:

During fire-suppression actions, resource advisors may be designated to coordinate concerns

regarding federally protected species and to serve as liaisons between the field office managers

and the incident commanders or the incident management team. They also serve as field contact

representatives responsible for coordination with the FWS. The resource advisors will have the

necessary information on federally protected species and habitats in the area and the available

conservation measures for the species. They will be briefed on the intended suppression actions

for the fire and will provide input on which conservation measures are appropriate. The incident

commander has the final decision making authority on implementation of conservation measures

during fire-suppression operations.

For fire-suppression activities, a protocol for consultation has been developed as a part of the

biological opinion (BO) for the Arizona Statewide Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air

Quality Management. This programmatic consultation contains conservation measures and

prescriptions for use in fire-suppression activities. Emergency consultation should only be needed

when suppression actions fall outside of these prescriptions. The BO outlines coordination needs

for emergency response actions that may affect a listed/proposed species or critical habitat.

The following protocols will apply:

● The BLM will contact the appropriate FWS biologist as soon as practical once a wildfire

starts and a determination is made that a federally protected species or its habitat could be

affected by the fire or fire-suppression activities.

● The FWS will work with the BLM during the emergency response to apply the appropriate

conservation measures.

● If conservation measures cannot be applied during the suppression activities, the BLM will

consult with the responding agency after the fact on any suppression actions that may have

affected the federally protected species or its habitat.

● If conservation measures are adhered to, the BLM will report on the actions taken and the

effects to the species and its habitat following the fire, but no further consultation on that

incident will be required.

Because of the number of species located within the area and the variety of fire-suppression and

fire-management activities, conflicts may occur in attempting to implement all conservation

measures for every species potentially affected by a particular activity.

Implementing these conservation measures effectively depends on the number of federally

protected species and their individual life history or habitat requirements within a particular

location that is being affected by either fire-suppression or a proposed fire management activity.

This would be particularly true for timing restrictions on fuels treatment activities if the ranges of

several species with differing restrictions overlap, making effective implementation of the activity

unachievable. Resource advisors (in coordination with the FWS), fire management officers

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Conservation Measures for Fire Management

Activities August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1243

or incident commanders, and other resource specialists will coordinate to determine which

conservation measures are implemented during a particular activity. If conservation measures

for a species cannot be implemented, the BLM is required to initiate Section 7 consultation with

the FWS for that particular activity.

The BLM will update and maintain fire management plans to include site-specific actions for

managing wildfire and fuels in accordance with Federal fire policies and this plan. These plans

will be coordinated with the FWS and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) to

address site-specific concerns for federally protected species. These plans will incorporate the

conservation measures. Consultation with the FWS will occur with these project-level plans, as

necessary.

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 FWS.

● FS-1. Protect known locations of habitat occupied by federally listed species. Minimum

impact suppression tactics (MIST) will be followed in all areas with known federally

protected species or habitat.

● 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 responsible

for coordination with the FWS. 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 FWS,

through the resource advisor.

● FS-5. Crew camps, equipment staging areas, and aircraft landing and fueling areas should

be located outside of listed species habitats, and preferably in locations that are disturbed.

If camps must be located in listed species habitat, the resource advisor will be consulted to

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Wildland Fire Suppression (FS)
1244 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 FWS 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. MIST will be followed in all areas with known federally protected species or habitats.

● FT-3. Pre-project surveys and clearances (biological evaluations/assessments) for federally

protected species will be required for each project site before implementation. All applicable

conservation measures will be applied to areas with un-surveyed 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 fuel breaks or site-access routes. If off-road travel is deemed

necessary, any cross-country travel paths will be surveyed prior to use and will be closed and

rehabilitated after the prescribed 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.

Rehabilitation and Restoration (RR)

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Fuels Treatments (Prescribed Burning and Other

Fuels Management) (FT) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1245

● 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 fuel breaks 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 FWS 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.

Wildland Fire Suppression & Rehabilitation in Riparian and

Aquatic Habitats (RA)

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 FWS. The BLM’s 1987 policy statement on riparian area management

defines a riparian area as “an area of land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible

vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lakeshores and

stream banks are typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes

that do not exhibit the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil.”

● RA-1. During wildfire suppression, apply MIST within riparian areas. Fire-suppression

actions in riparian areas should be prioritized to minimize damage to stands of native

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Wildland Fire Suppression & Rehabilitation in

Riparian and Aquatic Habitats (RA)
1246 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 the 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 fire lines by hand

or with heavy equipment.

● RA-5. Construction or development of a crossing for motorized vehicles across a perennial

stream will not be permitted, unless an established road already exists or where dry,

intermittent sections occur.

● RA-6. Avoid the use of fire retardants or chemical foams in riparian habitats or within 300

feet of aquatic habitats, particularly sites occupied by federally protected species. Apply

operational guidelines as stated in the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation

Operations 2003 (or updates), “Environmental Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam

Near Waterways,” Chapter 8 (pp. 8-13 through 8-15).

● RA-7. 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-8. 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-9. Use of containment systems for portable pumps to avoid fuel spills in riparian or

aquatic systems will be required.

● RA-10. (Recommended) Develop and implement restoration plans for affected riparian

or aquatic areas, including long-term monitoring, to document changes in conditions in

the riparian zone and watershed that maintain flood regimes and reduce fire susceptibility.

Monitor stream water quality and riparian ecosystem health to determine effects of wildfire

and fire management activities. Coordinate efforts and results with the FWS and AGFD.

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, and biological)

within riparian, wetland, or aquatic habitats.

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Fuels Treatments (prescribed fire; mechanical,

chemical, and biological treatments) August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1247

● RA-11. All conservation measures for wildland fire suppression (RA-1 to RA-11) also apply

to fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire; mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments)

in riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats.

● RA-12. 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-13. 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 FWS and AGFD, will determine:

1. The number of acres and the number of projects or phases of projects to occur within one

watershed per year.

2. An appropriately-sized buffer adjacent to perennial streams in order to minimize soil and

ash from entering the stream.

3. 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.

Species Specific Conservation Measures: .

In addition to the general conservation measures, the following species-specific conservation

measures will be applied during wildfire suppression to the extent possible, and will be required

during fuels treatment activities (wildland fire use, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments).

Necessary modifications of the conservation measures or impacts to federally protected species

and habitat during fire suppression operations will be documented by the resource advisor, and

coordinated with the FWS.

Birds

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (CO).

● CO-1. Treatment of riparian habitat, Sonoran desert/desert scrub, or mesquite-invaded

grasslands under 4,000 feet in elevation that may support nesting cactus ferruginous pygmy

owls will only occur during the non-nesting season of August 1 to January 31, unless

pre-project surveys indicate the area does not support pygmy-owls or mitigation plans

approved by the FWS have alleviated negative consequences.

● CO-2. Develop mitigation plans in coordination with the FWS for fuels treatment projects

(prescribed fire; vegetation treatments) that may adversely affect cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls or their habitat. Mitigation plans for prescribed fire shall limit to the extent

practicable the possibility that fire would spread to riparian habitats. Mitigation plans will

be approved by the FWS.

● CO-3. (Recommended) To the extent possible, maintain habitat features necessary to support

breeding populations of the pygmy-owl within their historic range and review ongoing fire

management activities for effects on essential habitat features needed by cactus ferruginous

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Birds
1248 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

pygmy-owls. Modify activities, where necessary, to sustain the overall suitability of the

habitat for the owls. Priority will be given to activities in or near occupied or recently (w/in

the last 10 years) occupied habitat.

● CO-4. Development or other disturbing activities should not occur within 400 meters (0.25

miles) of an active nest site during the most sensitive periods of the breeding season (February

1 through July 31). Development or disturbance planned to occur within 100 meters (330 feet)

of any known pygmy-owl nest site should be evaluated on a site-specific basis, but significant

modification of habitat within this area should be avoided year-round.

Southwestern willow flycatcher (WF).

● WF-1. Implement the conservation measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian

and Aquatic Habitats.

● WF-2. Except where fires are active in occupied habitat, minimize unnecessary low-level

helicopter flights during the breeding season (April 1 – September 30). Approach bucket dip

sites at a 90-degree direction to rivers to minimize flight time over the river corridor and

occupied riparian habitats. Locate landing sites for helicopters at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied

sites to avoid impacts to willow flycatchers and their habitat.

● WF-3. Minimize use of chainsaws or bulldozers to construct fire lines 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 found to be occupied habitat for

southwestern willow flycatchers only during the non-breeding season (October 1 to March 31).

● WF-5. Avoid developing access roads that would result in fragmentation or a reduction in

habitat quality. Close and rehabilitate all roads that were necessary for project implementation

(see RR 5).

● WF-6. Prescribed burning will only be allowed within 1⁄2 mile of occupied or found to be

occupied 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 found to be occupied habitat will

only be conducted when willow flycatchers are not present (October 1 – March 31).

● WF-8. The following reasonable and prudent measure, terms, and conditions are necessary

and appropriate to minimize take of southwestern willow flycatchers:

1. Minimize the effects of harassment, harm, and mortality to southwestern willow flycatchers.

2. In cooperation with FWS and using guidance from southwestern willow flycatcher recovery

plan, the BLM shall incorporate the elements recommended for fire risk evaluation and

planning into its fire management plans for all current flycatcher breeding sites on or

adjacent to BLM-administered lands.

3. If additional sites become occupied, the BLM shall include them in the yearly fire

management plans in cooperation with FWS, prior to the next wildfire season.

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Birds August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1249

Yellow-billed cuckoo (YC).

● YC-1. Implement the conservation measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian

and Aquatic Habitats.

Yuma clapper rail (CR).

● CR-1. Implement the conservation measures for Fire Management Activities in Riparian

and Aquatic Habitats.

● CR-2. Any prescribed fire or vegetation treatment project in occupied or suitable marsh

habitat would only occur between September 1 and March 15 to avoid the Yuma clapper

rail breeding and molting seasons.

● CR-3. Mechanical removal of overstory habitat (Tamarisk) could occur as early as August 15,

after the breeding season for Yuma clapper rails.

● CR-4. Herbicide application would not occur in Yuma clapper rail habitat and drift-inhibiting

agents would be used to assure that the herbicide does not enter adjacent marsh areas.

● CR-5. The following reasonable and prudent measure, terms, and conditions are necessary

and appropriate to minimize take of Yuma clapper rail:

1. Minimize disturbance to Yuma clapper rails during prescribed fire activities.

2. To allow for a better estimate of the number of birds in the affected area, the BLM or their

designated representative shall conduct surveys of the site to be prescribed burned during

the breeding season prior to the burn. Since prescribed fires would be conducted during

September to March, the surveys shall be done the preceding March to May.

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. The 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.

Currently, there are no federally listed fish species within the Lower Sonoran Planning area.

Flowering Plants

The following conservation measures for known locations and un-surveyed 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:

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Fish
1250 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● 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. The BLM will coordinate with FWS to delineate buffer areas around plant populations

prior to prescribed fire and vegetation treatment activities. The BLM will coordinate with

FWS 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). Primary threats to

many of these plant species are trampling or crushing from personnel and vehicles.

● PL-4. No prescribed burning will be implemented within 100 meters of identified locations or

un-surveyed 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 federally protected plant

species Acuña Cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis).

Mammals

Lesser long-nosed bat (LB).

● LB-1. Instruct all crew bosses (wildfire suppression, wildland fire use, prescribed fire, and

vegetation treatments) in the identification of agave and columnar cacti and the importance

of their protection.

● LB-2. Prior to implementing any fuels treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation

treatments), pre-project surveys will be conducted for paniculate agaves and saguaros that

may be directly affected by fuels management activities.

● LB-3. Protect long-nosed bat forage plants—saguaros and high concentrations of

agaves—from wildfire and fire-suppression activities, and from modification by fuels

treatment activities (prescribed fire, vegetation treatments), to the greatest extent possible.

Agave concentrations are contiguous stands or concentrations of more than 20 plants per acre.

Avoid driving over plants, piling slash on top of plants, and burning on or near plants. Staging

areas for fire crews or helicopters will be located in disturbed sites, if possible.

● LB-4. No seeding/planting of nonnative plants will occur in any wildfire rehabilitation site

or fuels treatment site with paniculate agaves or saguaros.

● LB-5. A mitigation plan will be developed by the Bureau in coordination with the FWS for

prescribed fires or fuels management projects (mechanical, chemical, biological treatments)

within 0.5 mi of bat roosts or in areas that support paniculate agaves or saguaros. The

mitigation plan will ensure that effects to bat roosts and forage plants are minimized and will

include monitoring of effects to forage plants. The plan will be approved by the FWS.

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Mammals August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1251

● LB-6. (Recommended) BLM personnel should examine concentrations of agaves (including

shindagger (A. schottii) within each proposed fuels treatment area, and blackline or otherwise

protect from treatments any significant concentrations of agaves that appear to be amidst fuel

loads that could result in mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A. schottii). BLM

personnel should use their best judgment, based on biological and fire expertise, to determine

which significant agave stands are prone to mortality greater than 20 percent (>50% for A.

schottii) (see conservation measures FT-1 and FT-3).

● LB-7. (Recommended) the BLM should continue to support and cooperate in the

investigations of agave relationships to livestock grazing, and of the effects of prescribed

fire on paniculate agaves.

Reptiles

Desert tortoise, Sonoran population (DT).

Implement management actions for the Desert Tortoise, Sonoran population, as appropriate as

developed by the Rangewide Strategy.

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 seedlings 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 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 or burned area

recovery should maintain non-native and native species to meet land use (including Standards for

Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management) or activity plan objectives.

August 2011

Appendix K Conservation Measures from Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Opinions

Reptiles
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1253

Appendix L. Guidelines for Grazing

Administration

The Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Administration (referred

to as Standards and Guidelines or S&Gs) (BLM 1997) 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 (see Section 2.5.3, “Arizona Land Health Standards” (p. 43)). Upland

sites, riparian-wetland areas and desired resource conditions are each addressed by a standard

along with associated guidelines. The guidelines are management approaches, methods, and

practices that are intended to achieve a standard. Guidelines:

1. Typically identify and prescribe methods of influencing or controlling specific public land

uses;

2. Are developed and applied consistent with the desired condition and within site capability;

and

3. May be adjusted over time.

The following guidelines from the S&G are hereby adopted and apply to all areas where grazing

occurs.

Guidelines for Standard 1: Uplands Sites

1-1. Management activities will maintain or promote ground cover that will provide for

infiltration, permeability, soil moisture storage, and soil stability appropriate for the ecological

sites within management units. The ground cover should maintain soil organisms and plants and

animals to support the hydrologic and nutrient cycles, and energy flow. Ground cover and signs of

erosion are surrogate measures for hydrologic and nutrient cycles and energy flow.

1-2. When grazing practices alone are not likely to restore areas of low infiltration or permeability,

land management treatments may be designed and implemented to attain improvement.

Guidelines for Standard 2: Riparian-Wetland Areas

2-1. Management practices maintain or promote sufficient vegetation to maintain, improve or

restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge

and stream bank stability, thus promoting stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, width/depth

ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to climate and landform.

2-2. New facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas if they conflict with achieving

or maintaining riparian-wetland function. Existing facilities are used in a way that does not

conflict with riparian-wetland functions or are relocated or modified when incompatible with

riparian-wetland functions.

2-3. The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated

resources shall be designed to protect ecological functions and processes.

Guidelines for Standard 3: Desired Resource Conditions

August 2011

Appendix L Guidelines for Grazing Administration

Guidelines for Standard 1: Uplands Sites
1254 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

3-1. The use and perpetuation of native species will be emphasized. However, when restoring

or rehabilitating disturbed or degraded rangelands, non-intrusive, non-native plant species are

appropriate for use where native species (a) are not available, (b) are not economically feasible,

(c) cannot achieve ecological objectives as well as non-native species, and/or (d) cannot compete

with already established non-native species.

3-2. Conservation of Federal threatened or endangered, proposed, candidate, and other special

status species is promoted by the maintenance or restoration of their habitats.

3-3. Management practices maintain, restore, or enhance water quality in conformance with

State or Federal standards.

3-4. Intensity, season and frequency of use, and distribution of grazing use should provide

for growth and reproduction of those plant species needed to reach desired plant community

objectives (DPCs).

3-5. Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland may be authorized if

the following conditions are met:

● Ephemeral vegetation is present in draws, washes, and under shrubs and has grown to useable

levels at the time grazing begins;

● Sufficient surface and subsurface soil moisture exists for continued plant growth;

● Serviceable waters are capable of providing for proper grazing distribution;

● Sufficient annual vegetation will remain on site to satisfy other resource concerns, (i.e.,

watershed, wildlife, wild horses and burros); and

● Monitoring is conducted during grazing to determine if objectives are being met.

3-6. Management practices will target those populations of noxious weeds which can be

controlled or eliminated by approved methods.

3-7. Management practices to achieve DPCs will consider protection and conservation of known

cultural resources, including historical sites, and prehistoric sites and plants of significance to

Native American peoples.

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 available data will be used as a guide for addressing site

capabilities and potentials for change over time. These objectives are vegetation values the BLM

manages over the long term. Once established, DPC objectives would be updated and monitored

by the use of indicators for Land Health Standard 3.

Implementing Standards and Guidelines

The authorized officer will review existing permitted livestock use, allotment management

plans, or other activity plans which identify terms and conditions for management on public

land. Existing management practices and levels of use on grazing allotments will be reviewed

and evaluated on a priority basis to determine if they meet, or are making significant progress

toward meeting, the standards and are in conformance with the guidelines. The review will be

Appendix L Guidelines for Grazing Administration

Implementing Standards and Guidelines August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1255

interdisciplinary and conducted under existing rules which provide for cooperation, coordination,

and consultation with affected individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribal governments,

private landowners, and interested publics.

This review will use a variety of data, including monitoring records, assessments, and knowledge

of the locale to assist in making the significant progress determination. Significance will be

determined on a case by case basis, considering site potential, site condition, weather and financial

commitment. It is anticipated there will be cases where numerous years will be needed to

determine direction and magnitude of trend.

Upon completion of review, the authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as

practicable but no later than the start of the next grazing year upon determining that the existing

grazing management practices or level of use on public land are significant factors contributing to

failure to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines that are made effective under

43 CFR 4180.2. Appropriate action means implementing actions that will result in significant

progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward conformance with

guidelines.

Livestock grazing will continue where significant progress toward meeting standards is being

made. Additional activities and practices would not be needed on such allotments. Where new

activities or practices are required to assure significant progress toward meeting standards,

livestock grazing use can continue contingent upon determinations from monitoring data that the

implemented actions are effective in making significant progress toward meeting the standards. In

some cases, additional action may be needed as determined by monitoring data over time.

New plans will incorporate an interdisciplinary team approach (Arizona BLM Interdisciplinary

Resource Management Handbook, April 1995). The terms and conditions for permitted grazing in

these areas will be developed to comply with the goals and objectives of these plans which will be

consistent with the standards and guidelines.

August 2011

Appendix L Guidelines for Grazing Administration

Implementing Standards and Guidelines
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1257

Appendix M. Painted Rock Burro Herd

Manageability Analysis

The Painted Rock Herd Area (PRHA) is located approximately 85 miles southwest of the metro

Phoenix area and about 11 miles west of Gila Bend, Arizona, and surrounds the Painted Rock

Reservoir area. The Herd Area (HA) encompasses approximately 38,737 acres, of which 31,106

acres are BLM-managed public lands, 4,834 acres are private lands, and 2,796 acres are Arizona

state lands. The HA includes portions of three allotments: Artex, Painted Rock, and Dendora

Valley. All three allotments are classified as ephemeral. The HA has been home to wild burros

and a small band of horses over the years. Management of the herd area applies only to the Lower

Sonoran Decision Area. No Herd Management Areas (HMAs) have been allocated within either

Decision Area. The Painted Rock Herd Area is shown on Map 3-15.

The habitat of the Painted Rock Herd Area consists about 10,700 acres of river bottom between

the Painted Rock Dam and Oatman Mountain. Approximately 28,000 acres of the Herd Area

are upland volcanic flow in a region known as the Sentinel Plain. This area consists of broad

lower Sonoran Desert plains cut by sandy washes and low mountain ranges. Vegetation consists

of palo verde, cacti, creosote bush, and sage. The Gila River bisects the northern portion of the

HA and is characterized by salt cedar, mesquite, cottonwood, and willows. Wildlife species that

also inhabit the area include desert mule deer, javelina, dove, quail, water fowl, and a variety of

small mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

The wild horses and burros that have historically inhabited this area are probably descendants

from pack and work animals brought by the Spaniards and escaped or were released into the

desert. With the discovery of gold and silver in the 1800s, miners and settlers brought more

animals with them. Burros and ponies were often used inside the mines themselves, and burros

were also used to breed with horses to produce mules, which were highly sought after for driving

and packing in the rugged west.

At one time, more than 10,000 wild burros were found in California, Arizona, and Nevada. The

BLM estimates that approximately 33,000 horses and 5,500 burros are roaming on BLM-managed

rangelands in 10 Western states, based on the latest data available, compiled as of June 17, 2011.

The 2011 Arizona population consists of 434 wild horses and 2,761 wild burros. Arizona boasts

the largest burro population in America, more than the other nine states combined. Wild horses

and burros have virtually no natural predators and their herd sizes can double about every four

years. As a result, the agency must remove thousands of animals from the range each year to

control herd sizes.

The social structure of most wild horse herds consists of breeding and bachelor bands. Breeding

bands or harems usually consist of a dominant stallion, lead or dominant mare(s), a group of

breeding mares, and associated foals and yearlings. Bachelor bands consist of various aged

males that either have not yet established their own harem or have lost their mares (Singer et.al,

2000). Although wild horse bands tend to use the same habitat areas (home ranges) from year to

year, they are not territorial and do not defend preferred habitat areas. As a result, bands often

graze and water near each other, and there may be movement of mares between bands. This, in

combination with the periodic displacement of the dominant stallion and removal or death of

other horses, results in a very fluid social structure in most herds. These factors are beneficial in

enhancing genetic diversity (Singer et.al, 2000).

August 2011

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd

Manageability Analysis

Implementing Standards and Guidelines
1258 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

In contrast to wild horses, wild burros do not form breeding bands. There are no strong individual

bonds other than jenny-foal relationships. Wild burros present themselves as single animals,

all-male groups, all-female groups, jenny-foal groups, or mixed groups. All of the groups are

variable and their composition may change at any time. This loose social structure, where all

animals are potential breeding partners, maximizes genetic diversity in small or dispersed burro

populations (Singer et.al, 2000).

Burros evolved in the harsh deserts of North Africa and are very well adapted to a dry desert

environment. Two distinct breeds are attributed with being the ancestors of today's western

burros: Nubian burros have a black stripe across the shoulders and down the middle of the back,

giving the appearance of a cross when viewed from above; Somalian burros have leg stripes on

both front and hind legs, resembling a zebra's markings. These characteristics can be seen in most

Arizona burro populations. Left alone in the remote region of Painted Rock with few natural

predators, the wild burros survived the intense heat on the coarse vegetation and limited water.

However, with the encroachment of man and the installation of fences, roads, and highways, their

ability to disperse and mingle with other herds is very limited.

In 1971, Congress passed The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WFRHBA, or "The

Act," Public Law 92-195). The Act gave BLM the honor and the responsibility to manage wild

horse and burro populations on BLM-administered lands in the west. The Act states, "It is the

policy of Congress that wild, free-roaming horses and burros shall be protected from capture,

branding, harassment, or death; and to accomplish this they are to be considered in the area where

presently found, as an integral part of the natural system of the public lands." The WFRHBA

goes on to define wild horse and burro "range" as, "the amount of land necessary to sustain an

existing herd or herds of wild free-roaming horses and burros, which does not exceed their known

territorial limits, and which is devoted principally, but not necessarily exclusively to their welfare

in keeping with the multiple-use management concept for the public lands."

One of the first tasks involved in implementing the WFRHBA was to survey public lands and

delineate where wild horses and burros found habitat and forage, and designate these areas as

“Herd Areas” (HAs). These Herd Areas established boundaries of where wild horses and burros

were located at the passage of The Act. Later, Herd Management Areas (HMAs) were established

within those Herd Areas to manage healthy, self-sustaining populations of wild horses and/or

burros, in accordance with BLM land use plans (i.e. RMPs) and other decisions.

The Arizona statewide inventory of known or likely wild horse and burro use areas was conducted

by the BLM in 1974. Data from this inventory identified seven burros and five horses in the

Painted Rock area, which became the Herd Area. However, it was later discovered that the only

year-round waters available for the animals are on private farm lands in the northern third of the

HA. The southern two thirds of the HA is Sonoran Desert scrub and classified as ephemeral use

for cattle. (Ephemeral use means that cattle are only permitted on the rangelands during years of

above-average precipitation when ephemeral forage [e.g., annual grasses and forbs] are abundant

and provide hundreds or thousands of pounds of high-protein forage for short periods of time,

after which the cattle are removed from the range again.)

All planning documents, including the Lower Gila South RMP, referred only to wild burros in

the area. In 1993, farmers on the northern end of the HA complained about horses coming onto

their farm land, and the BLM began to remove them as stray animals. The International Society

for the Protection of Mustangs and Burros intervened, stating that these were wild horses and

subject to protection afforded by the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. In 1999,

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd Manageability

Analysis

Implementing Standards and Guidelines August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1259

it was determined by the Phoenix Field Manager that the animals were, in fact, present in the area

in 1971 and subject to the protection by the WFRHBA. However, the area remained a HA, and

nuisance complaints continued from the local farmers. In approximately 1997, Phoenix Field

Office proposed amendments to the Lower Gila North MFP and Lower Gila South RMP that,

among other proposals, would have classified the Painted Rock Herd Area as a Herd Management

Area, with proposals to establish an Appropriate Management Level (AML) of wild burros and

horses to manage in the area. However, protests and litigation of the RMP Amendment resulted

in a settlement agreement regarding the Painted Rock Herd Area. The BLM was instructed to

conduct an analysis of the manageability of the Painted Rock burro herd and make a decision in

the new RMP based on that analysis. Until that occurred, "All burros would be removed from

the Painted Rock Reservoir area."

Historic aerial surveys documented 7 burros and 5 horses in 1974, 13 burros and 0 horses in 1980,

and no horses or burros in 2000. However, due to the terrain and dense vegetation in some areas,

it is likely that animals were not sighted, because local farmers in the Painted Rock area have

occasionally requested the removal of nuisance animals from their private property. Since 1992, a

total of sixty-four horses and seven burros have been removed from the HA.

In 2007, sixteen horses and one burro were captured and removed from the Painted Rock HA.

From these 16 horses, 11 blood samples were collected for genetics analysis (Cothran, 2010).

Results from this analysis stated:

"The Painted Rock herd shows genetics closely related to the Caspian [pony] within the Oriental

horse cluster. . . . Genetic variation . . . is very low and well below the critical level (the testing

indicator used is not related to sample size). . . . [This is] likely due to a low population size

over a few generations. . . . Overall results suggest that this herd has been isolated and may have

been founded from a small number of animals. . . . Inbreeding within the herd is likely and will

probably continue and increase [which] could cause physical defects and low fertility."

Recommendations for the Painted Rock Herd Area:

The overall goal of the BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro Program is to preserve the health of the land

and water resources by managing wild horse and burro populations so as to restore and maintain

a thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB). Appropriate management levels (AML) for the

herds, the habitat requirements of the animals, the relationships with other uses of the public and

adjacent private lands, are analyzed to determine the health of both the animals and the rangeland

resources (43 CFR 4710.3-1). Wild horses and burros are to be managed as self-sustaining

populations of healthy animals in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their

habitat, while maintaining their free-roaming behavior (43 CFR 4700.0-6). However, wild horses

and burros must be managed within the limits the animals’ herd areas (43 CFR 4710.4). Excess

animals are gathered and removed, and are offered to the public through the Bureau of Land

Management’s Adopt a Horse or Burro Program (BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010).

In determining whether or not to change the status of the Painted Rock Herd Area to a Herd

Management Area, and thus manage populations of wild horses and/or burros, a herd area

manageability analysis was necessary (and required per the Lower Gila South RMP Amendment

settlement agreement). This analysis considers habitat requirements and availability, herd

movement (including immigration and emigration), health of the herd and rangeland resources,

and genetic diversity.

August 2011

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd

Manageability Analysis

Recommendations for the Painted Rock Herd Area:
1260 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The BLM Wild Horses and Burros Handbook (2010) defines the four components required to

manage wild horse and burro populations in a Herd Management Area: forage, water, cover,

and space.

1) Forage: Forage (vegetation) is one of the essential components of wild horse and burro

habitat. The authorized officer should determine whether vegetation provides sustainable forage

(and cover) for the animals. Vegetation should be managed within each HMA in a manner that

achieves and maintains a thriving natural ecological balance (TNEB) and assures significant

progress is made toward achieving the Standards for Land Health and other site-specific or

landscape-level objectives (16 USC § 1333(a)).

2) Water: An adequate year-round quantity and quality of water must be present in the HMA to

sustain wild horse and burro numbers within AML. If this habitat requirement is inadequate, the

authorized officer should amend or revise the land use plan to remove the area’s designation as

an HMA.

3) Cover (Vegetation) and Space: The terrain and vegetation that are needed to provide wild

horses and burros with escape (hiding) cover and shelter from the prevailing weather. (Vegetation

also provides sustainable forage). Wild horses and burros require sufficient space to allow the

herd to move freely between water and forage within seasonal habitats. Cover and space are

interrelated. If the HMA has barriers preventing free movement of the herds throughout the

HMA or between forage and water, it would not have sufficient cover and space. Barriers can

be natural (e.g., rock rims, rivers) or human-induced (e.g., fences, highways). To achieve a

TNEB on the public lands, wild horses and burros should be managed in a manner that assures

significant progress is made toward achieving the Land Health Standards for upland vegetation

and riparian plant communities, watershed function, and habitat quality for animal populations, as

well as other site-specific or landscape-level objectives, including those necessary to protect and

manage Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species (TES). Wild horse and burro herd health

is promoted by achieving and maintaining TNEB.

On the basis of the above information, management opportunities for wild horses and burros

within the Painted Rock Herd Area are extremely limited without extensive intervention and

mitigation on the part of the BLM. Therefore, it is recommended that the Painted Rock Herd Area

remain a herd area only, and not be converted to a herd management area. Wild horses and burros

should be removed as funding is available, with a target population of zero animals. Wild horses

and burros removed from the Herd Area would be available through the BLM Adopt a Wild

Horse or Burro Program.

Rationale and authority for this recommendation:

1. Essential habitat components are not available for healthy herds of wild horses and/or burros:

There is very limited forage and no year-round water source within the boundaries of the Painted

Rock Herd Area. The only year-round waters available for the wild burros and horse are on

private farm lands in the northern third of the HA. The southern two-thirds of the HA is Sonoran

Desert scrub with very little palatable forage. This causes the wild horses and burros to leave

the boundaries of the HA and become a nuisance by utilizing private waters and agricultural

fields and pastures.

a. Habitat for wild horses and burros is composed of four essential components: forage, water,

cover, and space. These components must be present within an HMA in sufficient amounts to

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd Manageability

Analysis

Rationale and authority for this recommendation: August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1261

sustain healthy wild horse and burro populations and healthy rangelands over the long term. If

they are not present in sufficient amounts, the authorized officer should consider amending or

revising the land use plan to remove the area’s designation as an HMA. If the decision is made

to return a designated HMA to HA status, the total population of wild horses and burros should

then be gathered and removed (BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010). (Also see BLM Manual

Section 4710.3.

b. Furthermore, “Management of wild horses and burros shall be undertaken with the objective of

limiting the animals’ distribution to herd areas" (43 CFR 4710.4). A recurring pattern of wild

horse and/or burro movement out of the HMA to access forage, water, or thermal or hiding cover

is an indication that year-long wild horses and burros use cannot be sustained. If one or more of

the key habitat components is missing, the HMA should be considered as unsuitable for year-long

use. In these situations, the authorized officer should consider removing the area’s designation as

an HMA through land use planning (BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010).

2. Wild horse and burro movement is restricted:

Fences, roads, highways, and natural barriers isolate the Painted Rock HA from other (distant)

herd areas, and restrict wild, free-roaming behavior of these animals. Immigration and emigration

is very limited.

a. Title 43 CFR 4700.0-6 (c) states, "Management activities affecting wild horses and burros shall

be undertaken with the goal of maintaining free-roaming behavior." Additionally, management

of wild horses and burros on the public lands is limited to herd areas (HAs), consistent with the

WFRHBA (16 USC § 1339) which states: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize

the Secretary to relocate wild free-roaming horses or burros to areas of the public lands where

they do not presently exist.”

b) Where appropriate, a land use plan may include decisions not to manage wild horses and/or

burros in all or a part of an HA. An example is intermingled and unfenced private lands within

HAs where the landowners are unwilling to make them available for wild horse and burro use.

Another example would be where essential habitat components (forage, water, cover and space)

are unavailable or insufficient to sustain healthy wild horses and burros and healthy rangelands

over the long term (BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010).

3) This population of wild horses is unhealthy and unsustainable:

This Herd Area is isolated from other wild horse and burro herds, causing low genetic variability.

Genetics testing of the Painted Rock horses in 2000 and 2010 indicated that genetic variation

"is very low and well below the critical level, . . . likely due to a low population size over

a few generations. . . . Inbreeding within the herd is likely and will probably continue and

increase [which] could cause physical defects and low fertility (Cothran 2010)." Genetics were

not conducted on wild burros (only one was captured in 2007), but it is also likely that genetic

similarity exists in the burros in the area.

a. A minimum population size of 50 effective breeding animals (i.e., a total population size of

about 150-200 animals) is currently recommended to maintain an acceptable level of genetic

diversity within reproducing wild horse and burro populations (Cothran, 2009). This number

is required to keep the rate of loss of genetic variation at 1 percent per generation. Animal

interchange between adjacent HMAs with smaller population sizes may reduce the need for

August 2011

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd

Manageability Analysis

Rationale and authority for this recommendation:
1262 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

maintaining populations of this size within each individual HMA. Research has not yet established

a recommended minimum breeding herd size for burros (BLM Handbook, H-4700-1, 2010).

b. Wild horses and burros shall be managed as self-sustaining populations of healthy animals in

balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat (43 CFR 4700.0-6 (a)). It

is unlikely that the addition of 2 or more outside mares or jennies, as suggested by the analysis

(Cothran 2010), would enhance the blood lines enough to make these healthy, sustainable

populations of wild horses or burros. Management of wild horse and burro herds under these

conditions is inconsistent with the spirit of the WFRHBA and with 43 CFR 4700.0-6.

In accordance with the Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook (2010), "If wild horse

herd size in small, isolated HMAs is so low that mitigation is not feasible, consideration should

be given to managing the HMA for non-reproducing wild horses or to removing the area’s

designation as an HMA through land use planning." Due to the other rationale herein (lack

of essential habitat components, movement outside the HA boundaries, and barriers limiting

free-roaming behavior), managing the Painted Rock Herd Area as an HMA with non-reproducing

wild horses is not feasible.

Therefore, the herd area's designation should remain a Herd Area, with a target population of

zero wild horses and burros. When the authorized officer determines that excess wild horses and

burros exist, gathers to capture and remove the animals immediately or as soon as possible are

required. For additional information, refer to BLM Manual Section 4720 (Removal) and 43

CFR 4720.1, 4740.1 and 2.

REFERENCES

Cothran, Gus, 2009. Letter dated July 16, 2009. Effective population size to keep the rate of loss

of genetic variation at 1 percent per generation.

Cothran, Gus, 2010. Genetic Analysis of the Painted Rock HMA, AZ. Department of Veterinary

Integrative Bioscience, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Singer, F.J., L. Zeigenfuss, L. Coates-Markle, and Rev. F. Schwieger. 2000. A demographic

analysis, group dynamics, and genetic effective number in the Pryor Mountain wild horse

population. Pages 73–89 in F.J. Singer and K.A. Schoenecker (compilers), Managers’

summary—ecological studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992–1997. U.S.

Geological Survey, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, Colo.

Wild Horses and Burros Management Handbook: BLM Handbook H-4700-1. 2010. BLM

Handbook-66-Rel-4-116. Wild Horse and Burro Program, Office of the Assistant Director,

Renewble Resources and Planning, Washington, DC.

Appendix M Painted Rock Burro Herd Manageability

Analysis

REFERENCES August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1263

Appendix N. Analysis for Renewable Energy

Sensitivity

Utility-scale renewable energy facilities are those in which the proponent has signed a purchase

power agreement with a utility company to sell power. These facilities typically produce more

than 100MW of power. The analysis conducted for Alternatives B through E is based on GIS

data depicting a number of data sets that imply varying degrees of sensitivity of the natural

and human environment to proposed utility-scale renewable energy development as described

below. Those data layers were used to characterize BLM-managed public lands in one of four

sensitivity categories, as identified below:

● Prohibited: Utility-scale renewable energy projects would be excluded from these areas

and applications would be rejected.

● High sensitivity: Utility-scale renewable energy applications could be in non-conformance

with land-use plans, no mitigation options exist for potential resource damage, and proposals

would be avoided.

● Moderate sensitivity: Utility-scale renewable energy development would be entertained,

but it is likely a planning objective or a resource would be adversely affected. Proposals

would be avoided.

● Low known sensitivity: The known plan or resource conflicts are low, so application

processing will likely proceed with little to no expected conflicts. However, upon site-specific

inspections, resource conflicts may still be found that represent significant conflicts.

Applications filed within the Decision Areas would require site-specific NEPA analysis. The

polygons depicted on Maps 2-7b, 2-7c, 2-7d, and 2-7e do not imply a preauthorization, but simply

depict areas with the least known conflicts on public lands. Other conflicts may be revealed as

site-specific analyses are conducted. Action alternatives (B, C, D, and E) management actions

state that utility-scale renewable energy project applications will be rejected if the project area lies

within a “prohibited” area and avoided if they lie in a “high or moderate” sensitivity area.

The GIS data analyzed to derive the four categories are described below:

● Prohibited: where public lands are legally excluded from consideration by presidential decree,

congressional designation, secretarial designation, BLM policy, other forms of withdrawal,

or public lands where proposals would be incompatible with RMP decisions. These areas

include:

○ Sonoran Desert National Monument (all alternatives),

○ Designated wilderness areas (all alternatives),

○ Juan Batista de Anza National Historic Trail (all alternatives),

○ Fred J. Weiler (PL 1015 lands) (all alternatives),

○ Sentinel Plain (military land relinquished back to the BLM with restrictions related to

public safety) (all action alternatives),

August 2011

Appendix N Analysis for Renewable Energy Sensitivity

REFERENCES
1264 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

○ VRM Class I (all action alternatives),

○ ACECs (all action alternatives),

○ Lands Managed to Maintain Wilderness Characteristics (all action alternatives),

○ Cultural sites allocated to a use category (such as public and conservation use sites) (all

action alternatives) and,

○ Developed or other intensive use recreation areas (all action alternatives for Painted Rock

Campground, Gunsight Wash camping area and trailheads; San Tan Mountains RMZ in

alternative B only).

● High Sensitivity: includes public lands where proposals would be incompatible with RMP

decisions or where mitigation would prove particularly difficult, costly, impractical, or

impossible. These areas include:

○ Desert Tortoise Category I and II habitats (all action alternatives),

○ Desert Tortoise Category III habitats (only in alternative D),

○ VRM Class II (all action alternatives),

○ Wildlife movement corridors (only in alternative D),

○ Wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) (only in alternative D),

○ Back country recreation settings (all action alternatives),

○ Byways (1 mile wide, 1⁄2 mile from either side of the byway’s centerline) (all action

alternatives),

○ BLM threatened and endangered species habitats (excluding candidate species) (all

action alternatives), and

○ The Fred J. Weiler Green Belt (non-PL 1015 lands) (all action alternatives).

● Moderate Sensitivity: includes public lands where resource conditions or RMP decisions

would not necessarily preclude the project, but mitigation would likely be required. Some of

these areas include those areas that may have considerable public opposition to a proposal

(e.g., areas inventoried as having wilderness characteristics but not managed for such

characteristics). These areas include:

○ SRMAs (all action alternatives),

○ Desert tortoise Category III habitats, (alternatives B, C and E),

○ VRM Class III (all action alternatives),

○ Wildlife movement corridors (alternatives B, C and E),

○ Wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) (alternatives C and E),

○ Arizona State threatened, endangered, and sensitive species’ habitats (all action

alternatives),

Appendix N Analysis for Renewable Energy

Sensitivity

REFERENCES August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1265

○ BLM threatened and endangered candidate species habitats (all action alternatives),

○ Areas with high locatable mineral potential (all alternatives), and

○ SCRMAs (excluding public use sites mentioned above) (all action alternatives).

● Low Known Sensitivity: includes public lands that remain after the above categories have

been removed (i.e., public lands with the lowest known conflict). Projects would still require

site-specific NEPA analysis.

No judgment has been made as to the suitability of these lands for any kind of renewable energy

production. In its raw form, it has not been rearranged to the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory solar production zones, wind production zones, geothermal production areas, Western

Governors Association “Western Renewable Energy Zones,” or any other dataset that would

bias the outcome.

August 2011

Appendix N Analysis for Renewable Energy Sensitivity

REFERENCES
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1267

Appendix O. Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

O.1. Background Summary

From 1995 to 2007, Arizona’s population increased by nearly two million residents, making it the

second fastest growing State in the nation. The influx of new residents into Arizona has required

housing and services, so the demands upon land for development have become significant.

Likewise, growth and expansion strains a land manager’s capability for protecting and enhancing

resource values for public benefit.

Privately owned land necessary to accommodate new growth constitutes only 17 percent of

the land ownership in Arizona. Significant major land holdings in Arizona include Indian

Reservations, Federal military installations, and State of Arizona trust lands. These ownerships

are normally off limits for public uses. Other types of public ownerships include National and

State Parks, National Forest lands, wildlife refuges, and county and city lands.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Arizona manages about 12.2 million acres,

approximately 16 percent of the lands in the State for a variety of private and public demands.

The table below illustrates the total acreage of land and interests in land managed by the BLM

Arizona by District as of October 2008.

BLM Arizona

Administered Lands

Arizona Strip

District

Colorado River

District Gila District Phoenix District

3 million acres 4.9 million acres 2 million acres 2.3 million acres

The distribution of, and amount of acreage managed by the BLM, coupled with the explosive

growth provide a challenge to BLM management of public lands for multiple-use management.

Acquisition of lands that complement existing values, and disposal of lands that are no longer

needed for Federal purposes, supports our multiple-use mission. BLM land tenure goals must

be accomplished using a balanced array of disposal and acquisition management tools such as

sales/auctions, donations, purchases, exchanges, and creative staffing options.

O.2. Strategic Goals and Objectives

The primary goal of the Land Tenure Adjustment Strategy is to enhance the administration of

public land ownership patterns through land tenure adjustments that acquire lands with high

resource values and dispose of lands that are difficult and uneconomical to manage. To accomplish

this objective, BLM Arizona will take action to provide the most effective configuration of lands

and interests in land, consistent with land use plans developed through a full and open public

involvement process, and to further the purposes of the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act (FLPMA). The land tenure program will support local community needs, further the public

interest, secure exceptional natural values, and to the extent allowed by law, generate revenue

from the enhanced management of the public land resources that remain in public ownership.

To meet Bureau land tenure adjustment objectives, the Arizona Land Tenure Adjustment Strategy

will:

● Seek to acquire land and interests in land to complement and enhance resource values.

● Seek to dispose of land and interests in land that are difficult to manage, result in burdensome

management costs, or are no longer needed for Federal purposes.

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Background Summary
1268 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The strategic goals identified above will be accomplished using available land disposal and

acquisition management methods or “tools.” The following brief descriptions cover the various

types of actions that fall within each of the acquisition and disposal segments of the land tenure

program.

O.3. Acquisition Tools for Land Tenure

Objectives for acquisition management will be achieved by actively pursuing opportunities with

willing sellers using the following sources:

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Program Funding - Congressionally

appropriated funds are provided for the acquisition and conservation of significant resources

within designated project areas. The highest priority is placed on acquiring “inholdings,”

consolidating Federal lands, and reducing management costs.

● LWCF project proposals are requested by the Washington Office each February, and submitted

from each state in April. Approved project proposals are funded 2 years after.

● Successful project management includes highlighting past, present, and future leveraging

accomplishments and opportunities. There is direct funding to active, ongoing projects where

there is demonstrated staff and management commitment to accomplish the work.

● Appropriations for LWCF accounts have been decreasing in the past 3 years. Future funding

is expected to be limited.

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) Program Funding - Sometimes referred

to as the Baca Bill , FLTFA is a Congressional bill enacted on July 25, 2000. It amended FLPMA

to allow a percentage of receipts from qualifying public land sales, and equalization payments

from qualifying exchanges, to be returned to the Department for acquisition purposes in that

same state.

● Unless renewed, the Act will expire 10 years from the date of enactment on July 25, 2010.

● Acquisition of lands using FLTFA receipts is limited to “inholdings” and lands “adjacent to

federally designated areas (as of July 25, 2000), that contain “exceptional resources . ”

● Lands identified for disposal/sale must have been identified as such by a land use plan prior to

July 25, 2000.

● Provides for the distribution of funds for land acquisition amongst four Federal land managing

agencies, in proportionate amounts - BLM (60 percent), Forest Service (20 percent), National

Park Service (10 percent), and Fish and Wildlife Service (10 percent).

Compensation Programs for Threatened and Endangered Species - The Arizona Sonoran

Desert Tortoise policy allows for compensation in the form of money or land to be paid by a

proponent seeking use or disposal of public lands containing important habitat. Mitigation

funding has also been received for the Flat-tailed Horned Lizard.

● The rate of compensation to be paid is based on the quality of the habitat that will be lost by

the proposed action. When compensation in the form of money is received, it is deposited in

special project 7122 accounts. These funds are to be used to acquire high-quality habitat as

mitigation for the affected species.

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Acquisition Tools for Land Tenure August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1269

Other Options for Land Acquisition

Donations - The land is accepted if the need for public ownership is identified in a land use plan,

and if there are no hazardous materials issues. Acquiring land through donation may provide the

landowner with an income tax deduction based on the appraised value of the donation.

● Property donation may also arrive into BLM administration by way of supplemented

partnership dollars and other agency funding mechanisms.

Easements - The BLM acquires two basic types of easements, conservation easements for the

protection of resources, and access easements to enhance the ability of the public to use and enjoy

the public lands. The Government acquires only an interest in the land, not title to the land. By

foregoing the full fee estate purchase, a conservation easement will use less acquisition funds.

● The purchase of a conservation easement normally involves restricting or eliminating

development rights, and leaving for the property owner rural non-intensive uses, ie. livestock

grazing.

● BLM has been designated a “public roads agency . ” The designation allows the opportunity

to receive funding from the Department of Transportation in support of a public road system.

These funds can be used to acquire access easements.

● Conservation easement lands must be monitored for adherence to the conditions of the deed.

Exchanges - Land exchanges have been utilized extensively by the BLM in Arizona during the

past 25 years. Land exchanges are generally undertaken at the request of an external customer,

although the BLM can initiate exchanges. A “determination of public interest” must be performed

prior to completing an exchange.

● Consolidates ownership of scattered tracts of land. Provides for more efficient and less costly

management of resources.

● Exchanges are pursued with willing landowners. Lands proposed for exchange must be of

equal value and located within the same state.

● The regulations stipulate that an exchange proponent should cover at least half of the

processing costs of an exchange if the BLM decides to pursue the action; however, a higher

percentage of contributed costs may be negotiated.

The Washington Office National Land Exchange Team reviews all exchange proposals. The

review is done at the beginning and ending stages of each exchange. At any point within the

review process, the exchange can be terminated by either party (based on the terms of the

exchange agreement).

O.4. Disposal Tools for Land Tenure

Strategic goals and objectives for the management of land disposal actions will be achieved by

utilizing tools and direction from the following methods.

FLPMA Sales - Sales are discretionary actions undertaken by the BLM either in response to a

request from an external customer, or in furtherance of land use plan decisions to dispose of lands

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Disposal Tools for Land Tenure
1270 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

no longer needed by the Federal Government. In no case may the lands be sold for less than fair

market value. Receipts from these types of sales are deposited into the General Treasury.

● Sales can be for the surface and/or subsurface estates.

● BLM policy requires the use of competitive sale procedures, unless the authorized officer

determines the public interest would best be served by modified competitive bidding or direct

(non-competitive) sale.

FLTFA Sales - Arizona FLTFA sales may be competitive, modified competitive, or direct, and

are processed the same as FLPMA sales, but the FLTFA sale lands are only those that were

identified for disposal in land use plans existing as of July 25, 2000.

Sales receipts are deposited into FLTFA accounts, and can be used by four Federal land managing

agencies in Arizona for acquisition purposes and the associated processing costs (see page 3).

Land Exchanges - Priority properties are acquired, and lands with management deficiencies are

moved out of Federal ownership. Federal lands to be traded include only those that have been

identified as available for disposal in approved land use management plans.

O.5. Implementation Goals and Measures

The following measures will be implemented to ensure BLM Arizona meets the long-term goals

of the Land Tenure Strategy. All are vital to the successful implementation of the program. The

tasks listed can be undertaken concurrently.

1. Prioritization of lands to meet acquisition and disposal objectives utilizing the most

efficient and cost effective acquisition tool available. Priority acquisition targets are

parcels identified in approved Resource Management Plans (RMPs), for the purposes of

protection, conservation, or land consolidation. Properties must have willing sellers holding

clear titles, and be proven to be environmentally compliant.

The Field Offices will thoroughly evaluate all internal and external proposals and consider

the appropriate implementation and funding mechanism. Identification of the proper

land tenure tool/methodology is critical for proposal analysis. The priority and focus of

acquisition efforts will be as follows.

● Congressionally mandated and directed land tenure actions.

● Properties that qualify for time-sensitive funding mechanisms such as FLTFA and

LWCF project funds. The acquisition targets consist of in holdings and edge holdings

of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS). These federally designated

lands include:

○ National Conservation Areas

○ National Monuments

○ Wilderness Areas

○ Wilderness Study Areas

○ Wild and Scenic Areas

○ National Historic and Scenic Trails

○ Wild and Scenic Rivers

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Implementation Goals and Measures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1271

● Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and LWCF project areas (outside of the

NLCS), that may also qualify for LWCF and FLTFA funding.

● Properties where timely response to donations, partnership dollars and other agency

funding mechanisms are necessary.

● Habitat preservation acquisitions using monies that are readily available in mitigation

compensation accounts. These discretionary funds are not normally time sensitive.

The funds can be held, and then applied to the acquisition of sensitive species habitat

in locations identified in RMPs.

● The consolidation of split estate ownerships. There are inherent issues that occur with

less than fee estate ownership. The acquisition of partial ownerships will be elevated

in priority for compelling environmental reasons only, such as in cases where the

acquisition of development/water rights (conservation easements) enhances management

efficiency within a NLCS unit or other specific areas identified in RMPs.

● The use of land exchanges for acquisition or disposal is a method to be considered

when appropriate. Land exchanges are complicated, time consuming and expensive.

Therefore, the manager must give careful thought if this option is contemplated. The

funding spent between the BLM and the proponent must be carefully considered.

Land disposal objectives will target Federal parcels that have been identified in approved

RMPs.

2. Establishment of the Arizona Land Tenure Adjustment Steering Committee. The State

Leadership Team will re-charter the Arizona Land Exchange Steering Committee to form

one group called the Arizona Land Tenure Adjustment Steering Committee. The Steering

Committee will be comprised of the Associate State Director, the Deputy State Director of

Resources, and the four District Managers.

● The Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee will review and approve a centralized

list/map of priority properties identified for disposal and acquisition. The committee will

recommend establishment or changes to policy on the prioritization of all acquisition,

exchange, and disposal actions on a statewide basis.

● The Steering Committee will evaluate staffing needs for the skill positions/personnel

statewide necessary to be made available to complete tasks specific to land tenure

actions on a statewide basis.

● The Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee will meet yearly prior to Washington

Office LWCF submission deadlines (February), and will allocate time as needed to

meet at State Leadership Team meetings to evaluate proposals that have been sent

forward from the District Offices. Time sensitive proposals with urgency may require a

more immediate Steering Committee conference. The Steering Committee will render

approval/disapproval recommendations, or return the proposal to the originator for

modifications. The Chairperson of the Steering Committee will submit completed

proposals and Steering Committee recommendations to the State Director. The State

Director will approve/disapprove the land tenure proposals.

3. Develop and maintain a skilled workforce sufficient to manage the land tenure

program within Arizona.

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Implementation Goals and Measures
1272 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

● Where administrative monies are available from FLTFA generated land sales, the BLM

will hire term/contract personnel to assist permanent staff with workloads.

● The Arizona State Director may authorize the establishment of an interdisciplinary team

to process specific land tenure actions on a statewide basis. This team would be drawn

from existing land tenure and resource expertise in BLM Arizona. Implementation

will be contingent upon funding sources necessary to fill core positions critical to the

successful management of the land tenure program. The core team will rely on at least

four staffing components:

○ Arizona State Office Land Tenure Program Lead

○ Arizona State Office Operational Realty Specialist

○ Arizona State Office Adjudication Specialist

○ National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Coordinator

4. Use of partnerships and other cooperative efforts that support BLM land tenure

actions. BLM Arizona will continue to cultivate and develop partnership opportunities with

Federal and State agencies, as well as with non-profit conservation minded organizations.

Federal budget and staffing constraints require assistance from outside sources. A

partnership often can move quickly to purchase lands and hold them until the BLM can later

obtain the lands through purchase, exchange, or donation.

● BLM Arizona maintains joint efforts and ongoing relationships with non-profit

conservation groups that assist in furthering the statewide land tenure strategy.

Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Lands, The

Wilderness Land Trust, and The Conservation Fund are willing partners in priority

land acquisition projects.

● BLM Arizona undertakes joint efforts with several Federal and State governmental

entities. By pooling funding and staffing resources, otherwise unreachable land tenure

targets may be secured.

5. Support Field/District Office direction to prioritize and process land tenure actions

within their capabilities. Field Offices will take the initiative to identify and target land

tenure opportunities. Land tenure proposals that originate at the Field Office level can be

screened and evaluated immediately.

● The District Offices will annually consolidate and update a priority list of properties

which meet priority acquisition and sale criteria, especially in regards to the LWCF and

FLTFA programs.

6. Within the confines of law, explore land tenure adjustment opportunities with the

State of Arizona .

● At this time, the State of Arizona does not have land exchange authority. In the event

that the Arizona State Constitution is amended to authorize land exchanges, a pool of

prospective trade lands would be evaluated.

7. Support military land ownership adjustments in Arizona. The Governor of Arizona

established a Military Facilities Task Force by Executive Order on May 27, 2003. The

purpose of the task force is to develop strategies for ensuring long-term retention of all

premier military facilities in Arizona in their vital National defense missions.

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Implementation Goals and Measures August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1273

8. Maximize the effectiveness of the land tenure program by optimizing budget

allowances. Use the Budget Planning System (BPS) effectively to secure additional funding

for BLM priority land tenure actions, realizing that the priority of statewide land tenure

projects is directly proportionate to funding levels.

● Develop BPS projects within benefiting sub-activities to provide operational funding

levels sufficient to implement land tenure actions.

● Ensure that externally generated actions are partially to fully funded by the applicants.

● Capitalize on the opportunities afforded by the funding provided in the administrative

accounts of the FLTFA and LWCF programs.

O.6. LAND TENURE EVALUATION PROCESS

The land tenure project approval process will originate at the Field Office level. Acquisition,

exchange, and sale proposals are initiated from BLM resource specialists realizing an opportunity

for program enhancement, or from public/individual inquiry.

Field Office Land Tenure Project Analysis

BLM Initiated Proposals: Identification of the proper land tenure tool/methodology is critical

for proposal analysis. The Field Office will strategize on the appropriate implementation and

funding mechanism for viable proposals.

● Each year, Field Offices will prepare LWCF packages (if any) for approval by the Steering

Committee for submission to the Washington Office.

● The Field Office can prepare and submit packages into the evaluation and approval process that

qualify for FLTFA monies when a target acquisition opportunity arises. FLTFA nomination

packages that are reviewed by the Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee, and approved by

the State Director, will be forwarded to the Arizona FLTFA Interagency Team. The Arizona

FLTFA Interagency Team will then make the determination as to which Arizona acquisition

proposals will be forwarded to the FLTFA Executive Committee for approval and processing.

● New land exchanges, and those that are in progress, will be reviewed for current status and

evaluation processing.

● Based on lands identified for disposal in RMPs, examine land sale/auction options, especially

those that may allow for the revenues to remain within the State for accomplishing acquisition

goals.

Public Initiated Proposals: The Field Office will respond to written or verbal notification of an

interest in a land tenure adjustment action from public and private venues.

● Land tenure proposals will be evaluated as per the measures established in the Land Tenure

Strategy. Proposals with obvious fatal flaws will be terminated immediately. Preliminary

screening meetings and decision making will involve broad scale consideration of the

feasibility of the proposal. Proposals with merit will be examined further for potential

submission to the Steering Committee.

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

LAND TENURE EVALUATION PROCESS
1274 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

The Field Office will screen feasible internal and external proposals by developing the “Land

Tenure Project Evaluation and Nomination Table” with appropriate supporting narrative

explanations for each of the criteria. The Field Office will also prepare a preliminary “Proposed

Staffing” worksheet. Both of these tables are located in Appendix A - Land Tenure Project

Evaluaion and Nomination Table (p. ). The completed evaluation worksheets cited above will

constitute the proposal to be forwarded.

Those land tenure proposals that meet preliminary evaluation criteria will be approved by the

Field Office Manager, and forwarded on to the District Office.

District Office Land Tenure Approval Process

The District Office realty staff will evaluate and prioritize land tenure proposal packages that have

been completed by the Field Offices.

● The District Office will review all Field Office submissions to verify completeness of the

package and adherence to policy.

● The District Office will analyze the expected effect of proposals upon budget and staffing by

evaluating the criteria from the “Proposed Staffing” worksheet.

● The District Manager either approves the package or sends it back to the Field Office with

a disapproval decision or a request for further information.

Approved land tenure proposals with merit that meet workforce and budgetary constraints will be

forwarded on to the Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee for consideration.

Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee Evaluation

● The Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee will allocate time as needed, to meet at

each State Leadership Team meeting, or at other times to evaluate proposals that have

been approved and sent forward from the District Offices. The Steering Committee will

render approval/disapproval recommendations, or return the proposal to the originator for

modifications. The Steering Committee will also evaluate and decide upon the extenuating

circumstances of land tenure actions that may fall outside of the realm of the Implementation

Goals.

● The Chairperson of the Steering Committee will submit completed proposals and Steering

Committee recommendations to the State Director.

● The State Director will render an approve/disapprove decision to the land tenure proposal.

O.7. Appendix A

LAND TENURE PROJECT EVALUATION AND NOMINATION TABLE

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Project/Proponent

Name Proposal Date Land Tenure Tool Location Property Size

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Appendix A August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1275

Evaluation of Alternative Land

Tenure Tools

Acceptability

(Yes/No/NA) Narrative Commentary

Donation

FLTFA funding

LWCF funding

Other funding source

Land exchange

Conservation easement

Partner contribution

Direct/competitive sale

Evaluation Criteria

Acceptability

(Yes/No/NA) Narrative Commentary

Land use plan conformance

Within NLCS system

Willing seller/buyer

Proponent has reasonable

expectations of value

Proponent cost sharing

Proponent flexibility with land tenure

process/methodology

Involvement of third party

conservation group

Project has other agency partners

Full estate being offered (surface and

subsurface)

Has clear title

Resolve split estate

Resolve checkerboard land pattern

Consolidation of land ownership

patterns

Existing funding source

Concern for threat to property or to

adjacent public lands

Within recognized land tenure

adjustment area

Community and/or political support

Recognized community value

Meets an immediate demand for

resource management

High resource values

Low maintenance/monitoring costs

Environmentally clean property

Negative impacts from not completing

action

In lieu benefits to County

The proposal has met or exceeded the standards in ____ of the criteria established for acquisition/disposal approval.

Standards for approval are not met for ___ of the criteria.

A majority of “yes” answers in the Land Tenure Criteria column of the table indicates a

favorable proposal. Depending upon the specific proposal, certain criteria may not have

application (NA).

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Appendix A
1276 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Table O.1. PROPOSED STAFFING

Proposed Staffing Source (BLM Office)

Estimated Time

Commitment Responsibilities

Project Manager

Water Rights Specialists

NEPA Spec.

Realty Specialist

Appraiser

Wildlife Specialist

Hazardous Materials

Specialist

Cultural Specialist

Legal Instruments Examiner

Mineral Specialist

GIS Specialist

Public Affairs Specialist

Administrative Support

Field/District Manager

Other Specialists

Proponent Workload

Support

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

Appendix A August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1277

ARIZONA LAND TENURE STEERING COMMITTEE

CHARTER

MEMBERSHIP

The Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee will be chaired by the Associate State Director,

and is comprised of the Deputy State Director of Resources, and the four District Managers.

Staff support for the Steering Committee will be provided by land tenure specialists in the Arizona

State Office. The Steering Committee will support the implementation direction as developed in

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Arizona Land Tenure Strategy.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

● The Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee will review all land tenure proposals. The

Steering Committee will render approval/disapproval recommendations, or return the proposal

to the originator for modifications. The Chairperson of the Steering Committee will submit

completed proposals and Steering Committee recommendations to the State Director. The

State Director will approve/disapprove the land tenure proposals.

● The Steering Committee will hold an initial meeting for Field/District Offices to present

their specific land tenure priorities for the purpose of establishing statewide land tenure

priorities. Subsequent yearly land tenure meetings will be staged in February for evaluating

new priorities, and for reexamining prior proposals for their current validity and funding

capabilities.

● The committee will review and approve a centralized database that includes a list and maps of

priority properties identified for disposal and acquisition. The committee will establish/change

policy on the prioritization of all acquisition, exchange, and disposal actions on a statewide

basis.

● The Steering Committee will evaluate staffing and funding needs for the skill

positions/personnel that are necessary for completing tasks specific to land tenure actions

on a statewide basis.

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY THE

STEERING COMMITTEE

The Steering Committee will allocate time as needed to meet at each State Leadership Team

meeting to evaluate proposals that have been sent forward from the District Offices. Time

sensitive proposals with urgency may require a more immediate Steering Committee conference.

All land tenure proposals presented to the Steering Committee will be evaluated in a manner in

accordance with the direction provided in the BLM Arizona Land Tenure Strategy.

The State Director may concur with the Committee recommendation to approve, disapprove, or

modify presented proposals, or may request additional pertinent information.

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

ARIZONA LAND TENURE STEERING

COMMITTEE CHARTER
1278 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

When a final decision is reached, the State Director will sign a feasibility/proposal statement

formalizing the decision. The signed statement will be returned to the Chairperson for record

keeping, reproduction, and distribution to Committee members.

The approved proposals/nominations are either assigned to a statewide land tenure

interdisciplinary team for action, or will be sent to the Field Office for processing.

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY

THE STEERING COMMITTEE August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1279

Procedural Guidance for Land Acquisition and Land Disposal Actions in the State of

Arizona

Land acquisition targets will be linked with approved Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the

purposes of protection, conservation, or land consolidation. The Bureau of Land Management

Arizona Land Tenure Strategy prioritizes and focuses acquisition targets as follows.

● Congressionally mandated and directed land tenure actions.

● Properties that qualify for time sensitive funding mechanisms such as Federal Land

Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) and Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) project

funds. These funding sources will target the inholdings and edgeholdings of the National

Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) primarily.

● Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and LWCF project areas (outside of the NLCS),

that may also qualify for LWCF and FLTFA funding.

● Properties where timely response to donations, partnership dollars and other agency funding

mechanisms are necessary.

● Habitat preservation acquisitions using monies that are easily available in mitigation

compensation accounts.

● The consolidation of split estate ownerships. The acquisition of partial ownerships, such as

conservation easements, will be undertaken only for compelling environmental reasons.

● Land exchanges will be considered when appropriate.

Land disposal objectives will target Federal parcels that have been identified in approved RMPs.

For budgeting purposes, BLM Arizona will determine a 3-year schedule of land tenure work for

establishing acquisition/disposal priorities. Each District will annually consolidate a priority list

of properties which meet priority acquisition and sale criteria, especially in regards to the LWCF

and FLTFA programs. Districts will assess sale and acquisition opportunities that are consistent

with approved RMPs. An initial meeting will provide an opportunity for offices to present their

specific land tenure goals to the Arizona Land Tenure Steering Committee for the purpose of

establishing statewide land tenure priorities. Subsequent yearly land tenure meetings will be

staged for updating and reassessing priorities for validity and funding capabilities.

The BLM Arizona Land Tenure Strategy specifically identifies Arizona land tenure

implementation goals, and land tenure proposal procedural steps. Included within the plan is an

evaluation criteria worksheet for the Field/District Offices to complete and use as the format for

proposals. Land tenure adjustment proposals will be submitted to the Arizona Land Tenure

Adjustment Steering Committee.

August 2011

Appendix O Arizona Land Tenure Strategy

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY

THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1281

Appendix P. Grazing Allotment Information

Table P.1. Grazing Allotment Information

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Classification

Permitted AUMs

Allotment

Category

Lower Sonoran (Perennial and Perennial/Ephemeral)

1 Arkansas Gulch 06097 Perennial 36 Custodial

2 Beloat1 03007 Perennial/Ephemeral 2,212 Maintain

3 Big Horn1 03009 Perennial 148 Maintain

4 Buckeye Mountain 06050 Perennial 48 Custodial

5 Buzzards Roost 06080 Perennial/Ephemeral 48 Custodial

6 Childs 03016 Perennial/Ephemeral 3,802 Maintain

7 Clem2 03017 Perennial 196 Custodial

8 Conley1 03018 Perennial 464 Custodial

9 Coyote Flat #23 00106 Perennial/Ephemeral 361 Custodial

10 Florence Junction 06053 Perennial 24 Custodial

11 Gable-Ming 03032 Perennial 4,200 Custodial

12 Gila Bend Indians 03035 Perennial/Ephemeral 903 Custodial

13 Hansen 03039 Perennial/Ephemeral 917 Custodial

14 Hazen1 03042 Perennial/Ephemeral 295 Maintain

15 Kirian 03046 Perennial/Ephemeral 387 Custodial

16 Lost Gulch 06014 Perennial 324 Custodial

17 Lower Vekol1 03053 Perennial/Ephemeral 338 Custodial

18 Rescue Canyon 06082 Perennial/Ephemeral 300 Custodial

19 Saddle Mountain 03072 Perennial/Ephemeral 553 Custodial

20 Sentinel 03076 Perennial/Ephemeral 353 Maintain

21 Smelter Canyon 06226 Perennial 12 Custodial

22 Table Top 03083 Perennial/Ephemeral 144 Custodial

23 Ward 03086 Perennial/Ephemeral 1,476 Custodial

Sub Total 17,541

Lower Sonoran (Ephemeral Only)

1 A Lazy T 03002 Ephemeral Custodial

2 Amavisca 03003 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

3 Arnold* 03004 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

4 Artex 03005 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

August 2011

Appendix P Grazing Allotment Information

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY

THE STEERING COMMITTEE
1282 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Classification

Permitted AUMs

Allotment

Category

5 Dendora Valley 03024 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

6 Gable-Peterson 03033 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

7 Gila River Comm. 03036 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

8 Gillespie 03037 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

9 Hazen-Shepard 03043 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

10 Jagow-Kreager 03044 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

11 Layton 03049 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

12 Mariani 03054 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

13 North Star 06248 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

14 Painted Rock 03062 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

15 Palo Verde Mtns 06174 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

16 Powers Butte 03068 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

17 Queen Valley 06173 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

18 Santa Rosa 05055 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

19 Sevey 03039 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

20 Stout 03082 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

21 Walker Butte 06041 Ephemeral 0 Custodial

n/a Wilson 4 03092 n/a 0 n/a

Sub Total 0

Total 17,541

SDNM (Perennial and Perennial/Ephemeral)

1 Beloat 03007 Perennial/Ephemeral 776 Maintain

2 Big Horn 03009 Perennial 2,812 Maintain

3 Conley 03018 Perennial 3,403 Custodial

4 Hazen 03042 Perennial/Ephemeral 886 Maintain

5 Lower Vekol 03053 Perennial/Ephemeral 826 Custodial

Sub Total 8,703

SDNM (Ephemeral Only)

1 Arnold 03004 Ephemeral 0 n/a

Sub Total 0

Total 8,703

SDNM (Allotments South of I-8 Unavailable Due to Proclamation)

Appendix P Grazing Allotment Information

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY

THE STEERING COMMITTEE August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1283

Allotment Name

Allotment

Number

Allotment

Classification

Permitted AUMs

Allotment

Category

n/a Big Horn 03009 Perennial (3,144) n/a

n/a South Vekol 03080 Perennial/Ephemeral (1,862) n/a

n/a Table Top 03083 Perennial/Ephemeral (2,046) n/a

n/a Vekol 03085 Perennial/Ephemeral (832) n/a

n/a Santa Rosa 05055 Ephemeral 0 n/a

Sub Total 7,884 Unavailable

1 Allotments cross decision area boundaries between Lower Sonoran and SDNM

2 Allotment crosses 2 district offices (Phoenix and Colorado River) and 3 field offices (Lower

Sonoran, Hassayampa and Yuma)

3 Formerly the Coyote Flat and Why allotments

4 Ephemeral allotment no longer permitted; acreage unallocated but available

August 2011

Appendix P Grazing Allotment Information

PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSAL REVIEWS BY

THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1285

Appendix Q. Recreation Settings and

Descriptions

Setting prescriptions are a way of describing the desired conditions for recreation resources

in an SRMA’s RMZs. The LSFO has indentified a spectrum of four generalized settings for

this planning area, and uses the terms “community interface,” “passage,” “front country,” and

“back bountry” to describe them. Each setting is defined by nine components. The four setting

definitions do not change from alternative to alternative, but the combination of settings and the

amount of each is prescribed individually for each RMZ to achieve the desired outcomes of

each alternative. To simplify the discussion below, only the four generalized settings are used

to describe the setting prescription.

The following discussion explains the prescribed settings displayed on the allocation decision

maps that follow. The four prescribed settings (community interface, front country, passage, and

back country) represent different combinations of the nine components of recreation resource

settings. Actions that take place within these settings can only be allowed if they remain within

the criteria for each of the nine components.

Q.1. Community Interface

The Community Interface setting represents public lands bordering or surrounded by communities

and their associated urban infrastructure. This setting will also include lands projected to be

influenced by the increasing urbanization of the planning area over the next 15 to 20 years. The

setting is generally natural in appearance, but the landscape is subject to change from intensive

recreation activities and other land use authorizations.

Physical Conditions

Remoteness - Not remote, directly adjacent to urban and rural housing and communities.

Naturalness - This setting can be natural in appearance, but the landscape is subject to high

evidence of human change.

Facilities - Degree of developed user facilities will be moderate to high. Rustic facilities at

camping areas may expand outer limits of camping areas as needed to meet demand.

Social Conditions

Contacts - There is a moderate to high level of interaction among users. Visitors may encounter

more than 150 people per day.

Group size - Up to 75 people, and associated equipment in existing, and/or designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and camping areas that are large enough to accommodate the group size without

increasing the footprint of the disturbance area, may be permitted and encountered. Large group

events are generally appropriate to occur here. On case-by-case basis, larger groups may be

authorized under SRP or at specific large group sites designated for that purpose.

Evidence of use - Impacts to soil and vegetation persist from year to year.

August 2011

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Community Interface
1286 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Administrative Conditions

Mechanized use - Motorized and mechanized use on designated routes. Motorized routes and

non-motorized trails may be established based on recreation objectives.

Management controls - High management presence. Moderate to high on-site controls.

Visitor services - Visitor information provision levels are high.

Q.2. Front Country

The Front Country setting is where most locations for intensive resource-dependent recreation

uses and facilities are found. The lands are generally natural in appearance and may see minor

to moderate alterations over the life of the LUP due to land use authorizations and BLM

management actions.

Physical Conditions

Remoteness - Not remote, within a one to two hour drive to urban and rural communities.

Naturalness - Mostly natural environment with low to high evidence of human changes.

Facilities - The extent of developed user facilities will be low to high. Rustic facilities at camping

areas may expand outer limits of camping areas as needed to meet demand.

Social Conditions

Contacts - There is a moderate to high level of interaction among users. Visitors may encounter

between 50 to 150 individuals singly or in groups per day.

Group size - Up to 75 people, and associated equipment in existing, and/or designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and camping areas that are large enough to accommodate the group size

without increasing the footprint of the disturbance area, may be permitted and encountered. On

case-by-case basis, larger groups may be authorized under SRP or at specific large group sites

designated for that purpose.

Evidence of use - Some impacts to soil and vegetation persist from year to year.

Administrative Conditions

Mechanized use - Motorized and mechanized use on designated routes. Motorized routes and

non-motorized trails will be established based on recreation objectives and resource protection

needs.

Management controls - Low to moderate management presence. Low to high on-site controls.

Visitor services - Visitor information levels are low to moderate.

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Administrative Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1287

Q.3. Passage

The Passage setting is found along a motorized travel and transportation corridor entering or

traversing RMZs. The Passage setting coincides with and is centered on motorized travel routes

designated for public use. The Passage setting is 200-feet wide (100 feet each side of the route

centerline). Except for the route itself, the lands are generally natural in appearance and may see

minor to moderate alterations over the life of the LUP due to land use authorizations and BLM

management actions.

Physical Conditions

Remoteness - Remote setting, within a several hour drive from communities to access areas.

Naturalness - This setting is mostly natural with low to moderate evidence of human induced

change.

Facilities - The degree of developed user facilities will be low to moderate. Facilities at camping

areas will be rudimentary. Rustic or primitive sites may be developed for resource protection

or public safety purposes.

Social Conditions

Contacts - There is a moderate level of interaction among visitors. Visitors may encounter

between 25 to 75 individuals or groups per day and occasionally higher numbers particularly in

the transitions to Front Country or Community Interface settings.

Group size - Up to 75 people, and associated equipment in existing, and/or designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and camping areas that are large enough to accommodate the group size

without increasing the footprint of the disturbance area, may be permitted and encountered. On

case-by-case basis, larger groups may be authorized under SRP or at specific large group sites

designated for that purpose.

Evidence of use - Some impacts to soil and vegetation persist from year to year. Resource changes

are evident but harmonious with the natural environment.

Administrative Conditions

Mechanized use - Motorized and mechanized allowed on designated routes only. Non-motorized

trailheads to trails transitioning into Back Country settings may be established. Existing

motorized routes and non-motorized trails could be maintained; additional trails may established

where they meet the desired recreational or resource protection objectives. Existing routes could

be re-aligned to improve resource management or public safety. Routes in the Passage setting that

are closed or reclaimed for any reason over the life of the plan will automatically reclassify as

Back Country settings and with Back Country management prescriptions.

Management controls - Low to moderate management presence. Subtle on-site controls.

Visitor services - Visitor information levels are low to moderate.

August 2011

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Passage
1288 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Q.4. Back Country

Back Country

Back Country areas are large and natural landscapes. Noticeable human-induced modifications

are uncommon. Designated motorized and mechanized travel routes entering or crossing

Back Country Zones are allocated to the Passage RMZ. The landscapes are mainly natural

in appearance.

Physical Conditions

Remoteness - Area is remote and primitive.

Naturalness - Predominantly natural environment of moderate to large size. Human modifications

occasionally evident, but not intrusive.

Facilities - The degree of developed user facilities will be low to none. Typically no camping

facilities.

Social Conditions

Contacts - There is a low level of interaction among visitors. Visitors encounter an average of

2-30 individuals singly or in groups per day on designated trails transitioning to Community

Interface, Front Country, or Passage settings and 10 or fewer individuals singly or in groups per

day in more remote off-trail settings.

Group size - Up to 25 people in areas managed to maintain wilderness characteristics, and up to 50

visitors in other Back Country settings, in areas large enough to accommodate the group without

increasing the footprint of the disturbance area and for cross-country use in areas that are resilient

enough to support that use. Larger groups may be encountered in this setting if authorized under

SRP on case-by-case basis or at specific large group sites designated for that purpose.

Evidence of use - Most impacts to soil and vegetation recover yearly or are small areas, typically

in areas of light and dispersed use such as desirable camping areas and trails.

Administrative Conditions

Mechanized use - Motorized use is not allowed. Mechanized use is allowed on designated trails.

Existing non-motorized trails are maintained; additional trails are established where they meet the

desired recreational setting. New motorized or mechanized routes could be designated in this

setting, outside of closed OHV designation areas, to resolve public safety or resource protection

needs, or to meet specific recreation objectives. These routes would be authorized through travel,

transportation, public access, and OHV route planning and processes. If this happens, affected

lands would reclassify as Passage settings with Passage management prescriptions.

Management controls - Low management presence. Minimum on-site controls.

Visitor services - Visitor information levels are low.

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Back Country August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1289

Q.5. Description Matrix

Table Q.1. Description of Recreation Management Settings for Lower Sonoran and SDNM

Setting Description

Community

Interface

Front Country Passage Back Country

Community Interface

represents public

lands bordering

or surrounded by

communities and

their associated urban

infrastructure. This

zone will also include

lands projected

to be influenced

by the increasing

urbanization of the

planning area over the

next 15 to 20 years.

Front Country offers

the main setting and

locations for intensive

resource-dependent

recreation uses and

facilities. Motorized

and mechanized

vehicles must remain

on existing or

designated routes.

Passage setting

provides a motorized

travel corridor

traversing the Back

Country setting. This

corridor is 200 feet

wide (100 feet each

side), centered on a

motorized travel route

designated for public

use, and is available

for management

infrastructure in

response to resource

concerns and visitor

demand.

Back Country

areas are large and

natural landscapes.

Noticeable humaninduced modifications

are uncommon.

Designated motorized

and mechanized travel

routes entering or

crossing Back Country

settings are allocated

to the Passage setting.

Setting Description

The zone can be

natural in appearance,

but the landscape is

subject to change

from intensive

recreation activities

and other land use

authorizations.

The lands are

generally natural

in appearance and

may see minor to

moderate alterations

over the life of the

LUP due to land use

authorizations and

BLM management

actions.

The lands are

generally natural

in appearance and

may see minor to

moderate alterations

over the life of the

LUP due to land use

authorizations and

BLM management

actions.

The landscapes are

mainly natural in

appearance.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical Conditions

Remoteness

Not remote, directly

adjacent to urban and

rural housing and

communities.

Moderately remote,

within a one to two

hour drive from

urban and rural

communities.

Remote setting,

within a several

hour drive from

communities to access

areas.

Area is remote and

primitive.

Naturalness

This zone can be

natural in appearance,

but the landscape

is subject to high

evidence of human

change.

Mostly natural

environment with

low to high evidence

of human changes at

specific attractions.

This zone is mostly

natural with low to

moderate evidence

of human induced

change.

Predominantly natural

environment of

moderate to large size.

Human modifications

occasionally evident,

but not intrusive.

Facilities

Degree of developed

user facilities will be

moderate to high.

The extent of

developed user

facilities will be low

to high.

The degree of

developed user

facilities will be low

to moderate.

The degree of

developed user

facilities will be low to

none.

Social Conditions

August 2011

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix
1290 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Contacts

Generally there is high

level of interaction

among users. Visitors

may encounter more

than 150 people per

day.

Moderate to high

level of interaction

(average 25-150

individuals singly or

in groups per day).

Generally the level

of interaction among

visitors is low (up

to 25 individuals per

day) but occasionally

up to 150 individuals

singly or in groups per

day.

The level of interaction

among visitors

is low. Visitors

encounter up to 25

individuals singly or

in groups per day

on designated trails

or near Community

Interface, Front

Country, or Passage

settings and 10 or

fewer individuals

singly or in groups per

day in more remote

off-trail settings.

Group Size

Generally the

maximum group size

would be up to 200

individuals.

Generally the

maximum group

size would be up to

75 individuals, but

groups of up to 200

may be encountered

under permit.

Generally up to 25-50

individuals with the

occasional group

size reaching 200

individuals.

Generally a maximum

group size up to 50

individuals.

Evidence of Use

In local areas

(1-5 acres or less)

moderate impacts to

soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

In local areas (1 acre

or less) minor impacts

to soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

In local areas (1 acre

or less) minor impacts

to soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

Impacts to soil and

vegetation recover

yearly or are negligible

in extent (.1 acre).

Social Conditions

Contacts

Generally there is high

level of interaction

among users. Visitors

may encounter more

than 150 people per

day.

Moderate to high

level of interaction

(average 25-150

individuals singly or

in groups per day).

Generally the level

of interaction among

visitors is low (up

to 25 individuals per

day) but occasionally

up to 150 individuals

singly or in groups per

day.

The level of interaction

among visitors

is low. Visitors

encounter up to 25

individuals singly or

in groups per day

on designated trails

or near Community

Interface, Front

Country, or Passage

settings and 10 or

fewer individuals

singly or in groups per

day in more remote

off-trail settings.

Group Size

Generally the

maximum group size

would be up to 200

individuals.

Generally the

maximum group

size would be up to

75 individuals, but

groups of up to 200

may be encountered

under permit.

Generally up to 25-50

individuals with the

occasional group

size reaching 200

individuals.

Generally a maximum

group size up to 50

individuals.

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1291

Evidence of Use

In local areas

(1-5 acres or less)

moderate impacts to

soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

In local areas (1 acre

or less) minor impacts

to soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

In local areas (1 acre

or less) minor impacts

to soil and vegetation

persist from year to

year.

Impacts to soil and

vegetation recover

yearly or are negligible

in extent (.1 acre).

Administrative Conditions

Mechanized Use

Motorized and

mechanized use on

designated routes.

Motorized and

mechanized use on

designated routes.

Motorized and

mechanized on

designated routes.

Motorized use is not

allowed. Mechanized

use is allowed on

designated trails.

Management Controls

High management

presence.

Moderate to high

management

presence.

Low to moderate

management

presence.

Low management

presence.

Visitor Services

Visitor information

provision levels are

high.

Visitor information

levels are moderate to

high.

Visitor information

levels are low to

moderate.

Visitor information

levels are low.

Management Actions and Allowable Uses

Vehicle-based day use

is primary use.

Vehicle-based day

and overnight use

occur.

Vehicle-based day and

overnight use occur.

No vehicle-based

camping.

Vehicle-based parking

and camping must

occur within 100

feet of road or along

the immediate route

shoulder where

parking will not

damage vegetation,

unless otherwise

limited.

Vehicle-based

parking and camping

must occur within

100 feet of road or

along the immediate

route shoulder where

parking will not

damage vegetation,

unless otherwise

limited.

Vehicle-based parking

and camping must

occur within 100

feet of road or along

the immediate route

shoulder where

parking will not

damage vegetation,

unless otherwise

limited.

N/A

Non-vehicle-based

camping may occur

anywhere across the

landscape unless

otherwise limited.

Non-vehicle-based

camping may occur

anywhere across the

landscape unless

otherwise limited.

Non-vehicle-based

camping may occur

anywhere across the

landscape unless

otherwise limited.

Non-vehicle-based

camping may occur

anywhere across the

landscape unless

otherwise limited.

Dispersed,

Undeveloped

Camping and Parking

Certain areas may be

closed to camping or

parking or restricted

to designated sites for

resource protection.

Certain areas may be

closed to camping or

parking or restricted

to designated sites for

resource protection.

Certain areas may be

closed to camping or

parking or restricted

to designated sites for

resource protection.

Certain areas may be

closed to camping or

restricted to designated

sites for resource

protection.

August 2011

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix
1292 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Established in

areas with high

volumes of use, high

levels of impacts,

and at recreation

destinations.

Established in

areas with high

volumes of use, high

levels of impacts,

and at recreation

destinations.

Established in

areas with high

volumes of use, high

levels of impacts,

and at recreation

destinations.

Designated camping

areas or single-party

campsites established

when needed to

maintain recreation

setting or for resource

protection.

Designated Camping

Areas Moderate to high

on-site controls,

rustic facilities at

camping areas may

expand outer limits

of camping areas

as needed to meet

demand.

Low to high on-site

controls, rustic

facilities at camping

areas may expand

outer limits of

camping areas as

needed to meet

demand.

Subtle on-site

controls, rudimentary

facilities at camping

areas.

Minimum on-site

controls, typically no

facilities.

Developed

Campgrounds

Established in areas

with demand for

facilities or services,

high volumes of use,

high levels of impacts,

and at recreation

destinations.

Established in

areas with demand

for facilities or

services, high

volumes of use, high

levels of impacts,

and at recreation

destinations.

Rustic or primitive

sites may be

developed for

resource protection

or public safety

purposes. The number

of campsites installed

will be limited to

the minimum needed

to achieve resource

protection and public

safety goals.

No developed

campgrounds.

Unless otherwise

limited, up to

75 people, and

associated equipment

in existing, and/or

designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and

camping areas that

are large enough

to accommodate

the group size

without increasing

the footprint of the

disturbance area.

Unless otherwise

limited, up to

75 people, and

associated equipment

in existing, and/or

designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and

camping areas that

are large enough

to accommodate

the group size

without increasing

the footprint of the

disturbance area.

Unless otherwise

limited, up to

75 people, and

associated equipment

in existing, and/or

designated, vehicle

parking, staging, and

camping areas that

are large enough

to accommodate

the group size

without increasing

the footprint of the

disturbance area.

Unless otherwise

limited, up to 50

people and associated

animals in areas

large enough to

accommodate the

group without

increasing the

footprint of the

disturbance area and

for cross-country

use in areas that are

resilient enough to

support that use. Up

to 25 people and

associated animals

in areas managed to

maintain wilderness

characteristics.

Large group events are

generally appropriate

and larger groups

will be authorized

under SRP or at

specific large group

sites designated

Larger groups

authorized under SRP

or at specific large

group sites designated

for that purpose on

case-by-case basis.

Larger groups

authorized under SRP

or at specific large

group sites designated

for that purpose on

case-by-case basis.

Larger groups

authorized under SRP

or at specific large

group sites designated

for that purpose on

case-by-case basis.

Day and Overnight

Group Use

(non-commercial

and non-competitive)

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1293

for that purpose on

case-by-case basis.

Group size limits

and use areas may

be adjusted based

on monitoring to

maintain desired

setting, protect

resources, and

manage changing

uses.

Group size limits

and use areas may

be adjusted based

on monitoring to

maintain desired

setting, protect

resources, and

manage changing

uses.

Group size limits

and use areas may

be adjusted based

on monitoring to

maintain desired

setting, protect

resources, and

manage changing

uses.

Group size limits

and use areas may

be adjusted based on

monitoring to maintain

desired setting, protect

resources, and manage

changing uses.

Commercial,

competitive, and

vendor use are

generally encouraged

to use this zone

and permits will

be authorized on a

case-by-case basis

Commercial,

competitive, and

vendor use will

be authorized on a

case-by-case basis.

Commercial,

competitive, and

vendor use will

be authorized on a

case-by-case basis.

Commercial

and competitive

non-motorized permits

issued on case-by-case

basis. Motorized uses

are not allowed and

no vendor permits are

issued. In addition, in

wilderness areas, only

commercial services

such as guiding for

hunting and outfitting

are allowed.

Permit users must use

designated portals to

public lands.

Permit users must use

designated portals to

public lands.

Permit users must use

designated portals to

public lands.

Permit users must use

designated portals to

public lands.

Commercial,

Competitive, and

Vendor Use (in

addition to SRP

requirements)

Commercial

non-motorized

(repetitive) permits

required to remain

on existing trails (no

cross-country travel).

Commercial

non-motorized

(repetitive) permits

required to remain

on existing trails (no

cross-country travel).

Commercial

non-motorized

(repetitive) permits

required to remain

on existing trails (no

cross-country travel).

Commercial

non-motorized

(repetitive) permits

must remain on

existing trails (no

cross-country travel).

Firewood collection

(dead, down, and

detached only)

Firewood collection is

prohibited. Campfires

are allowed if wood

is brought from

off-site, unless

otherwise prohibited.

Monitor disturbances

and temporarily or

permanently suspend

campfires to prevent

resource damage.

Collection of a

reasonable amount

of dead, down, and

detached wood for

on-site campfire use

is allowed, unless

otherwise prohibited.

Monitor vegetation

use and disturbance

and temporarily or

permanently suspend

such use to prevent

resource damage.

Collection of a

reasonable amount

of dead, down, and

detached wood for

on-site campfire use

is allowed, unless

otherwise prohibited.

Monitor vegetation

use and disturbance

and temporarily or

permanently suspend

such use to prevent

resource damage.

● Collection of a

reasonable amount

of dead, down, and

detached wood for

on-site campfire

use is allowed,

unless otherwise

prohibited.

Monitor

vegetation use

and disturbance

and temporarily

or permanently

suspend such use

to prevent resource

damage.

● Collection of

firewood and use

of campfires is

prohibited in the

August 2011

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix
1294 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Sierra Estrella

Wilderness Area.

Recreational Target

Shooting

Permitted except

where otherwise

prohibited. See also

Standard Operating

Procedures.

Permitted except

where otherwise

prohibited. See also

Standard Operating

Procedures.

Permitted except

where otherwise

prohibited. See also

Standard Operating

Procedures.

Permitted except

where otherwise

prohibited. See also

Standard Operating

Procedures.

Motorized Routes and

Non-motorized Trails

Motorized routes and

non-motorized trails

will be established

based on recreation

demand.

Motorized routes and

non-motorized trails

will be established

based on recreation

demand and resource

protection needs.

● Non-motorized

trailheads to

trails in the Back

Country RMZ

are established.

Existing

motorized

routes and

non-motorized

trails could be

maintained;

additional trails

are established

where they

meet the desired

recreational

setting or

meet resource

protection needs.

● Existing routes

could be

re-aligned to

improve resource

management or

public safety.

● Routes closed or

reclaimed in the

Passage

● RMZ for any

reason over the

life of the plan

will automatically

revert to the Back

Country RMZ

and its associated

management

prescriptions.

● Existing nonmotorized trails

are maintained;

additional trails

are established

where they

meet the desired

recreational

setting.

● New motorized

or mechanized

routes could

be designated

in this zone,

outside of closed

OHV designation

areas, to resolve

public safety or

resource protection

needs, or to meet

specific recreation

objectives. These

routes would

be authorized

through travel,

transportation,

public access,

and OHV

route planning

and processes.

Affected lands

would re-allocate

to Passage RMZ

and its associated

management

prescriptions.

Appendix Q Recreation Settings and Descriptions

Description Matrix August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1295

Appendix R. Benefits Based Recreation

Worksheets

Recreation Management Zone (RMZ) worksheets are used to develop and document the

objective(s), targeted opportunities and outcomes, prescribed setting character, and activity

planning framework for zones of management within designated Special Recreation Management

Areas. The worksheets are concise outlines of management direction intended for a particular

area, as well as of the steps that will be taken to achieve those objective(s). From these

worksheets, land-use- and activity-plan-level management actions are developed. Following are

the RMZ worksheets for the nine alternative SRMAs of the planning areas.

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area

Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Ajo residents and seasonal visitors

Ajo Desert Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking to enjoy self-directed, unstructured recreational opportunities to discover

Sonoran Desert resources and natural landscapes.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of sampled visitors indicated they were

satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities:OHV driving,

Hiking, Equestrian, Hunting,

Backpacking, Sightseeing, Touring,

Photography, Hunting, Orienteering,

Wildlife Observation, Nature and

Cultural Study.

Experiences: Savoring the total

sensory (sight, sound and smell)

experience of a natural landscape;

enjoying risk-taking adventure;

enjoy going exploring on our own,

being in control of things that

happen.

Benefits:Greater sensitivity

to/awareness of outdoor aesthetics,

nature’s art and its elegance. Community

awareness and appreciation of cultural

and natural heritage. Increased

awareness and protection of natural

resources. Increased desirability as a

place to live or retire.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC, P Social: FC, BC, P Administrative: FC, BC, P

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Periodic visitor satisfaction surveys

will be conducted.

Management: The designated travel system would

predominately consist of roads maintained at levels 1 to 3.

Major access roads and pullouts could be maintained at level 5.

A maximum camping stay would be established of seven (7)

days per party. Persons may occupy any one site or multiple sites

within a 25 mile radius on public lands not closed or otherwise

restricted to camping for a total period of not more than seven

(7) days within a 28 day period. When the seven (7) day limit

has been reached, the party must move 25 miles from site of last

occupation, or off of public land. The authorized officer may

give written permission for extension of the seven (7) day limit.

Competitive motorized speed events would not be authorized.

Administrative: Permit users must use designated

access sites to public lands. Continue partnership

with the International Sonoran Desert Alliance.

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1296 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Ajo residents and seasonal visitors

Gateway Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking to enjoy local attractions and opportunities that enhance the community

and promote public lands.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of sampled visitors indicated they were

satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Hiking,

Equestrian, Sightseeing, Touring

Photography, Hunting Orienteering,

Wildlife Observation, Nature and

Cultural Study

Experiences: Enjoy having easy

access to natural landscapes; feeling

good about how natural resources

and facilities are being managed.

Savoring the total sensory -- sight,

sound, and smell -- experience of a

natural landscape.

Benefits: Improved understanding

of this community’s dependence and

impact on public lands. Community

awareness and appreciation of cultural

and natural heritage. Improved soil,

water, and air quality, reduced litter,

reduced vegetative trampling. Increased

desirability as a place to live or retire.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: CI Social: CI Administrative: CI

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Monitoring: Periodic visitor satisfaction surveys

will be conducted.

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Management: The designated travel system would

predominately consist of primitive roads maintained at levels 1

to 3, with up to 5% (6 to 9 miles) of the route network maintained

at level 5 to provide access for dispersed camping and motorized

sightseeing and hiking opportunities. Visitor and management

infrastructure would generally be moderate in scope and scale,

but may include developed facilities which would include a

system of primitive roads and trails that meets the desired

recreation setting. A 40-acre “open” area to accommodate

motorized opportunities such as unrestricted motocross bike

riding would be established with the provision that local partners

would be sought to monitor and provide on-site management

and educate users in environmental stewardship. The Ajo Scenic

Loop would be established to interpret and educate local and

seasonal visitors on adjacent public lands with the provision that

local partners would be sought to monitor and provide on-site

management and educate users in environmental stewardship.

Competitive motorized speed events would be authorized in

the 40 acre open area. The 40-acre open use motocross site

would be closed to mineral material sales and recommended

for withdrawal from mineral location. The 40-acre open use

motocross site would be open to all non-renewable leasable

minerals actions, but any lease would contain a No Surface

Occupancy stipulation with no exceptions, waivers, or

modifications. This includes geothermal resources and sodium.

Administrative:Permit users must use designated

access sites to public lands. Continue partnership

with the International Sonoran Desert Alliance.

Group size limits and use areas may be adjusted

based on monitoring to maintain desired setting,

protect resources, and manage changing uses.

Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Seasonal visitors

Gunsight Wash Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Seasonal visitors seeking a remote winter camping experience and portal to adjacent public

lands.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, 90% of sampled visitors report satisfaction with a

self-directed recreational experience.

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1297

Ajo Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Seasonal visitors

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: RV camping,

Hiking, Picnicking, Equestrian,

Photography, Nature and Cultural

Study, Wildlife Observation.

Experiences: Enjoying having

easy access to natural landscapes;

Enjoy going exploring on my

own; Enjoying participating in

group outdoor events.

Benefits:Greater freedom from urban living.

Enlarged sense of community dependency

on public lands. Increased awareness and

protection of natural landscapes. Enhanced

ability for visitors to find areas providing

wanted recreation experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC Social: FC Administrative: FC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through

public outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Visitor satisfaction surveys will be conducted

to determine responsible use.

Management: The Gunsight Wash area (T14S,

R5W, sections 2-4 and 9-11; approximately 2,500

acres) would be developed as a managed campground

offering standard and expanded amenities and fees

established as needed per the FLREA. The designated

motor vehicle travel system would predominantly

consist of roads suitable for two-wheel-drive

recreational vehicle access and maintained at levels

3 to 5. The designated motor vehicle travel system,

level and type of infrastructure provided, and length

of camping stay limit would be determined in

coordination with considerations for other resources

uses, particularly wildlife concerns related to the

Sonoran Pronghorn.

Administrative: Manage the area with local communities,

state and county agencies. Provide vehicle route connections

to the Maricopa Trail System and nearby county parks.

Arlington Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Residents from Maricopa and Pinal Counties

Arlington Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking a dispersed or family-oriented motorized recreation experience in a remote

Sonoran Desert landscape.

RMZ Management Objective:

Through the life of the plan at least 80% of visitors will indicate that they are very satisfied sustainable, motorized

outdoor activities in a natural setting.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Motorized

driving, Hiking, Camping,

Photography, Sightseeing and

Hunting.

Experiences: Enjoying having

easy access to natural landscapes;

Enjoy going exploring on my own;

Enjoying participating in group

outdoor events.

Benefits: Greater freedom from

urban living. Enlarged sense of

community dependency on public

lands. Increased awareness and

protection of natural landscapes.

Enhanced ability for visitors to find

areas providing wanted recreation

experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC Social: FC Administrative: FC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1298 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Arlington Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Residents from Maricopa and Pinal Counties

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Visitor satisfaction surveys will be

conducted to determine responsible use.

Management: The designated motor vehicle travel system

would consist of primitive roads maintained at level 1 with

up to 10% of the network (19 miles) maintained at level 3

and up to 30% (60 miles) maintained at level 5 to allow for

two-wheel-drive access. Up to 25 miles of new roads may

be constructed as needed to connect loop routes to provide

opportunities for a family riding experience. Existing roads

could be re-aligned to improve resource management or public

safety. Up to 2 staging areas would be developed with standard

amenity facilities and limited to a maximum of 10 acres each.

Administrative: Manage the area with local

communities, state and county agencies. Provide

vehicle route connections to the Maricopa Trail

System and nearby county parks.

Buckeye Hills Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Active Residents from Western Maricopa County

East Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Local visitors who want motorized recreation opportunities adjacent to the communities of

Buckeye, Avondale, and Goodyear.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, 85% of sampled visitors will respond to a visitor

survey that they were satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: OHV driving,

hiking, equestrian, picnicking,

camping, photography, target shooting,

sightseeing.

Experiences: Enjoy the natural open

space; how to use and appreciate

natural resources; taking moderate

risks.

Benefits: Enhanced awareness and

understanding of nature. Community

and social exposure of outdoor

lifestyles. Greater community

ownership and stewardship of

natural resources. Increased local

tourism revenue.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: CI Social: CI Administrative: CI

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public outreach,

education and signing.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: The RMZ would be established as a Special

Management Area (SMA) and an Individual Special Recreation

Permit (ISRP) program may be established to allow for special

management and protection of the SMA in partnership with

Maricopa County and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Through a Cooperative Management Agreement, partners would

be authorized to share in the collection and management of

fees. The designated travel system would predominately consist

of roads maintained at levels 1 to 3. Access roads could be

maintained at level 5. Up to six staging/parking areas may be

developed with standard amenity facilities such as gravel surface,

picnic tables and fire rings (up to 30 acres). Up to 2 large staging

areas could be developed not to exceed a total of 10 acres each.

Primitive roads or trails, especially connector and loop routes,

would be developed for a diversity of users.

Administrative: Coordinate planning

partnerships with communities adjacent to

the area to produce a collaborative recreation

management plan. Provide trail and route

connections to the Maricopa County Trail System

and nearby county parks.

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1299

Buckeye Hills Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Active Residents from Western Maricopa County

East Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Local visitors seeking a balanced mix of motorized and non-motorized recreation

opportunities adjacent to the communities of Buckeye, Avondale, and Goodyear.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, 85% of sampled visitors will respond to a visitor

survey that they were satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: OHV driving,

hiking, equestrian, picnicking,

camping, photography, target

shooting, sightseeing.

Experiences:Enjoy the natural

open space; how to use and

appreciate natural resources; taking

moderate risks.

Benefits: Enhanced awareness and

understanding of nature. Community

and social exposure of outdoor lifestyles.

Greater community ownership and

stewardship of natural resources.

Increased local tourism revenue.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: CI, FC Social: CI, FC Administrative:CI, FC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: The RMZ would be established as a

Special Management Area (SMA) and an Individual

Special Recreation Permit (ISRP) program may be

established to allow for special management and

protection of the SMA in partnership with Maricopa

County and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Through a Cooperative Management Agreement, partners

would be authorized to share in the collection and

management of fees. The designated travel system would

predominately consist of roads maintained at levels 1 to

3. Access roads could be maintained at level 5. Up to six

staging/parking areas may be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic tables and

fire rings (up to 30 acres). One large staging area could

be developed not to exceed 10 acres. Primitive roads or

trails, especially connector and loop routes, would be

developed for a diversity of users.

Administrative:Coordinate planning partnerships

with communities adjacent to the area to produce a

collaborative recreation management plan. Provide trail

and route connections to the Maricopa County Trail

System and nearby county parks.

Buckeye Hills Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt D)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Active Residents from Western Maricopa County

East Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Local visitors who want non-motorized recreation opportunities adjacent to the communities

of Buckeye, Avondale, and Goodyear.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, 85% of sampled visitors will respond to a visitor

survey that they were satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: OHV driving,

hiking, equestrian, picnicking,

camping, photography, target shooting,

sightseeing.

Experiences: Enjoy the natural open

space; how to use and appreciate

natural resources; taking moderate

risks.

Benefits: Enhanced awareness and

understanding of nature. Community

and social exposure of outdoor

lifestyles. Greater community

ownership and stewardship of natural

resources. Increased local tourism

revenue.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC Social: FC Administrative: FC

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1300 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: The RMZ would not be established as a

Special Management Area (SMA) and an Individual Special

Recreation Permit (ISRP) program would not be established

to allow for special management and protection of the SMA

in partnership with Maricopa County and the Arizona Game

and Fish Department. The designated travel system would

predominately consist of roads maintained at levels 1 to 3;

however, up to 50 percent of existing, inventoried primitive

roads (approximately 63 miles) would be converted to

non-motorized trails. New trails could be developed to provide

connector and loop opportunities for non-motorized users. Up

to four staging/parking areas may be developed with standard

amenity facilities such as gravel surface, picnic tables, and fire

rings (up to 20 acres).

Administrative: Coordinate planning partnerships

with communities adjacent to the area to produce a

collaborative recreation management plan.

Buckeye Hills Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Active residents from Maricopa County

Buckeye Hills West Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors to the Buckeye Hills Regional Park seeking motorized and non-motorized recreation

opportunities on adjacent public lands.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 80% of visitors will indicate that they are very

satisfied with the sustainable motorized outdoor activities in a natural setting.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Motorized

trail use (OHV driving, hunting,

photography, wildlife viewing, and

sightseeing).

Experiences: Enjoying having

easy access to natural landscapes.

Enjoy going exploring on my/our

own. Gaining a greater sense of

self-confidence.

Benefits:Greater freedom from urban

living. Enlarged sense of community

dependency on public lands.

Maintenance of distinctive recreation

setting character. Enhanced ability

for visitors to find areas providing

wanted recreation experiences and

benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC Social: FC, BC Administrative: FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: The RMZ would be established as a Special

Management Area (SMA) and an Individual Special

Recreation Permit (ISRP) program may be established to

allow for special management and protection of the SMA in

partnership with Maricopa County and the Arizona Game and

Fish Department. Through such a Cooperative Management

Agreement, partners may be authorized to share in the

collection and management of fees. Fees may be established

as needed to meet activity or business plan objectives in

accordance with the FLREA. The designated travel system

would predominately consist of roads maintained at levels 1

to 3. Primitive roads or trails, especially connector and loop

routes, would be developed for a diversity of users.

Administrative: Enter into a Cooperative

Management Agreement with Maricopa County,

Arizona Game and Fish Department to jointly manage

the RMZ. Provide non-motorized trail and vehicle

route connections to the Maricopa County Trail

System and nearby county parks.

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1301

Buckeye Hills Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt D)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Trail enthusiasts from Maricopa County

Buckeye Hills West Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Local visitors seeking dispersed, non-motorized back country recreation experiences.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 80% of visitors will indicate that they are very

satisfied with the sustainable motorized outdoor activities in a natural setting.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Non-Motorized

trail use (Hiking, Mountain Biking,

Equestrian, Hunting, Equestrian,

Photography, and Wildlife Viewing.

Experiences: Enjoying having

easy access to natural landscapes.

Enjoy going exploring on my/our

own. Gaining a greater sense of

self-confidence. Learning more

about things here.

Benefits: Greater freedom from

urban living. Improved skills

for outdoor enjoyment. Enlarged

sense of community dependency

on public lands. Maintenance

of distinctive recreation setting

character. Enhanced ability for

visitors to find areas providing wanted

recreation experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: BC Social: BC Administrative: BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: An SMA and ISRP program would not

be established. The designated travel system would

predominately consist of primitive roads maintained at level

1.

Administrative: Provide non-motorized trail

connections to the Maricopa County Trail System

and nearby county parks.

Gila Bend Mountains Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Undeveloped Trail users from Maricopa and Yuma Counties

Gila Bend Mountains Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking primitive non-motorized and semi-primitive motorized recreation

opportunities in a remote and undeveloped landscape.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of visitors will respond to a visitor survey

that they are very satisfied with the easy access and the opportunities for non-motorized trail experiences in this area.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Non-Motorized

activities (Hiking, Backpacking,

Equestrian, Mountain biking,

Camping, Orienteering, Photography,

Wildlife Viewing, and Hunting).

Experiences: Enjoying going

exploring on my/our own; Enjoying

risk-taking adventure; Feeling good

about solitude, being isolated, and

independent.

Benefits: Greater environmental

awareness and sensitivity. Increased

independence and autonomy.

Increased awareness and protection

of natural landscapes. Enhanced

ability for visitors and residents to find

areas providing wanted recreational

experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC Social: FC, BC Administrative:FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1302 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Gila Bend Mountains Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Undeveloped Trail users from Maricopa and Yuma Counties

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Monitoring: Periodically conduct visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Management: To provide a rugged and primitive motorized

experience, 90% of the designated motor vehicle travel

system (324 – 465 miles) would consist of primitive roads

maintained at level 1, but up to 3% (11-16 miles) could

be maintained at level 3-5 to allow for two-wheel-drive

access. Standard camping amenities, interpretive displays,

and improved access would be constructed at the Sundad

public use site to facilitate visitation. Unplanned areas of

disturbance greater than 2 acres would be rehabilitated back

to natural condition and group limits may be established to

prevent further resource degradation.

Administrative: Manage recreation use in concert

with local communities, state and county agencies.

Lower Gila Historic Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B,C,D,E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination

Regional and national visitors/historical

trail enthusiasts

Gila River Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Regional and national visitors seeking to discover, tour, and learn about the Juan Bautista de

Anza National Historic Trail, Arizona history, and natural history of the Sonoran Desert.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of sampled visitors indicate they were

satisfied with a recreational use activity in which they were able to participate and have an increased appreciation

of the area’s natural and cultural history.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Learning about

area history & natural history. Touring

by off-highway vehicle on primitive

roads. Touring by hiking, bicycling,

and / or horseback. Camping.

Experiences: Increased appreciation

of area’s cultural history.

Contemplating man’s relationship

with the land. Being able to tell others

about the trip. Feeling good about

how natural and cultural resources

are being managed.

Benefits: Improved ability to relate to

local cultures. Enhanced awareness

and understanding of nature.

Greater household awareness of and

appreciation for our cultural heritage.

Maintenance of distinctive recreation

setting character. Greater protection

of area historic and archaeological

sites. Increased awareness and

protection of natural landscapes.

Enhanced ability for visitors to find

areas providing wanted recreation

experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical:FC Social: FC Administrative: FC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1303

Lower Gila Historic Trails Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B,C,D,E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination

Regional and national visitors/historical

trail enthusiasts

Marketing: Educational and interpretive materials, including

signs, maps, and brochures, would focus on the history and

prehistory of the area, and the Sonoran Desert landscape.

Management: When designated, the motor vehicle

travel system would consist primarily of primitive roads

maintained at levels 1 to 3, with up to 10% of the route

network (approximately 16 miles) maintained at level 5 to

provide two-wheel-drive passenger car access to public use

cultural sites, day-use, and camping facilities. Visitor and

management infrastructure would respond to demand for

facilities and access to the Juan Bautista de Anza National

Historic Trail, Butterfield Overland Stage route and other

cultural properties designated for public use. Visitor and

management infrastructure would generally be modest in

scope and scale, but may include fully developed facilities

with paved access, water, and sewer. Camping, vehicles, and

group sizes would be limited to designated sites and lengths

of stay; types and speeds; and numbers as deemed necessary

to provide access in balance with conservation of natural and

cultural resources.

Monitoring: Visitation numbers and experiences

will be tracked by standard counting and surveying

techniques.

Administrative: All commercial, competitive,

and vendor activities would be permitted on a

case-by-case basis, consistent with the market niche

and outcome objectives of the RMZ.

Painted Rock Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Undeveloped Residents from Maricopa and Yuma Counties

Painted Rock Mountains Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking diverse activities with emphasis on family-oriented, landscape-dependent

motorized experiences.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of sampled visitors indicate that they are

satisfied with vehicle-related activities in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: OHV Driving,

Sightseeing/Touring, Hunting,

Photography, Wildlife Viewing, and

Camping.

Experiences: Developing your skills

and abilities. Enjoying participating

in group outdoor events. Enjoying

the closeness of friends and family.

Enjoying exploring on my/our own.

Benefits: Improved outdoor

knowledge and self-confidence.

Increased independence and

autonomy. Increased awareness and

protection of natural landscapes.

Enhanced ability for visitors to find

areas providing wanted recreation

experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC Social: FC Administrative: FC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Emphasize resource values through public

outreach, education and signing.

Management: The designated motor vehicle travel system

would consist primarily of primitive roads maintained at levels

1 to 3, but up to 5 percent of the route network could be

maintained at level 5 to provide two-wheel-drive passenger

car access to public use cultural sites, day-use, and camping

facilities. One parking / staging area, not exceeding 5 acres

in size, would be constructed.

Monitoring: Conduct periodic visitor satisfaction

surveys.

Administrative: Signing, regulations and

brochures will be provided as needed.

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1304 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Saddle Mountain Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Residents from Western Maricopa County

Saddle Mountain Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of visitors will respond to a visitor survey

that they are very satisfied with the easy access and the opportunities for non-motorized trail experiences in this area.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: OHV Driving,

Mountain Biking, Hiking, Equestrian,

Picnicking, Equestrian, Camping,

Outdoor Education.

Experiences: Enjoy self-directed

recreation and adventure activities;

Enjoying risk-taking adventure. Feeling

good about solitude, being isolated, and

independent. Enjoying having easy

access to natural landscapes.

Benefits:Improved

outdoor knowledge and

self-confidence. Lifestyle

improvement/ maintenance

and an enlarged sense of

community dependency on

public lands. Increased

awareness and protection of

natural landscapes. Enhanced

ability for visitors to find areas

providing wanted recreation

experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: CI, FC, BC Social: CI, FC, BC Administrative: CI, FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: The Saddle Mountain area geology, wildlife, and

vegetation would be interpreted at various identified sites.

Management: The designated travel system would predominately

consist of primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3 with up to 5%

maintained at level 5 (approximately 5 miles) to provide access for

motorized recreation opportunities. Primitive roads and trails would

be developed to provide sustainable opportunities for motorized and

non-motorized trail opportunities.

Monitoring: Periodically conduct visitor

satisfaction surveys. Visitation numbers

and experiences will be tracked by standard

surveying techniques.

Administrative:Access to the area from

state and private lands will be limited to

designated access sites. New access sites may

be established after RMP implementation

through site planning. Provide non-motorized

trail and route connections to the Maricopa

County Trail System and nearby county

parks. Signing, regulations and brochures

will be provided as needed. Restrict or close

route/area to ensure PM-10 requirements are

met. Continue/expand a partnership with the

Friends of Saddle Mountain.

Saddle Mountain Special Recreation Management Area (Alt C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Residents from Western Maricopa County

Saddle Mountain Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking non-motorized recreation opportunities.

RMZ Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, at least 85% of visitors will respond to a visitor survey

that they are very satisfied with the easy access and the opportunities for non-motorized trail experiences in this area.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1305

Saddle Mountain Special Recreation Management Area (Alt C & E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community Residents from Western Maricopa County

Primary Activities: Non-motorized

trail use (mountain biking, hiking,

equestrian), Picnicking, Equestrian,

Camping, Outdoor Education

Experiences: Enjoy self-directed

recreation and adventure activities;

Enjoying risk-taking adventure.

Feeling good about solitude, being

isolated, and independent. Enjoying

having easy access to natural

landscapes.

Benefits: Improved outdoor

knowledge and self-confidence.

Lifestyle improvement/ maintenance

and an enlarged sense of community

dependency on public lands. Increased

awareness and protection of natural

landscapes. Enhanced ability for

visitors to find areas providing wanted

recreation experiences and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: CI, FC, BC Social: CI, FC, BC Administrative: CI, FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Monitoring: Periodically conduct visitor satisfaction

surveys. Visitation numbers and experiences will be

tracked by standard surveying techniques.

Marketing: The Saddle Mountain area geology, wildlife,

and vegetation would be interpreted at various identified

sites.

Management: The designated travel system would

emphasize primitive access to non-motorized trail

opportunities. Roads would predominately be maintained at

level 1 with up to 10% maintained at level 3 (approximately

9 miles). Non-motorized trails would be developed, or

converted from motorized roads, to meet demand for hiking,

equestrian, and mountain biking. Primitive roads would

only be developed if needed to redirect motorized use from

the Saddle Mountain. Vehicle-based camping would be

limited to existing or designated sites. SRPs would not be

authorized for motorized or non-motorized competitive

events. Motorized technical and specialized uses, such as

rock-crawling and rock-hopping, would be prohibited.

Administrative: Access to the area from state and

private lands will be limited to designated access

sites. New access sites may be established after

RMP implementation through site planning. Provide

non-motorized trail and route connections to the

Maricopa County Trail System and nearby county

parks. Signing, regulations and brochures will be

provided as needed. Restrict or close route/area to

ensure PM-10 requirements are met. Continue/expand

a partnership with the Friends of Saddle Mountain.

San Tan Mountains Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community

Residents from Eastern Maricopa

and Western Pinal Counties

San Tan Mountains Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking a developed park setting for access to non-motorized recreation opportunities.

RMZ Management Objective:Through the life of the plan at least 90% of sampled visitors indicated they were

satisfied with recreational use activity in which they were able to participate.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Hiking,

Equestrian, Mountain Biking,

Picnicking, Camping, Sightseeing.

Experiences: Enjoying having easy

access to natural landscapes;

Enjoying having a wide variety of

environments with a single park or

recreation area; Feeling good about

how natural resources and facilities

are being managed.

Benefits: Greater freedom from

urban living. More informed

citizenry about where to go for

different kinds of recreation

experiences and benefits. Reduced

negative human impacts such as

litter, vegetative trampling, and

unplanned trails. Increased local

tourism revenue.

Prescribed Setting Character

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area
1306 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

San Tan Mountains Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Community

Residents from Eastern Maricopa

and Western Pinal Counties

Marketing: Allow Maricopa County Parks and Recreation

Department to take the lead in providing for all interpretive

and outreach programs in the park. The Lower Sonoran Field

Office will participate in joint events if appropriate and/or

beneficial to the BLM’s mission.

Monitoring: If needed, assist Maricopa County

Parks and Recreation Department in monitoring the

San Tan Mountains Regional Park in regard to the

Cooperative Recreation Management Agreement.

Management: The RMZ would be established as a Special

Management Area (SMA) and an Individual Special

Recreation Permit (ISRP) program would be established to

allow for special management and protection of the SMA

in partnership with Maricopa and Pinal Counties. Through

a Cooperative Management Agreement, partners would be

authorized to share in the collection and management of

fees. Fees would be established as needed to meet activity

or business plan objectives in accordance with the FLREA.

The designated travel system would predominately consist of

roads maintained at levels 3 to 5 based on visitor expectations.

Administrative: The Cooperative Recreation

Management Area agreement may be revised or

renewed by approval between BLM and Maricopa

County Parks and Recreation.

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA) (Alternatives B, C, D, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

N/A N/A

Ajo ERMA

Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, manage visitation and recreation uses in the Cuerda de Lena

ACEC to preserve and enhance the population of the endangered Sonoran Pronghorn.

San Tan Mountains ERMA

Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, maintain and update the cooperative management agreement

with Maricopa County for the management and administration of the San Tan Mountains Regional Park.

Sentinel Plain Lava Flow ERMA

Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, all visitors participate in educational training on the

human-caused factors affecting safety in the area (unexploded ordnance) and acquire a free “Barry M. Goldwater

Air Force Range entry and public safety permit” prior to entry.

Lower Sonoran Un-Allocated Public Lands ERMA

Management Objective: Through the life of the plan, manage recreation opportunities and amenities of Lower

Sonoran Field Office public lands that are not allocated as Special Recreation Management Areas (including the

Ajo, Arlington, Gila Bend, Painted Rock Mountains, Rainbow Valley, Saddle Mountain, San Tan Mountains, and

Sentinel Plain areas in various alternatives) such that threats to visitor safety, conflicts between various uses and

users, and impacts to other resources are minimized to the extent possible.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

N/A N/A N/A

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical:N/A Social: N/A Administrative:N/A

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Lower Sonoran Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1307

Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMA) (Alternatives B, C, D, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

N/A N/A

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Management: Public lands within the Cuerda de Lena ACEC

would be closed to public access for all recreation uses,

including SRP’s, during March 15-July 15 or as determined

by the Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Team. The San Tan

Mountains area would be managed as a park managed for

recreation resources by Maricopa County. The Sentinel Plain

would be established and managed as a special management

area (SMA). Public access to the Sentinel Plain would require an

Individual Special Recreation Permit, the “Barry M. Goldwater

Air Force Range entry and public safety permit.” The designated

travel system would predominately consist of primitive roads

maintained at levels 1 to 3, but major access roads and pullouts

could be maintained as level 5 roads.

Administrative:All standard operating procedures

for the BLM Recreation program as set forth in

regulation, manual, and handbook sections, and by

instruction memoranda.

RMZ Worksheets – Sonoran Desert National Monument Planning

Area

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Regional / National

Juan Bautista de Anza Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking to discover, tour, and learn about the Juan Bautista de Anza National

Historic Trail, Arizona history, and natural history of the Sonoran Desert.

RMZ Management Objective: Upon entry, all visitors realize they are in an important natural and historic

landscape; and upon exit, all visitors have an increased appreciation of the area’s natural and cultural history.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Learning about

area history & natural history. Touring

by off-highway vehicle on primitive

roads. Touring by hiking, bicycling,

and / or horseback.

Experiences: Increased

appreciation of area’s cultural

history. Contemplating man’s

relationship with the land. Being

able to tell others about the trip.

Feeling good about how natural

and cultural resources are being

managed.

Benefits: Increased appreciation

of area’s cultural history. Enlarged

sense of personal accountability for

acting responsibly on public lands.

Greater household awareness of and

appreciation for our cultural heritage.

Maintenance of distinctive recreation

setting character. Greater protection of

area historic and archaeological sites.

Increased awareness and protection of

natural landscapes. Enhanced ability

for visitors to find areas providing

wanted recreation experiences and

benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC Social: FC, BC Administrative:: FC, BC

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Sonoran Desert National

Monument Planning Area
1308 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Regional / National

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Educational and interpretive materials,

including signs, maps, and brochures, would focus on

the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition and the Sonoran

Desert landscape through which it passed. Visitor services

provided in partnership with local communities would

emphasize area history and natural history.

Management: Physical, social, and administrative settings

would be established to accommodate motorized recreation

access and opportunities, with Front Country comprising up

to 60% of the management zone. Visitor and management

infrastructure would be developed to accommodate

visitation in balance with protection of monument objects;

would be modest in scope and scale; and would be designed

to blend with the dominant features of the landscape.

The designated travel system would consist primarily of

primitive roads maintained at levels 1 to 3, but up to 12

miles of road (approximately 20% of total route network)

maintained at level 5 may be allowed to provide two-wheel

drive passenger car access to educational, day-use, and

camping facilities. Collection of native vegetation as

firewood would be prohibited in the Front Country and

Passage RMZ’s. Recreational target shooting may be

prohibited. Competitive motor sports would not be allowed.

All commercial, other competitive, and vendor activities

would be permitted on a case-by-case basis if monument

objects are protected.

Monitoring: Impacts resulting from recreation use

would be measured and monitored with a Limits of

Acceptable Change methodology and the scope and

scale of impacts to monument objects resulting from

recreation use would not exceed 2001 levels.

Administrative: Camping and other activities,

vehicles, and group sizes would be limited to

designated sites and lengths of stay; types and speeds;

and numbers as deemed necessary to provide access

in balance with conservation of natural and cultural

resources. All commercial, competitive, and vendor

activities would be permitted on a case-by-case

basis, consistent with the market niche and outcome

objectives of the RMZ.

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Regional / National

Desert Back Country Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking an undeveloped, back country experience for resource-dependent activities

such as hunting, camping, hiking, sightseeing, and four-wheel-drive touring.

RMZ Management Objective: Upon exit, all visitors indicate that natural and cultural resources are being

managed appropriately, and / or express an increased awareness of the natural and cultural values for which the

monument was established.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

Primary Activities: Touring by

off-highway vehicle on primitive roads.

Touring by hiking, bicycling, and / or

horseback. Learning about area history

& natural history.

Experiences: Savoring the total

sensory—sight, sound, and

smell—experience of a natural

landscape. Contemplating man’s

relationship with the land. Being able

to tell others about the trip. Feeling

good about how natural and cultural

resources are being managed.

Benefits: Enlarged sense of

personal accountability for

acting responsibly on public

lands. Increased appreciation

of area’s cultural history.

Greater household awareness

of and appreciation for our

cultural heritage. Increased

awareness and protection of

natural landscapes. Greater

protection of area historic and

archaeological sites. Maintenance

of distinctive recreation setting

character. Enhanced ability for

visitors to find areas providing

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Sonoran Desert National

Monument Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1309

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt B, C, E)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Destination Regional / National

wanted recreation experiences

and benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC Social: FC, BC Administrative: FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Educational and interpretive materials, including

signs, maps, and brochures, would focus on the natural history

of the Sonoran Desert landscape. Visitor services provided

in partnership with local communities would emphasize area

history and natural history.

Management: Physical, social, and administrative settings

would be established to accommodate motorized recreation

access and opportunities, with Front Country comprising up

to 20% of the management zone. Visitor and management

infrastructure would be developed to accommodate visitation

in balance with protection of monument objects; would be

modest in scope and scale; and would be designed to blend with

the dominant features of the landscape. The designated travel

system would consist primarily of primitive roads maintained

at levels 1 to 3, but up to 25 miles of road (approximately

5% of total route network) maintained at level 5 may be

allowed to provide two-wheel drive passenger car access to

educational, day-use, and camping facilities. Collection of

native vegetation as firewood would be prohibited in the Front

Country and Passage RMZ’s. Recreational target shooting may

be prohibited. Competitive motor sports would not be allowed.

All commercial, other competitive, and vendor activities would

be permitted on a case-by-case basis if monument objects are

protected.

Monitoring: Impacts resulting from recreation use

would be measured and monitored with a Limits of

Acceptable Change methodology, and the scope

and scale of impacts to monument objects resulting

from recreation use would not exceed 2001 levels.

Administrative: Camping and other activities,

vehicles, and group sizes would be limited to

designated sites and lengths of stay; types and

speeds; and numbers as deemed necessary to

provide access in balance with conservation of

natural and cultural resources. All commercial,

competitive, and vendor activities would be

permitted on a case-by-case basis, consistent with

the market niche and outcome objectives of the

RMZ.

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt D)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Undeveloped Regional / National

Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreation Management Zone

RMZ Market Niche: Visitors seeking an undeveloped, back country experience along a historic trail, and for

resource-dependent activities such as hunting, camping, hiking, sightseeing, and four-wheel-drive touring.

RMZ Management Objective: Upon exit, all visitors indicate that natural and cultural resources are being

managed appropriately, and / or express an increased awareness of the natural and cultural values for which the

monument was established.

Targeted Opportunities & Outcomes

August 2011

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Sonoran Desert National

Monument Planning Area
1310 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Sonoran Desert National Monument Special Recreation Management Area (Alt D)

SRMA PRIMARY MARKET STRATEGY SRMA MARKET

Undeveloped Regional / National

Primary Activities: Touring by

off-highway vehicle on primitive

roads. Touring by hiking, bicycling,

and / or horseback. Learning about

area history & natural history.

Experiences: Savoring the

total sensory—sight, sound, and

smell—experience of a natural

landscape. Contemplating man’s

relationship with the land. Being able

to tell others about the trip. Feeling

good about how natural and cultural

resources are being managed.

Benefits: Enlarged sense of

personal accountability for acting

responsibly on public lands.

Increased appreciation of area’s

cultural history. Greater household

awareness of and appreciation for

our cultural heritage. Increased

awareness and protection of natural

landscapes. Greater protection of

area historic and archaeological sites.

Maintenance of distinctive recreation

setting character. Enhanced ability

for visitors to find areas providing

wanted recreation experiences and

benefits.

Prescribed Setting Character

Physical: FC, BC Social: FC, BC Administrative: FC, BC

Activity Planning (Implementation) Framework

Marketing: Educational and interpretive materials, including

signs, maps, and brochures, would focus on the natural

history of the Sonoran Desert landscape. Visitor services

provided in partnership with local communities would

emphasize area history and natural history.

Management: Physical, social, and administrative settings

would be established to accommodate motorized recreation

access and opportunities, with Front Country comprising up

to 5% of the management zone. Visitor and management

infrastructure would be placed on non-monument lands,

where possible. Visitor and management infrastructure would

not be developed to accommodate visitation; imbalances

between visitation and protection of monument objects

would be addressed through administrative actions such as

permitting, stay restrictions, closure, etc. The designated

travel system would consist primarily of primitive roads

maintained at levels 1 to 3, but up to 20 miles of road

(approximately 3% of total route network) maintained at

level 5 may be allowed to provide two-wheel drive passenger

car access to educational, day-use, and camping facilities.

Collection of native vegetation as firewood would be

prohibited in the Front Country and Back Country RMZ’s.

Recreational target shooting may be prohibited. Competitive

motor sports would not be allowed. All commercial, other

competitive, and vendor activities would be permitted on a

case-by-case basis if monument objects are protected.

Monitoring: Impacts resulting from recreation use

would be measured and monitored with a Limits of

Acceptable Change methodology and the scope and

scale of impacts to monument objects resulting from

recreation use would not exceed 2001 levels.

Administrative: Camping and other activities,

vehicles, and group sizes would be limited to

designated sites and lengths of stay; types and speeds;

and numbers as deemed necessary to provide access

in balance with conservation of natural and cultural

resources. All commercial, competitive, and vendor

activities would be permitted on a case-by-case

basis, consistent with the market niche and outcome

objectives of the RMZ.

Appendix R Benefits Based Recreation Worksheets

RMZ Worksheets – Sonoran Desert National

Monument Planning Area August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1311

Appendix S. Route Evaluation Methodology

& Impact Analysis

S.1. Route Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation of routes for the Lower Sonoran Field Office is the sum of route and resource

inventories, the BLM specialists’ input, and the public’s input. The process of developing

recommended route designations is part of a larger effort to use the best management techniques

in an ever-changing environment. The action of designating specific routes as open, closed or

limited is an implementation level action which tiers from the RMP level decisions which would

include OHV Area Allocations, which determine how travel is to be administered on an area-wide

basis. As the population of Arizona grows, trends must be identified and anticipated in order to

best achieve the goals of successful land management and the protection of sensitive resources.

Designating and managing a route system is a key component of those goals.

S.1.1. Route Inventory

The roads, primitive roads and trails in the field office area were mapped using GPS. Areas

were systematically reviewed by an inventory team comprised of government employees or

contract employees. The team was tasked with driving each route and recording its location,

condition and uses. Public route submissions received by BLM were given to the inventory

team to objectively verify and record to BLM standards using high quality GPS units meeting

national mapping standards. The route inventory was displayed at public scoping meetings. All

areas were complete at the time of public scoping with exception of the Gila Bend Mountains

and outlying parcels east of Phoenix.

S.1.2. Route Evaluation

Evaluating routes on the merits of their uses, values, and impacts is a difficult task. The method

used by Lower Sonoran Field Office for evaluating each route is the Route Evaluation Process.

Using the route inventory collected by BLM, geographic areas were reviewed by applying the

Route Evaluation Process. This methodology systematically guides the evaluator through a series

of questions that helps to assess the relationship of routes to sensitive resources and as well as

to commercial and public access needs, both individually route by route, as well as collectively

or cumulatively as a route network. Background data from state and federal agency inventories

and Agency resource specialists, as well as the public, provides the basis for evaluation. In

accordance with 43 CFR 8342.1, this methodology of evaluating and making recommended route

designations considers and addresses as part of its evaluation, the means by which to minimize

potential and known impacts of motorized use to a number of sensitive resources including but

not limited to threatened, endangered and sensitive species, and their habitat, as well as cultural

and historic resources, wilderness characteristics, various other users and adjoining land uses.

These potential and known impacts are jointly evaluated in the context of providing reasonable

commercial and recreational public access as provided for and/or required by several State and

Federal acts. Each route is systematically evaluated by taking into account the best information

available, as well as any other pertinent guidance (e.g. Monument and RMP objectives).

August 2011

Appendix S Route Evaluation Methodology

& Impact Analysis

Route Evaluation Methodology
1312 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Ultimately, recommended route designations are recorded (Open, Closed, or Limited) to create a

recommended route network.

As specified in 43 CFR 8342.1, four designations are considered through the identification of

standardized or specific mitigations at the time of evaluation. These criteria, listed as subparts

a-d, direct BLM to:

a. Minimize damage of off-road vehicles on sensitive resources such as soil, watershed,

vegetation and air.

b. Minimize disruption of wildlife habitats including threatened and endangered species.

c. Minimize conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other recreational activities.

d. Not locate off-road vehicle use areas and trails in designated wilderness or primitive areas.

e. Locate trails in natural areas only if the use will not adversely affect the values for which

these areas were established.

When the questions in the evaluation tree are answered by taking into account the best information

available and RMP objectives, a route designation code is established and recorded. Routes are

determined to be Open, Closed or Limited.

As the evaluation/designation process progresses, specific reasoning on each recommended route

designation is documented. Additional management requirements (e.g. maintenance, mitigation,

adaptive management monitoring) are incorporated into the recommended route designations

and ultimately become a part of implementing the Travel Management Plan. Route designations

are considered implementation decisions, which is in contrast to land use decisions (e.g. RMP

decisions) and are therefore appealable.

The process for reviewing inventoried routes, proposing new routes, both motorized and

non-motorized, and adding routes to the route inventory for consideration in the route designation

process, is outlined below in six steps. Public participation will be requested during the scoping

phase of the route designation process. Comments will be accepted on the draft plan.

All routes, inventoried or proposed will be integrated and evaluated as follows:

1. Locations submitted by the public will be mapped or located using accepted global

positioning system devices and presented to the BLM office for consideration as both a

gps file and hardcopy map. Locations of route proposals off existing motorized routes

must be mapped by hiking or horseback to avoid cross country travel. The route proposal

submitted to BLM will include a description of the route including its width, its proposed

use(s) and a rationale for its need.

2. The route location will be analyzed for potential conflicts such as, but not limited to:

wildlife habitats, cultural resources, visual resources, other recreation uses, mining claims or

leases, grazing facilities, rights-of-way, and proximity to other jurisdictions such as private

land. A structured process such as the one described above will be used to evaluate and

document the known or foreseeable route conditions.

3. If the route has few conflicts identified during analysis, an on-the-ground review may be

initiated. At this stage, the proposed route must be flagged and staked on the ground by

Appendix S Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact

Analysis

Route Evaluation August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1313

the public for BLM review. If a route has irresolvable conflicts, it may be removed from

further consideration.

4. Pending favorable on-the-ground review, a conflict assessment would lead to possible

mitigation actions or alternative locations or design.

5. An environmental assessment (EA) would be prepared to determine the environmental

effects of the proposal on the proposed route system and any alternatives and mitigation

suggested. In the case of new route proposals brought forth during the initial route

designation period, all routes will be analyzed together in the same EA.

6. A decision identifying the route system and mitigations will be issued by the authorized

officer based on the Land Use Plan compliance, resource objectives and environmental

impacts.

To assist the resource specialists in analyzing impacts related to designating route systems within

the SDNM, the Monument was divided into 18 site specific sample areas. These sample areas

were identified by the BLM travel specialist’s as areas where there are known travel issues and

public use concerns. Each resource specialist selected sample areas representative of the objects

managed by their program and analyzed impacts from the designation of individual routes as

opened, closed, and limited within selected sample areas. A more detailed description of each of

these site specific sample areas is displayed below (refer to Map 4-1 for area locations).

S.2. Impact Analysis

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection of Monument

Objects

Effects to monument objects, the natural resources and use conflicts were considered by

identifying the issues using an interdisciplinary team approach while applying Best Management

Practices and site specific knowledge to reduce human effects.

Each of the 18 study areas in SDNM have a unique assemblage of monument objects requiring

different management techniques to adequately ensure monument object protection. By

identifying the objects that occur in each area and what could affect each object, a management

regime can be developed and an assessment of human impacts completed.

The eight monument objects were identified where they existed in the 18 monument areas. An

excel spreadsheet table was devised to display the assessed level of impact to that object for

the given plan alternative and corresponding route alternative. A justification for the assessed

level of impact accompanies the impact determination. The combination of route alternatives

and management actions for each alternative create the management framework for protecting

monument objects and following the four designation criteria in 43 CFR 8342.1.

Each travel route and RMP alternative potentially has negligible, minor, moderate or major

impacts on monument objects. “Adequate Protection” means impacts on monument objects by

travel management designation from specific open routes and the range of alternatives is either

moderate, minor or negligible. Impacts in the moderate range would need to be mitigated to

reduce them to that of minor.

August 2011

Appendix S Route Evaluation Methodology

& Impact Analysis

Impact Analysis
1314 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

By assessing the impacts and confirming that none of the action alternatives rise above a Minor

assessment after mitigation, a “Finding of Adequate Protection” can be issued for each RMP

alternative.

Table S.1. Description of SDNM Site-Specific Sample Areas

Area Area Description

1 Anza/Butterfield Trail: This historic trail corridor is in the center of the monument and receives the highest

amount of visitor use. This are corresponds to the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, an NLCS unit, and traverses

a valley bottom with soft loamy soils. The vegetation community is primarily Creosote-Bursage. This

corridor is representative of the mixed use recreation areas within the monument.

2 Butterfield Pass: This historic trail corridor is in the center of the monument and receives the highest

amount of visitor use. This are corresponds to the Juan Bautista de Anza NHT, an NLCS unit, and traverses

a valley bottom with soft loamy soils. The vegetation community is primarily mixed-cacti / Palo Verde.

This corridor is representative of the mixed use recreation areas within the monument.

3 Campsites at Gap Well, North of State Route (SR) 238: This area contains numerous campsites in the most

heavily visited area of the monument. The area vegetation community is Creosote-Bursage. This area is

representative of concentrated visitor use areas and the most easily accessible area of Anza NHT.

4 North SDNM access from Pipeline road: This area is representative of SDNM urban interface where

high levels of use occur including target shooting and dumping. The area contains Espanto Mountain,

a popular destination.

5 Margie’s Cove West Loop Road: This area is representative of a popular area for wilderness trailhead

access and semi-primitive roaded settings for backcountry vehicle touring. The area is accessed for many

uses including hunting, hiking, camping, sight-seeing using primitive roads. Upgrading the road to make

trailhead accessible may be proposed during the lifespan of this plan.

6 Access to North side of South Maricopa Wilderness: This area is representative of access to areas within

SDNM where both physical and legal access is very limited although not very far from a paved road. Use is

low and the route conditions limit access to a large area of designated wilderness.

7 Johnson Well to Papago Indian Chief Mine, south of Javelina Mountain: This area is representative of

remote, pristine and lightly used areas of SDNM that are difficult to access without aid of high clearance

or specialized vehicles.

8 Bighorn Station and Proposed Access Road: This area is representative of an easily visible historic area

with physical, but not legal access and serves as a major access point to SDNM. A new access road is

proposed in two alternatives to resolve the legal access issue.

9 Vekol Valley Road to Johnson Well/Homestead: This area represents easily accessible campsites from a

main road. Camp trailer access is common and the area receives heavy use during winter and lighter, yet

consistent, use during the hot season. It provides access to the southern area of SDNM.

10 Access to Javelina Mountain: This area is representative of a destination mountain range in SDNM where

vehicle access occurs from all sides. Use level is low to moderate depending upon season.

11 Sand Tank Wash, all branches inside Area A: This area is representative of remote areas of the SDNM

where the only available vehicle routes are in sand washes. This area is considered to be some of the best

desert wash habitat in SDNM. Wash travel inside Area A was prohibited by previous Air Force land use

plan. Designating these routes as primitive roads is being considered.

12 Bender Wash, all branches west of Getz well: This area is representative of remote areas of SDNM where

vehicle routes exist in sand washes and use prior to monument proclamation is well known. This area is

outside the area A permit area.

13 Vekol Valley Grasslands: This area is representative of areas with sensitive species, rare grassland, and

existing routes in highly erodible soils. This area has been closed to vehicles for many years.

14 Wilderness areas: These areas are representative of protected areas where vehicle use is prohibited. Routes

may exist along boundaries or inside as ‘cherry stem routes’, approved through congressional action

at the time of wilderness designation.

15 Creosote-Bursage Flats: This area is representative of large areas where the vegetation community is

Creosote-Bursage and routes exist, varying in use level from light to heavy. Soils are silty and erodible and

similar to soils in the PM10 nonattainment area.

16 Sand Tank Mountains: This area is representative of large mountainous areas with few routes and good

habitat and primitive recreation opportunity. The area is fairly pristine.

Appendix S Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact

Analysis

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1315

Area Area Description

17 Wilderness Characteristics: These areas are under consideration for allocation as wilderness characteristic

areas. These areas may be managed for solitude and recreational opportunities.

18 Remaining areas of the Monument that tend to be lower in elevation, are lightly visited, and have fewer

access routes.

August 2011

Appendix S Route Evaluation Methodology

& Impact Analysis

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1316 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Figure S.1. SDNM Route Evaluation Process Flow Chart

of Monument ObjectsMethodology for Determining Adequate ProtectionAnalysisAppendix S Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact

August 2011
Appendix S 

 August 2011 Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis 

Figure 2: Route Evaluation Tree©
Appendix S 

August 2011 Route Evaluation Methodology & Impact Analysis 
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1319

Appendix T. Route Mitigations

Table T.1. Nature of the conflict with routes and use of routes

Conflict

Typical mitigation

(in order of possible implementation, not all

mitigation measures may be used)

Resource issues

Human use associated with a route is

degrading xeroriparian (desert wash)

condition

1. Place information signs to request positive behavior (i.e. no

wood cutting, do not drive up wash banks, etc)

2. Place additional route markers to define one route

3. Reroute the route to allow strata condition to improve

4. Fence the area or place barriers to manage people

5. Close the route and make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is

degrading desired plant communities

1. Place additional signs directing vehicles to stay on routes

2. Conduct public outreach regarding noxious weeds and

conserving vegetation

3. Fence the area or place barriers to manage people

4. Develop a program to improve desired plant community

5. Close the route and make a plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is

degrading water quality

1. Review the situation, determine the source of degradation,

monitor to determine severity

2. Place water control measures on the route

3. Take reasonable measure to further harden/stabilize the route

4. Reroute the route

5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible

Human use on a route is determined to

significantly degrade a particular habitat

1. Request certain behavior from route users through signs and

other information

2. Place limitations of use on the route (time or season of use, type

of use, number of users, behavioral requirements)

3. Reroute the route

4. Replace habitat to offset problems caused by human use

a. Augment food/water sources

b. Place barriers along route to protect specific habitat

features

c. Relocate or expand reproduction sites to be away from

the route

5. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible, make plan for

reclamation

August 2011

Appendix T Route Mitigations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1320 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Conflict

Typical mitigation

(in order of possible implementation, not all

mitigation measures may be used)

Dust caused by human use along a route

violates county and state dust regulations

1. Determine a short term solution

a. Monitor situation and determine severity of the problem

b. Close the route or area temporarily to stop dust generation

c. Stabilize the route using a county approved method

d. Place signs requesting a certain behavior (i.e. no wheel

spin, reduce speed)

2. Determine a long term solution

a. Change formal maintenance interval on route consistent

with use level

b. Develop a localized outreach program

c. Implement new technology as part of an area wide plan

d. Close route if suitable dust control is not possible, make

plan for reclamation

Human use associated with a route is causing

unnatural erosion rates

1. Review the route to determine cause and monitor to determine

severity

2. Place water control measures on the route

3. Take reasonable measure to further harden or stabilize the route

4. Reroute the route

5. Close the route if no suitable mitigation is possible

Human use associated with a route is causing

damage to a cultural resources

1. Determine the legality of the human activities occurring

2. Implement a public exclosure method such as fencing

3. Determine an appropriate treatment method to protect cultural

resources.

4. Close route on an emergency basis or permanently if no suitable

treatment can be achieved.

Social Issues:

Speed differential causes conflict between

recreationists and/or local residents

1. Place signs to raise awareness of lawful uses of the area.

2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement

support if necessary

3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior

4. Review terrain and improve sight distances if possible

5. Redesign traffic flow by separating uses or limit by type or time

of use

Sound level causes conflict between

recreationists and/or local residents

1. Place signs to raise awareness of sound issues/laws

2. Monitor situation on the ground and request law enforcement

support as necessary to enforce existing law

3. Conduct public outreach in an attempt change behavior

4. Implement "Quiet Time" use restrictions

5. Reroute traffic to minimize conflict

6. Place sound reducing barriers as necessary

7. Close route if no suitable mitigation is possible

Appendix T Route Mitigations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1321

Appendix U. Definition of Transportation

Asset Type, Functional Class, Maintenance

Intensity

Transportation Asset Type

The Transportation Asset Types of Road, Primitive Road and Trail are established by the Roads

and Trails Terminology Report issued in April 2006. The report was an attachment to Instruction

Memorandum No. 2006-173.

Definitions:

Road: A linear route declared a road by the owner, managed for use by low-clearance vehicles

having four or more wheels, and maintained for regular and continuous use.

Primitive Road: A linear route managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

These routes do not normally meet any BLM road design standards.

Trail: A linear route managed for human-powered, stock or off-highway vehicle forms of

transportation or for historical or heritage values. Trails are not generally managed for use by

four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

BLM Functional Classifications

Definitions:

Collector Road: These Bureau roads normally provide primary access to large blocks of land,

and connect with or are extensions of a public road system. Collector roads accommodate mixed

traffic and serve many uses. They generally receive the highest volume of traffic of all the roads in

the Bureau road system. User cost, safety, comfort and travel time are primary road management

considerations. Collector roads usually require application of the highest standards used by the

Bureau. As a result, they have the potential for creating substantial environmental impacts and

often require complex mitigation procedures.

Local Road: The Bureau roads normal serve a smaller area than collectors, and connect to

collectors or public road systems. Local roads receive lower volumes, carry fewer traffic

types and generally serve fewer uses. User cost, comfort and travel time are secondary to

construction and maintenance cost considerations. Low volume local roads in mountainous

terrain, where operation speed is reduced by effort of terrain, may be single land roads with

turnouts. Environmental impacts are reduced as steeper grades, sharper curves, and lower design

speeds than would be permissible on collector roads are allowable.

Resource Road: These Bureau roads normally are spur roads that provide point access and

connect to local or collector roads. They carry very low volume and accommodate only one

or two types of use. Use restrictions are applied to prevent conflicts between users needing

the road and users attracted to the road. The location and design of these roads are governed

by environmental compatibility and minimizing Bureau costs, with minimal consideration for

user cost, comfort, or travel time.

Maintenance Intensity

August 2011

Appendix U Definition of Transportation Asset Type,

Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1322 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Level 0:

Maintenance Description:

● Existing routes that will no longer be maintained and not longer be declared a route. Routes

identified as Level 0 are identified for removal from the Transportation System entirely.

Maintenance Objectives:

● No Planned annual maintenance

● Meeting identified environmental needs

● No preventive maintenance or planned annual maintenance activities

Maintenance Funds:

● No annual maintenance funds

Level 1

Maintenance Description:

● Routes where minimum (low intensity) maintenance is required to protect adjacent lands and

resource values. These roads may be impassable for extended periods of time.

Maintenance Objectives:

● Low (minimal) maintenance intensity

● Emphasis is given to maintaining drainage and runoff patterns as needed to protect adjacent

lands. Grading, brushing or slide removal is not performed unless route bed drainage is

being adversely affected, causing erosion.

● Meet identified resource management objectives.

● Perform maintenance as necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource values

● No preventive maintenance

● Planned maintenance activities limited to environmental and resource protection

● Route surface and other physical features are not maintained for regular traffic

Maintenance Funds:

● Maintenance funds provided to address environmental and resource protection requirements.

No maintenance funds provided to perform preventive maintenance.

Level 3

Maintenance Description:

● Routes requiring moderate maintenance due to low volume use (e.g. seasonally or year-round

for commercial, recreation, or administrative access). Maintenance Intensities may not

Appendix U Definition of Transportation Asset Type,

Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1323

provide year-round access but are intended to generally provide resources appropriate to keep

the route in use for the majority of the year.

Maintenance Objectives:

● Medium (Moderate) maintenance intensity

● Drainage structures will be maintained as needed. Surface maintenance will be conducted to

provide a reasonable level of riding comfort at prudent speeds for the route conditions and

intended use. Brushing is conducted as needed to improve sight distance when appropriate for

management uses. Landslides adversely affecting drainage receive high priority for removal;

otherwise, they will be removed on a scheduled basis.

● Meet identified environmental needs

● Generally maintained for year-round traffic

● Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource values

● Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally keep the route in acceptable condition

Maintenance Funds:

● Maintenance funds provided to preserve the route in the current condition, perform preventive

maintenance activities on a scheduled basis, and address environmental and resource

protection requirements.

Level 5

Maintenance Description:

● Routes for high (Maximum) maintenance due to year-round needs, high volume traffic,

or significant use. Also may include routes identified through management objectives as

requiring high intensities of maintenance or to be maintained open on a year-round basis.

Maintenance Objectives:

● High (Maximum) maintenance intensity

● The entire route will be maintained at least annually. Problems will be repaired as discovered.

These routes may be closed or have limited access due to weather conditions bur are generally

intended for year-round use.

● Meet identified environmental needs

● Generally maintained for year-round traffic

● Perform annual maintenance necessary to protect adjacent lands and resource values

● Perform preventive maintenance as required to generally keep the route in acceptable condition

● Planned maintenance activities should include environmental and resource protection efforts,

annual route surface

● Route surface and other physical features are maintained for regular traffic

August 2011

Appendix U Definition of Transportation Asset Type,

Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1324 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Maintenance Funds:

● Maintenance funds provided to preserve the route in the current condition, perform planned

preventive maintenance activities on a scheduled basis, and address environmental and

resource protection requirements.

Appendix U Definition of Transportation Asset Type,

Functional Class, Maintenance Intensity

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1325

Appendix V. Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Area Considered:Coffee Pot-Batamote

General location T.11S. R.6, 5, 4 & 3W. (portions of) T.12S. R.4 W. (portions of)

General description

Sonoran desert ecosystem. Contains many wooded washes and boulder areas for

candidate species. Contains foraging areas for endangered lesser long-nosed bat. Contains

significant cultural artifacts.

Acreage 63,400 acres

Values considered Wildlife, Natural process or system, Cultural resources

Identification Criteria

To be considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in RMP alternatives, an area must meet the criteria of relevance

and importance, as established in 43 CFR 1610.7-2.

Relevance: There shall be present a “significant” historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or

other natural system or process; or natural hazard. This generally means that the value, resource, system, process,

or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following:

Relevance Value Yes/No Rational for Determination

A significant historic, cultural,

or scenic value (including but

not limited to rare or sensitive

archeological resources and religious

or cultural resources important to

Native Americans).

Yes The area is of significant cultural importance as it is adjacent

to the Tohono O’odham Nation and is part of their traditional

homelands. In addition, a broad variety of cultural sites dating

from the Middle Archaic period, thousands of years ago, to

the late 19th century are represented in this area. The density

of sites is greater in these areas than in the surrounding areas.

One of the most important prehistoric obsidian sources for tool

materials is located in this area.

A fish and wildlife resource

(including but not limited to

habitat for endangered, sensitive,

or threatened species; or habitat

essential for maintaining species

diversity).

Yes

Area contains habitat for the Sonoran desert tortoise. All three

habitat types are within the ACEC. Category I, II, and III. Also

contains habitat for the sensitive species cactus ferruginous

pygmy owl and foraging habitat for the endangered lesser

long-nosed bat.

A natural process or system

(including but not limited to

endangered, sensitive, or threatened

plant species; rare, endemic, or relict

plants or plant communities which

are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or

rare geological features).

Yes ● Acuna cacti are Restricted to well drained knolls and

gravel ridges between major washes in Sonoran desertscrub

habitat. Acuna cacti are found on granite substrates on

rounded small hills at elevations ranging from 397 to 610 m

(1300-2000 ft). Elevation is a limiting factor.

● The area also contains all three habitats for the desert tortoise

as well as habitat for the cactus ferruginous pygmy owl.

Natural hazards (including but

not limited to areas of avalanche,

dangerous flooding, landslides,

unstable soils, seismic activity, or

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by

human action may meet the relevance

criteria if it is determined through

the resource management planning

process that it has become part of a

natural process.

No

No natural hazards are known to occur.

Importance Criteria

Importance: The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial significance and

values to satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important

if it is a significant threat to human life or property.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1326 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered:Coffee Pot-Batamote

Has more than locally significant

qualities, which give it special

worth, consequence, meaning,

distinctiveness, or cause for concern,

especially compared to any similar

resource.

Yes The area is of significant cultural importance as it is adjacent

to the Tohono O’odham Nation and is part of their traditional

homelands. In addition, a broad variety of cultural sites dating

from the Middle Archaic period, thousands of years ago, to

the late 19th century is represented in this area. The density

of sites is greater in these areas than in the surrounding areas.

One of the most important prehistoric obsidian sources for tool

materials is located in this area.

Has qualities or circumstances that

make it fragile, sensitive, rare,

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique,

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable

to adverse change.

Yes The Coffee Pot-Batamote Area is an important part of a larger

intact wildlife habitat area, which spans the Sand Tanks

area of the Barry M. Goldwater Range and Sonoran Desert

National Monument. This entire area provides important

opportunities to maintain quality habitat for a wide variety of

wildlife, particularly for populations requiring large ranges. It

also contains Category I desert tortoise habitat which BLM

is committed to maintain at no net loss and habitat for the

maintenance and recovery of the candidate cactus-ferruginous

pygmy owl and Acuña cactus. Stands of saguaro cactus provide

foraging habitat for the endangered lesser long-nosed bat.

Washes located within the proposed ACEC contains suitable

habitat for the candidate cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl.

Has been recognized as warranting

protection to satisfy national priority

concerns or to carry out the mandates

of FLPMA.

Yes

BLM is mandated to protect threatened, endangered, and

candidate species and their habitats under the ESA.

Has qualities that warrant highlighting

to satisfy public or management

concerns about safety and public

welfare.

No

No qualities were identified.

Poses a significant threat to human

life and safety or to property.

No

No threats have been identified.

Area Considered: Cuerda de Lena

General location T.13S. R. 6 & 5 W. (portions of) and T14S. R.6 & 5 W. (portions of)

General description Sonoran desert ecosystem

Acreage 59,300 acres

Values considered Wildlife, Natural process or system, Cultural resources

Identification Criteria

To be considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in RMP alternatives, an area must meet the criteria of relevance

and importance, as established in 43 CFR 1610.7-2.

Relevance: There shall be present a “significant” historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or

other natural system or process; or natural hazard. This generally means that the value, resource, system, process,

or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following:

Relevance Value Yes/No Rational for Determination

A significant historic, cultural,

or scenic value (including but

not limited to rare or sensitive

archeological resources and religious

or cultural resources important to

Native Americans).

Yes The area is of significant cultural importance as it is adjacent

to the Tohono O’odham Nation and is part of their traditional

homelands. In addition, a broad variety of cultural sites dating

from the Middle Archaic period, thousands of years ago, to

the late 19th century are represented in this area. The density

of sites is greater in these areas than in the surrounding areas.

One of the most important prehistoric obsidian sources for tool

materials is located in this area.

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1327

Area Considered: Cuerda de Lena

A fish and wildlife resource

(including but not limited to

habitat for endangered, sensitive,

or threatened species; or habitat

essential for maintaining species

diversity).

Yes The area is only area within the Lower Sonoran Field Office that

is managed for the endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope.

There are currently Sonoran pronghorn that take up residence

on public lands within the proposed bounds of the ACEC. The

proposed ACEC also contains suitable and occupied habitat for

the Candidate species Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl.

A natural process or system

(including but not limited to

endangered, sensitive, or threatened

plant species; rare, endemic, or relict

plants or plant communities which

are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or

rare geological features).

Yes

The area contains Saguaro cactus forest situations which are

foraging habitat for the endangered lesser long-nosed bat. The

proposed ACEC also contains suitable and occupied habitat

for the Candidate species Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The

proposed ACEC contains important fawning, breeding, loafing

and foraging habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn.

Natural hazards (including but

not limited to areas of avalanche,

dangerous flooding, landslides,

unstable soils, seismic activity, or

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by

human action may meet the relevance

criteria if it is determined through

the resource management planning

process that it has become part of a

natural process.

No

No natural hazards are known to occur.

Importance Criteria

Importance: The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial significance and

values to satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important

if it is a significant threat to human life or property.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

Has more than locally significant

qualities, which give it special

worth, consequence, meaning,

distinctiveness, or cause for concern,

especially compared to any similar

resource.

Yes

The area is of significant cultural importance as it is adjacent

to the Tohono O’odham Nation and is part of their traditional

homelands. In addition, a broad variety of cultural sites dating

from the Middle Archaic period, thousands of years ago, to

the late 19th century is represented in this area. The density

of sites is greater in these areas than in the surrounding areas.

One of the most important prehistoric obsidian sources for tool

materials is located in this area.

Has qualities or circumstances that

make it fragile, sensitive, rare,

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique,

endangered, threatened, or vulnerable

to adverse change.

Yes

The proposed Cuerda de Lena ACEC contains significant

wildlife resources, including priority habitat for three

endangered (priority) species - Sonoran pronghorn, lesser

long-nosed bat, and the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The

area is identified was proposed as critical habitat for the cactus

ferruginous pygmy-owl and includes a proposed recovery

area for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The area provides

important fawning habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn. Several

large washes provide suitable cactus ferruginous pygmy owl

habitat. The area provides foraging habitat for the endangered

lesser long nosed bat and includes habitat for special status

(priority) species including the Sonoran desert tortoise and rosy

boa. There is a strong cultural resource component associated

with this area because the area is part of the traditional Tohono

O’odham homeland and contains much important information

about prehistoric settlement and subsistence. The area is

popular with local residents and seasonal winter visitors from

around the United States and Canada for dispersed recreation

including camping and sightseeing.

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1328 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered: Cuerda de Lena

Has been recognized as warranting

protection to satisfy national priority

concerns or to carry out the mandates

of FLPMA.

Yes

BLM is mandated to protect threatened, endangered, and

candidate species and their habitats under the ESA.

Has qualities that warrant highlighting

to satisfy public or management

concerns about safety and public

welfare.

No No qualities were identified.

Poses a significant threat to human life

and safety or to property.

No No threats have been identified.

Area Considered: Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

General location

T.05S. R.9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 & 3W. (portions of) T.04S. R.9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 W. (portions of) T.03S.

R. 5, 4 W. (portions of) T.02S. R. 5 W. (portions of)

T.01S. R. 5, 4, 3, 2 W. (portions of) T.04S. R. 1, 2 W. (portions of)

General description Historic trails and petroglyphs along the lower Gila River to Yuma County

Acreage 63,400 acres

Values considered Cultural, Archaeological, Historic Trails

Identification Criteria

To be considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in RMP alternatives, an area must meet the criteria of relevance

and importance, as established in 43 CFR 1610.7-2.

Relevance: There shall be present a “significant” historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or

other natural system or process; or natural hazard. This generally means that the value, resource, system, process,

or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following:

Relevance Value Yes/No Rational for Determination

A significant historic, cultural,

or scenic value (including but

not limited to rare or sensitive

archeological resources and religious

or cultural resources important to

Native Americans).

Yes ● The trails and associated landscapes in this area have

national significance as they are part of an important story

about the peoples that have lived in, traveled through, and

influenced the trail area. As well, the trails and landscapes

inform us about the broader story of southwestern

and transcontinental settlement, communications, and

development. The cultural sites along the Gila River also

have regional significance as they help to tell the story of the

southwest’s indigenous peoples.

● Occupation and use of the Gila River terraces and trails

spanned thousands of years evidenced by extensive

prehistoric village sites and petroglyph sites, as well as

associated canals, farmsteads, intaglios, small camp sites,

and trails. Historic uses included dams, water diversion

features, trails, graves, stage station, corrals, and historic

mines. At least 250 sites have been recorded within the

ACEC boundary and are managed under a variety of

jurisdictions.

● Humans occupied this area beginning in the Archaic Period,

nearly 8,000 to 10,000 years ago as evidenced by the use

of distinctive stone tools, including projectile points. By

300 B.C. the archaeological evidence begins to show the

use of ceramic vessels and cultivation of corn. Along the

Salt and Gila Rivers, the Hohokam tradition was born,

and is now recognized by their high level of sophisticated

canal systems, used for irrigated cultivation of corn, beans,

squash, and cotton. Their pottery was often a buff color and

decorated forms showed an exceptional artistry rendered

in red on buff. Hohokam thrived in the area until the late

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1329

Area Considered: Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

13th century, when they were forced to relocate to land with

more abundant water supplies.

● The area of the Gila River within the proposed ACEC was

located on the periphery of the core area of the Hohokam

tradition, but happened to be situated where major travel

corridors developed.

● People from the Yuma / lower Colorado River region,

called the Patayan, began to appear in the area by the first

millennium A.D. The Patayan did not practice irrigation,

but can be recognized by their pottery, a thin, buff colored

type fired harder and polished. First the Desert Archaic and

then the Patayan and Hohokam cultures contributed to the

petroglyphs.

● A variety of cultural sites are concentrated along the basalt

mesas and terraces overlooking the Gila River. The area

represents an unstudied instance: an amalgamation of

elements from several archaeological cultures.

● In addition, the ACEC encloses an historic travel corridor

with portions of the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic

Trail, Butterfield Overland Mail Route, Mormon Battalion

Trail, and the Gila Trail following the same course along the

Gila River floodplain.

● More recently, these trails and river corridors served

explorers, emigrants, commercial mail and freight

companies, and the military during the 18th and 19th century

western expansion. In 1775, Captain Juan Bautista de Anza

traveled from Tubac, Arizona to California. The Juan

Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail commemorates

this passage. In 1858, the Butterfield Stage Line travelled

the area, preceded by the 1846 Mormon Battalion and

California 49er gold rush traffic.

● While much of this ACEC has not been systematically

studied, there are some recent archaeological investigations

by recognized experts that support a long held supposition

that this area along the Gila River terraces were occupied

by a great many people over a long period of time. Henry

D. Wallace (1989), writes, “For the western desert in

particular, water plays a very important role in determining

the patterning of prehistoric settlement and activities.”

● One study, entitled An Archaeological Survey of Enterprise

Ranch, Maricopa County, Arizona, was written in 2007

by Glen Rice, et al, a well-known expert on Hohokam

archaeology. Dr. Rice’s crew inventoried 2,740 acres of

private land known as the Enterprise Ranch, which is

adjacent to BLM lands. A total of 12 sites were recorded,

eight of which have the characteristics which would make

them eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP). Four sites are large, complex village sites with

ballcourts, compound walls, trash mounds, houses, and

plaza areas. Three sites are smaller residential sites or

farmsteads with buried features. Three sites are prehistoric

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1330 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered: Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

work camps. One site has historic trash and possible historic

flood control dam. The remaining sites are small, artifact

scatters and possible camps. Almost all of the sites date to

the Colonial and Sedentary Periods of Hohokam tradition,

roughly AD 750-1150. Two petroglyph sites were recorded

off the edge of this study area.

● Another important cultural resource investigation

was documented in the report entitled Archaeological

Investigations at Petroglyph Sites in the Painted Rock

Reservoir Area, Southwestern Arizona, by Henry D.Wallace

(1989), noted archaeologist specializing in rock art. This

study focused on the petroglyph sites that occur within

proximity of the Gila River between Gila Bend and the

Painted Rock Dam. A total of 40 petroglyph sites were

recorded in the area along the Gila River between Red

Rock Canyon and Painted Rock Dam. The more than 53

known cultural sites in this particular study area along the

Gila River range from petroglyph sites to prehistoric trail

segments to artifact scatters.

● The research potential in this proposed ACEC is unmatched.

This is a large body of unique cultural resource data because

of the number and complexity of the sites present.

● The Gila River terraces and the historic trails along the

Lower Gila River contain a significant collection of historic,

cultural, archeological, and scenic values. Upon searching

the archival map collection here in the Phoenix District

Office, it is estimated that 250 cultural sites have been

recorded to date within the ACEC boundary.

A fish and wildlife resource

(including but not limited to

habitat for endangered, sensitive,

or threatened species; or habitat

essential for maintaining species

diversity).

No ● Small parts of this ACEC proposal provide dispersed habitat

for quail, dove, deer, and a variety of other wildlife species.

In 1954, a segregation order on the Fred J. Weiler Greenbelt

withdrew a total of 62,735 acres under Public Land Order

1015 for wildlife habitat.

● The Gila River terraces corridor and trails area provides

habitats for resident and migratory wildlife, but its overall

contribution to habitat diversity and connectivity is minor.

It does provide some connectivity to upland habitats and

movement up and down the Gila River.

● Along riparian stretches of the corridor, mourning and

white-winged doves, Gambel’s quail, coyote, desert

cottontail and black-tailed jackrabbit are found, along

with javelina, mule deer, and bobcat. Resident songbirds

include black and Say’s phoebes, ash-throated flycatcher,

loggerhead shrike, phainopepla, verdin, cactus, rock and

canyon wrens, black-tailed gnatcatcher, crissal thrasher,

Abert’s towhee, and black-throated sparrow. In winter,

species include sparrows and blackbirds. Birds of prey are

present during the fall and winter.

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1331

Area Considered: Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

A natural process or system

(including but not limited to

endangered, sensitive, or threatened

plant species; rare, endemic, or relict

plants or plant communities which

are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or

rare geological features).

No Not applicable.

Natural hazards (including but

not limited to areas of avalanche,

dangerous flooding, landslides,

unstable soils, seismic activity, or

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by

human action may meet the relevance

criteria if it is determined through

the resource management planning

process that it has become part of a

natural process.

No Not applicable.

Importance Criteria

Importance: The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial significance and

values to satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important

if it is a significant threat to human life or property.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

Has more than locally significant

qualities, which give it special

worth, consequence, meaning,

distinctiveness, or cause for concern,

especially compared to any similar

resource.

Yes ● The ACEC’s basalt boulder terraces contain extensive

examples of petroglyphs in the region. These petroglyph

panels are a unique and irreplaceable part of America’s

national heritage that requires increased protection to prevent

looting and vandalism.

● These river terraces and trails are part of important stories

about prehistoric and historic development of the American

nation. The trails were used prehistorically as important trade

and travel routes for Native Americans. In historic times,

these trails were used by explorers, emigrants, commercial

mail and freight companies, and the military during the 18th

and 19th century Anglo and Hispanic western expansion.

Has qualities or circumstances

that make it fragile, sensitive,

rare, irreplaceable, exemplary,

unique, endangered, threatened, or

vulnerable to adverse change.

Yes ● A wide diversity of significant prehistoric cultural sites are

found along the Gila River, which supported robust cultures

as a reliable source of water. The density of sites is higher

than many surrounding areas, and includes extensive and

important prehistoric petroglyph sites, village sites, canals,

trails, and associated sites. The sites date from the Late

Archaic, more than two thousand years ago, to the late

19th century. Many of these sites have the characteristics

essential for a site to be eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places.

● Sites are at risk due to the increased urbanization and

encroachment and associated increase in activities on the

public lands. The area’s cultural values are exceedingly

delicate and vulnerable to impacts from other land uses such

as recreational OHV, mineral material sales, mining and

rights-of-way. Inundation, vandalism, boulder displacement,

farmland encroachment, target shooting, erosion, trash

accumulation, soil deposition, and unauthorized collection

are some of the most common threats to these resources.

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1332 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered: Gila River Terraces and Lower Gila Historic Trails

Has been recognized as warranting

protection to satisfy national priority

concerns or to carry out the mandates

of FLPMA.

Yes ● FLPMA directs BLM to manage the public lands “in a

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,

historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric,

water resource, and archeological values.” The relevance

and importance of this ACEC proposal illustrates this area’s

extensive cultural resource values. The potential for impacts

to the ACEC’s archaeological features and the Fred J. Weiler

Greenbelt, make this ACEC a BLM management priority.

● The petroglyph panels and other cultural resource features

are vulnerable to vandalism, looting, and impacts from other

land uses. The ACEC’s proximity to growing communities

increases the likelihood of recreational damage occurring

to cultural resources.

● Increased use of the Gila River terraces and historic trails by

indiscriminate OHV travel, target shooters, unauthorized

collection of natural and cultural resources, vandalism, and

rock and quarry saleable mineral material operations could

disturb or destroy significant cultural sites and represent a

major threat to the cultural and historic trail resources. For

example, the use and ownership of OHVs in the Phoenix

metropolitan area and throughout the terraces and trail

corridors is expected to grow dramatically over the life of

the plan. Moreover, over 100,000 new homes are platted

near the area as communities southward (Gila Bend) and

northward (Buckeye) look forward for rapid growth as

economic expansion returns to the region.

Has qualities that warrant

highlighting to satisfy public or

management concerns about safety

and public welfare.

No Not applicable.

Poses a significant threat to human

life and safety or to property.

No Not applicable.

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

General location T.10N. R. 8 & 7 W. (portions of) and T.10S. R.8 & 7 W. (portions of)

General description

A 55,000+ acre block of Sonoran Desert public lands in western Maricopa County,

west of Phoenix

Acreage 55,600 acres

Values considered Cultural, Wildlife, Scenic, Geology, Education, Sensitive Status Species

Identification Criteria

To be considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in RMP alternatives, an area must meet the criteria of relevance

and importance, as established in 43 CFR 1610.7-2.

Relevance: There shall be present a “significant” historic, cultural, or scenic value; a fish or wildlife resource or

other natural system or process; or natural hazard. This generally means that the value, resource, system, process,

or hazard is characterized by one or more of the following:

Relevance Value Yes/No Rational for Determination

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1333

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

A significant historic, cultural, or scenic

value (including but not limited to rare

or sensitive archeological resources and

religious or cultural resources important

to Native Americans).

Yes ● Saddle Mountain is a volcanic landscape containing

unique archaeological sites, wildlife habitat, interpretive

geology, and dramatic scenery. Recognized by travelers

for thousands of years, Saddle Mountain is a distinctive

landmark located on the fringe of metropolitan Phoenix,

Arizona--60 miles west of downtown. The mountain

towers 2,000 feet above the Harquahala Plain at an

altitude of 3,037 feet above sea level.

● The area contains a rich diversity of significant

cultural sites. The density of sites is higher than many

surrounding areas, and includes important prehistoric

petroglyph, rock shelter, and geoglyph sites. The sites

date from the Middle Archaic, several thousand years

ago, to the middle of the 19th century. At least five sites

have the characteristics essential for a site to be eligible

for the National Register of Historic Places. Sites are at

risk due to the increased urbanization and encroachment

and associated increase in recreation and commercial

activities on the public lands.

● Saddle Mountain and the Palo Verde Hills region share

a history spanning thousands of years of prehistoric

cultures that inhabited the deserts of western Arizona.

Converging washes and uplands provided the Palo

Verde Hills and Saddle Mountain area with an arboreal

environment, creating stands of mesquite, ironwood, and

Palo Verde trees. This environment provided sources of

food and cover. Plus, both areas offered opportunities

for hunting deer and bighorn sheep along with smaller

game animals. An overview of cultures associated

with this Saddle Mountain site stretch from Middle

Archaic traditions of the Amargosa to the later Patayan,

Hakataya, and Hohokam to more recent historic Yavapai

and lastly, to the historic Anglo American.

● The volcanic upthrust of the mountain has created a

highly visual and scenic example of geologic forces.

Cliffs, spires, and buttes tinted by andesite, rhyolite,

and basalt result in magnificent scenery. Colorful

minerals scattered the northern skirt of the mountain.

The mountain's pyroclastic rocks, distilled by eons of

differential erosion account for the dramatic scenery

and multicolored strata witnessed today. This scenery is

viewed by thousands of motorists traveling on Interstate

10 each day.

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1334 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

A fish and wildlife resource (including

but not limited to habitat for endangered,

sensitive, or threatened species; or

habitat essential for maintaining species

diversity).

Yes ● This area provides habitat to a number of big game

species, including big horn sheep, javelina and mule

deer, habitat essential for maintaining species complexity

and diversity. The area provides habitat for BLM

sensitive species, including the Sonoran desert tortoise,

and nesting habitat for a variety of raptor species. Much

of the area is Category II desert tortoise habitat.

● The distinctive Saddle Mountain landform offers desert

bighorn sheep habitat and an associated lambing area,

augmented by a water tank developed through the

cooperative efforts of the Desert Bighorn Sheep Society,

the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and BLM.

Foliage creates a habitat valuable to a range of wildlife in

the Palo Verde Hills, including the aforementioned desert

tortoise, and approximately 162 other species. Important

or special status species within the area include Gila

monster, kit fox, Cooper’s hawk, and sharp-shinned

hawk. Additionally, prairie falcons and golden eagles are

found in the upper reaches of Saddle Mountain.

A natural process or system (including

but not limited to endangered, sensitive,

or threatened plant species; rare,

endemic, or relict plants or plant

communities which are terrestrial,

aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological

features).

Yes The mountain’s pyroclastic rocks, coupled with millenniums

of erosion and weathering, account for good rock specimen

hunting, a Saddle Mountain pursuit known throughout the

southwest in rock collection circles. One result of Saddle

Mountain's complex volcanic history has been the colorful

minerals scattered the northern skirt of the mountain.

However, the once plentiful fire agate, chalcedony,

and calcite "desert roses" have become scarce due to

over-collection. The mountain's pyroclastic rocks, distilled

by eons of differential erosion, account for the multicolored

strata that we see today. The mountain’s pyroclastic rocks

offer potential geological interpretation; nearly every type

of volcanic and pyroclastic rock type can be located in the

proposed ACEC.

Natural hazards (including but not

limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous

flooding, landslides, unstable soils,

seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs).

A hazard caused by human action

may meet the relevance criteria if it

is determined through the resource

management planning process that it

has become part of a natural process.

No There are no known natural hazards at this time.

Importance Criteria

Importance: The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial significance and

values to satisfy the “importance” criteria. This generally requires qualities of more than local significance and

special worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness or cause for concern. A natural hazard can be important

if it is a significant threat to human life or property.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1335

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

Has more than locally significant

qualities, which give it special worth,

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness,

or cause for concern, especially

compared to any similar resource.

Yes

● The proposed ACEC contains bighorn sheep and

desert tortoise, noteworthy priority wildlife species,

outstanding scenery and vistas, visually exposed

geologic forces, important cultural resources and

outdoor education opportun9itiess. Paved and

maintained dirt roads north and south of the area

represent both a benefit for ensuring popular regional

recreation visitation, and a threat from easy access,

OHVs, and nearby urbanization.

● The Saddle Mountain locale is the sole remaining and

potentially useable corridor for wildlife movement

north and south of Interstate 10. Consequently, the area

represents a regionally important wildlife movement

area between the Gila Bend Mountains to the south

and the Harquahala/Belmont Mountains to the north.

Moreover, future transportation mitigation could further

improve opportunities for wildlife movement. Such

wildlife movements are critical to maintain genetic

diversity for wildlife populations over large tracts of

public land north and south of Interstate 10.

● Saddle Mountain’s striking upthrust is a highly

visible and educational example of volcanic geologic

resources. A one-hour drive from downtown Phoenix,

Saddle Mountain is a familiar regional landmark to

community members, travelers, and urban recreationists

over hundreds of square miles.

● The area offers outstanding wildlife, cultural and

geologic study and education opportunities if these

resource values are maintained in good to excellent

condition. In particular, the mountain’s pyroclastic

rocks account for both dramatic scenery and interpretive

geologic values.

Has qualities or circumstances that make

it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable,

exemplary, unique, endangered,

threatened, or vulnerable to adverse

change.

Yes

● Contrasted by the surrounding area’s rapid development,

the Saddle Mountain area has long been noted for

its conspicuous natural condition, wildlife habitat,

geology, scenery and recreational opportunities. These

values are all especially vulnerable to adverse change

from increasing public use and commercial activities.

● Saddle Mountain’s easily assessable scenery and

landscapes are a rarity in the locality. Most natural

landscapes require difficult access and four wheel

drive. Saddle Mountain has long been recognized for

the quality and diversity of its recreation opportunities

and its unusual assemblage of scenic, geologic and

archaeological values. The area is noted by rock

collectors for mineral specimens and is a popular

camping and picnic area. Saddle Mountain is also noted

for its remarkable springtime wildflower displays of

poppies and other rare desert blooms.

● Increased use of Saddle Mountain’s public lands

by indiscriminate OHV travel, target shooters,

unauthorized collection of natural and cultural

resources, and saleable mineral material operations

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
1336 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

likely will disturb or destroy wildlife habitat, scenic

resources, and cultural landscapes. These uses represent

a major threat. Use of OHVs is expected to increase

as the population in of the Phoenix metropolitan area

and surrounding communities near the mountain grow

and sprawl into this area. Over 200,000 new homes are

anticipated and platted north, west and east of Saddle

Mountain the area over the next 20 years.

● Over the past quarter century, the area’s natural

conditions, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and

cultural values, have been steadily diminished and

sometimes destroyed by peripheral road building, OHV

travel, utility line construction, mining, arson, plant

theft, target shooting, wire burning, cultural resource

theft and vandalism, wildcat dumps and trash dumping,

abandoned and stolen cars, and other activities. Over

13,000 acres have been damaged in this fashion. Active

management of the area can both protect the geologic,

biological, and cultural resources and provide excellent

recreational opportunities based on these resources.

Has been recognized as warranting

protection to satisfy national priority

concerns or to carry out the mandates of

FLPMA.

Yes

● FLMPA mandates that the public lands be managed in a

manner that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic,

historical, ecological, environmental and archeological

values; and where appropriate, BLM will preserve and

protect certain public lands in their natural condition.

Such lands will provide food and habitat for wildlife and

provide for outdoor recreation. Additionally, FLMPA

stated regulations and plans for the protection of public

land areas of critical environmental concernwould be

promptly developed.

● The Saddle Mountain area warrants protection to meet

the mandates of FLPMA. Saddle Mountain’s dramatic

visibility and proximity to the Phoenix metropolitan

area, along with the newly developing or growing

communities surrounding near the mountain, have

presented it avid public attention. The land use plan’s

scoping process revealed strong public interest in

long-term protection and conservation of the area from

citizens across the region. Local, regional and national

citizen groups have proposed recreation SRMAs,

ACECs, wilderness, wilderness character allocations,

regional county park status, state park designation, and

federal national monument designation over the past

30 years.

● The area offers outstanding wildlife, cultural,

photography, geologic and outdoor education

opportunities for youth, regional schools and

universities, but only if the subject resource values are

maintained in good to excellent condition. In particular,

the mountain’s pyroclastic rocks account for dramatic

scenery, volcanic science, and potential geological

interpretive values. Nearly every type of volcanic and

pyroclastic rock type can be located in the area.

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

(ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1337

Area Considered: Saddle Mountain

Has qualities that warrant highlighting to

satisfy public or management concerns

about safety and public welfare.

No No qualities were identified.

Poses a significant threat to human life

and safety or to property.

No No threats have been identified.

August 2011

Appendix V Areas of Critical Environmental

Concern (ACEC) Evaluations

Methodology for Determining Adequate Protection

of Monument Objects
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1339

Appendix W. 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 Sonoran Desert National Monument and Lower Sonoran 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.

W.1. Standard One: Upland Sites

Upland soils exhibit infiltration, permeability, and erosion rates that are appropriate to soil type,

climate, and landform (ecological site). Criteria for Meeting Standard One Soil conditions

support the proper functioning of hydrologic, energy, and nutrient cycles. Many factors interact to

maintain stable soils and healthy soil conditions, including suitable amounts of vegetation cover,

litter, and soil porosity and organic matter. Under proper functioning conditions, rates of soil loss

and infiltration are consistent with the site's potential. Ground cover in the form of plants, litter,

or rock is present in pattern, kind, and amount sufficient to prevent accelerated erosion for the

ecological site; or ground cover is increasing as determined by monitoring over an established

period of time. Signs of accelerated erosion are minimal or diminishing for the ecological site as

determined by monitoring over an established period of time. As indicated by such factors as:

● ground cover,

● litter,

● live vegetation (e.g., grass, shrubs, trees) amount and type,

● rock,

● signs of erosion,

● flow pattern,

● gullies, and

● rills and plant pedestaling.

Exceptions and exemptions (where applicable): None.

W.2. Standard Two: Riparian-Wetland Sites

Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning condition.

August 2011

Appendix W Land Health Standards

Standard One: Upland Sites
1340 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

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 erosion-deposition

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

Riparian-Wetland 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.

W.3. Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions

Productive, diverse upland and riparian-wetland plant communities of native species exist and are

maintained. Criteria for Meeting Standard Three Upland and riparian-wetland plant communities

meet DPC objectives. Plant community objectives are determined with consideration for all

multiple uses. Objectives also address native species and the requirements of the Taylor Grazing

Act (TGA); FLPMA; Endangered Species Act (ESA); Clean Water Act (CWA); and suitable

laws, regulations, and policies. DPC objectives will be developed to assure that soil conditions

and ecosystem function described in Standards 1 and 2 are met. These objectives detail a

site-specific plant community, which when obtained, will assure rangeland health; State water

quality standards; and habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. Thus, DPC

objectives will be used as an indicator of ecosystem function and rangeland health. As indicated

by such factors as the following:

Appendix W Land Health Standards

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1341

● 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.

August 2011

Appendix W Land Health Standards

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1345

Appendix Y. List of Preparers

Bureau of Land Management

Preparers: 2011 Draft

Angelita S. Bulletts B.S., Anthropology Phoenix District Manager

Emily Garber

M.A., Anthropology;

B.A., Anthropology

Lower Sonoran Field Manager

Richard B. Hanson B.S., Park and Recreation Resources

Sonoran Desert National Monument Manager

and Recreation/Wilderness

Brian Achziger Fire Science

Fire Management Specialist, Fuels – Phoenix

District Office

Barbara Albiston B.S., English Writer/Editor – Boise District Office

Don Applegate

B.S., Recreation Resources

Management

Recreation Program Lead – Arizona State

Office

Leah Beaudoin Baker

M.A., Global Environmental Policy;

B.S., Biology

Planning and Environmental Coordinator –

Phoenix District Office

Mike Behrens

M.S., Forest Science/Fire Ecology;

B.S., Forest Science

Fire Management Officer – Phoenix District

Office (Former)

Jameson Belke B.S., Geography/Cartography

GIS Specialist – Phoenix District Office

(Former)

Thomas V. Bickauskas

B.S., Manufacturing Engineering

Technology

Travel Management Coordinator –

Hassayampa Field Office

Steve Bird B.S., Wildlife Sciences Wildlife Biologist – Sonoran Desert National

Monument

Todd Calico

B.I.S., Natural Resources Management

and Environmental Studies, GIS

Certificate

GIS Specialist – Arizona Strip Office

Bill Coulloudon B. S., Rangeland Management

Range Management Specialist – Arizona State

Office

David Eddy B.S., Geology Geologist – Hassayampa Field Office

Andrea Felton

M.S., Range and Wildlife

Management;

B.A, English

Rangeland Management Specialist — Lower

Sonoran Field Office

Sharisse Fisher B.S., Geography GIS Assistant – Phoenix District Office

Penny Foreman

B.S., Business Management;

B.S., Recreation and Tourism

Management

LS-SDNM RMP Project Manager – Lower

Sonoran Field Office

Chris Garbo

M.U.E.P, Urban & Environmental

Planning;

B.S., Regional Development

Planning and Environmental Assistant – Lower

Sonoran Field Office (Former)

Jeff Garrett B.S., Geology Mining Law Program Lead – Arizona State

Office

Jo Ann Goodlow M.P.M., Planning Management Reality Specialist– Lower Sonoran Field Office

Chris Horyza B.S., Forestry and Range Management

Arizona BLM Planning and Environmental

Program Lead – Arizona State Office

Michael Johnson M.A., Anthropology; B.A.

Anthropology

Deputy Preservation Officer – Arizona State

Office

Byron Lambeth B.S., Rangeland Management

Rangeland Resources – Lower Sonoran Field

Office (Former)

August 2011

Appendix Y List of Preparers

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1346 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Bureau of Land Management

Preparers: 2011 Draft

Mariano Lanza

B.S., Environmental Technology

Management and Engineering

Surface Protection Specialist, Hazardous

Materials, Public Safety – Lower Sonoran

Field Office

Matthew Magaletti

M.U.E.P., Urban and Environmental

Planning;

B.S., Planning

Realty Specialist/Assistant Planning and

Environmental Coordinator – Lower Sonoran

Field Office

Ken Mahoney

B.S., Leisure Studies, Park Planning &

Resource Management

National Landscape Conservation System

Coordinator – Arizona State Office

Elroy Masters B.A., Biology

State Fish and Wildlife Program Lead –

Arizona State Office

Joshua Mays B.S., Wildlife and Restoration Ecology

Biological Science Technician – Lower

Sonoran Field Office (Former)

Roger Oyler B.S., Agriculture, Range Science

Arizona Wild Horse and Burro Program Lead

– Arizona State Field Office

David G. Proffitt

M.U.E.P., Urban & Environmental

Planning;

B.A. English

Writer/Editor & Assistant Environmental

Planner – Lower Sonoran Field Office (Former)

William J. Ragsdale B.S., Agriculture

Outdoor Recreation Planner – Lower Sonoran

Field Office

Jim Renthal M.S., Watershed Management

Soil, Water, Air, Riparian Program Lead –

Arizona State Office

David L. Scarbrough B. S., Forestry

Outdoor Recreation Planner – Sonoran Desert

National Monument

Paul Sitzmann

B.A., Ecology and Evolutionary

Biology

Range Technician – Phoenix District Office

Michael Werner B.S., Natural Resources Realty Specialist – Arizona State Office

Ammon Wilhelm B.S., Fish and Wildlife Management Wildlife Biologist – Kingman Field Office

Preparers: 2006 Administrative Draft

Teresa A. Raml B.S., Wildlife Biology

Phoenix District Manager (Former)

District Manager – California Desert District

Jim Andersen B.S., Natural Resource Management

Lead Realty Specialist – Hassayampa Field

Office

Todd Calico

B.I.S., Natural Resources Management

and Environmental Studies, GIS

Certificate

GIS Specialist – Arizona Strip Office

Camille Champion

M.S., Environmental Sciences;

B.S., Geology

Lands and Realty – Lower Sonoran Field

Office (Former)

Ralph Costa B.S., Engineering

Acting Associate Field Manager for Lands and

Minerals (Retired)

William Crolly

A.S., Forest Technician

Technical Fire Management

Fire Management – Phoenix District Office

(Former)

Eugene Dahlem M.S., Zoology

Sonoran Desert National Monument Manager

(Retired)

Joseph Dixon

M.A., Geology;

B.A., Geology

Mineral Resources – Sonoran Desert National

Monument (Former)

Lin Fehlmann

B.S., Secondary Education

Biological Resources

Water Rights – Arizona State Office (Retired)

Appendix Y List of Preparers

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1347

Preparers: 2006 Administrative Draft

Helen Graham B.S., Biology

Fire Management – Phoenix District Field

Office (Former)

Nancy Guererro B.A., Communications

External Affairs – Phoenix District Office

(Former)

Marshal Kevin Harper M.A., Archaeology Lower Sonoran Field Manager (Former)

Genevieve Johnson

M.U.E.P., Urban and Environmental

Planning

B.S., Conservation Biology

Project Manager, Socioeconomics – Lower

Sonoran Field Office (Former)

Glenn Joki B.S., Engineering Studies

Fire Management – Phoenix District Office

(Retired)

Karen Kelleher M.E.M., Landscape Ecology

Sonoran Desert National Monument Manager

(Former)

James Maes B.S., Mechanical Engineering

Air Quality, Hazardous Materials, Public

Safety – Lower Sonoran Field Office (Former)

Angel Mayes A.A., General Studies

Realty Specialist – Sonoran Desert National

Monument (Former)

Sally Olivieri A.S., Forest Technician

Geographic Information Systems and Mapping

– Kingman Field Office

Demetrius PurdieWilliams

B.S., Technology

Geographic Information Systems and Mapping

– Phoenix District Office (Former)

Kirk N. Rentmeister B.S., Geology Geologist – Hassayampa Field Office (Former)

Gregg Simons B.S., Forest Management

BLM State Planning and Environmental

Coordinator – Arizona State Office (Retired)

Christine Tincher B.A., Communication

External Affairs – Phoenix District Office

(Former)

Lori Young B.S., Wildlife Management Wildlife Biologist – Sonoran Desert National

Monument (Former)

EnviroSystems Management

Lilian Jonas

Ph.D., Sociology;

M.A., Applied Sociology;

B.S., Biology

Writer/Editor

URS Corporation

Sunny Bush

M.T., Hazardous Materials and Waste

Management

B.A., English

Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety

Debra Duerr B.A., Urban Planning Project Manager, Visual Resources

Kirsten Erickson

M.A., Public History and US History

B.A., History

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Jennifer Frownfelter

M.S., Environmental Management,

Public Policy;

B.S., Environmental, Population, and

Organismic Biology; Environmental

Conservation

Lands and Realty

Jeff Johnson

M.S., Plant Biology;

B.S., Plant Biology

Biological Resources, Fire and Fuels

Colleen Mahoney None Administrative Support

August 2011

Appendix Y List of Preparers

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1348 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

URS Corporation

Peter Martinez

M.A., Geography Information

Management;

B.S., Environmental Geography

Database and Web Applications

Brad Norling

M.S., Zoology and Physiology;

B.S., Wildlife Biology

Biological Resources

Dave Palmer

M.A., Geology;

B.S., Geology

Minerals, Geological and Paleontological

Resources, Cave Resources

Meg Quarrie B.A., Liberal Arts Administrative Support

Ryan Rausch

M.S.E.L., Environmental Law;

B.A., Biology

Project Coordinator, Water Resources, Soils

Patty Renter

Geography, Visual Basic, Introduction

to ArcView, Computer Information

Systems

Geographic Information Systems

Gene Rogge

Ph.D., Anthropology;

M.A., Anthropology;

B.A., Anthropology

Cultural and Heritage Resources

Cindy Smith B.S., Liberal Arts and Sciences Principal-in-Charge

Barbara Sprungl

M.B.A., Business Administration;

B.S., Chemical Engineering

Air Quality

Richard Stuhan

B.S., Applied Geography/Geographic

Information Management/Remote

Sensing

Geographic Information Systems

Ginger Torres B.A., Earth Systems Science Lands and Realty

Brock Tunnicliff

Ph.D., Natural Resource Management;

M.S., Watershed Hydrology;

B.S., Forest Ecology

Wilderness Characteristics, Travel

Management, Special Designations,

Recreation

Leslie Watson B.S., Zoology Biological Resources

Sandy Weir

M.S., Geography;

B.S., Geography

Socioeconomics

Jessica Wellmeyer

M.S., Geology;

B.S., Geology

Water Resources and Soils

Jen Wennerlund

B.S., Geography, Cartography, Remote

Sensing, Land Use Planning

Geographic Information Systems Manager

Appendix Y List of Preparers

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1349

Appendix Z. References

American Community Survey. Accessed August 14, 2009.

Andereck, K. L., C. A. Voight, K. Larkin, and K. Freye. 2001. Differences between motorized

and nonmotorized trail users. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19(3): 17-32.

Arcadis Geraghty & Miller, Inc. and SWCA, Inc. 1997. Cactus Survey Report on Portions of the

Barry M. Goldwater Range. Report Prepared for Luke Air Force Base, 56 FW/RMO. Arizona.

Archer, Steven R., and Katherine I. Predick. 2008. "Climate change and ecosystems of the

Southwestern United States." Rangelands (Society for Range Management), June: 23-28.

Arita, H.T. Spatial segregation in long-nosed bats, Leptonycteris nivalis and Leponycteris

curasoae, in Mexico. Journal of Mammology. 79: 706-714.

Arizona Bat Resource Group. 2003. Arizona Bat Conservation Strategic Plan, Technical Report

213. K.E. Hinman and T.K. Snow, editors (August 2003)

Arizona Department of Commerce. 2003. Public Outreach, Local Plan Integration and Strategy

Findings. Prepared for the Arizona Department of Commerce and the Commerce and Economic

Development Commission by Elliott D. Pollack and Company Scottsdale, Arizona and Pat

Schroeder, Practical Solutions Mesa, Arizona. http://www.azcommerce.com/doclib/PROP/

SES%20Public%20Outreach%20exec%20summary.pdf (accessed June, 2010)

Arizona Department of Economic Security. 2005. “July 1, 2005 Population Estimates For

Arizona's Counties, Incorporated Places And Balance Of County,” Population Statistics Unit,

Research Administration, Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2006. Air Quality Plans: NAA and AA

with Maintenance Plans. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/plan/nonmeet.html

(accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2006. Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group Climate Change Action Plan. Accessed

at http://www.azclimatechange.gov/download/O40F9347.pdf (accessed June, 2010)

_____. 2005. 2005 Air Quality Annual Report. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/

forms/download/2005/aqd.pdf (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2004. 2004 Air Quality Annual Report. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/

forms/download/2004/air.pdf (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2003. 2003 Air Quality Annual Report. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/

forms/download/2003/aq.pdf (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2002. 2002 Air Quality Annual Report. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/

forms/reports.html#2002 (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2001. 2001 Air Quality Report. Available at http://www.azdeq.gov/function/

forms/reports.html#2001 (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2000. Annual Report 2000: Appendix I Air Quality Report. Prepared by the Air Quality

Division.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1350 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

_____. 1999. 1999 Air Quality Report: Appendix I to the 1999 Annual Report. Prepared by

the Air Quality Division.

_____. 1998. Air Quality Report: Appendix I to the 1998 Annual Report. Prepared by the Air

Quality Division.

_____. 1996. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, Section 13.1:

Wildfires and Prescribed Burning. Available at www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/archives.html

(accessed May 11, 2006).

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources. 2003. Arizona Mining Preliminary

Review for 2002. Nyal Niemuth, Mining Engineer . http://www.mines.az.gov/Info/

annual_production.html (accessed June, 2010)

Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 1999a. Phoenix Active Management

Area 3rd Management Plan. Arizona Department of Water Resources on-line report.

(accessed December 1, 2003). http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Watermanagement/AMAs/

ThirdManagementPlan3.htm#Phoenix

_____. 1999b. Pinal Active Management Area 3rd Management Plan. Arizona Department of

Water Resources on-line report. http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/Watermanagement/AMAs/

ThirdManagementPlan3.htm#Pinal (accessed June, 2010).

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2005. Wildlife Water Development Standards.

Revised April 2005.

_____. 2003. Arizona Heritage Data Management System. Available at http://www.azgfd.gov/

w_c/edits/hdms_species_lists.shtml (accessed June, 2010)

_____. 2003. The Economic Importance of Fishing and Hunting: Economic data on fishing

and hunting for the State of Arizona and for each Arizona County. Prepared by Jonathan

Silberman, PhD, Arizona State University West, School of Management. Available at

http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/w_c/FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf

_____. 2003. Hunt Arizona Survey: Harvest, and Hunt Data for Big and Small Game. Phoenix

Office, Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 2002. Arizona Shooting Ranges, a Strategic Plan for the Development of Arizona

Shooting Ranges.

_____. 2002. Arizona Shooting Ranges, a Strategic Plan for the development of

Arizona Shooting Ranges. Draft for Public Review and Comment. September.

http://www.basfaz.com/Strategic_Plan.htm (accessed June 2010)

_____. 2001a. Wildlife 2006. The Arizona Game and Fish Departments Wildlife Management

Program Strategic Plan for the years 2001-2006. Approved by the AGFD Commission January

19, 2001. 91 pp. Available at www.azgfd.com.

_____. 2001. Wildlife 2006, Wildlife Management Program Strategic Plan for the Years

2001-2006.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1351

_____. 1997. Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acuñensis. Unpublished Abstract Compiled

and Edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and Fish Department,

Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 1996. Wildlife of Special Concern in Arizona. Draft Arizona Game and Fish Department

Publication. Phoenix, Arizona. March 16.

Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State Parks. 2003. The Economic

Importance of Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation. Economic data on off-highway vehicle

recreation for the State of Arizona and for Each Arizona County Study Prepared by Jonathan

Silberman, PhD, Arizona State University West, School of Management. Available at

http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/w_c/OHV%20Report.pdf

Arizona Humanities Council. 2000. Cultural Heritage Tourism, Practical Applications. Available

at http://www.azhumanities.org/pdf/chtwrkbk.pdf. September.

Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team and Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1996.

Management Plan for the Sonoran Desert Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona.

Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise Team. 2000. R.C. Averill-Murray, ed. Status of the Sonoran

Population of the Desert Tortoise in Arizona: an Update. Arizona Interagency Desert Tortoise

Team and Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix. 48pp.

Arizona Mining Association. 2002. Copper: An Economic Profile, 2002. Available at

http://www.azcu.org/economicprofile/2002.html

Arizona Public Service (APS). 2006. APS Completes First Solar Trough Power Plant in

Arizona; and the First Built in the U.S. in 17 Years. April 20. Phoenix, Arizona. Available at

http://www.aps.com/main/news/releases/release_315.html

_____. 2003. Arizona Public Service Company 2003-2012 Ten-Year Plan.

_____. 2000. Buckeye Conceptual Planning Final Report. Prepared by BRW. Phoenix, Arizona.

June.

Arizona Rock Products Association (ARPA). 2006. Impact of the Rock Products Industry on the

Arizona Economy. Prepared by W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University

Arizona State Drought Monitoring Technical Committee, Arizona Water Department. 2009.

Monthly Drought Status by Watershed. Phoenix, Arizona, November 2, 2009.

Arizona State Land Department. 2003. Conceptual Plan for Gila Bend.

Arizona State Mine Inspector (ASMI). 2002. Ninety-first Annual Report for the Calendar

Year 2002. Office of the Arizona State Mine Inspector. Douglas K. Martin. 37 pp.

http://www.asmi.state.az.us/02annrpt.pdf

_____. 1998. Eighty-seventh Annual Report for the Calendar Year 1998. Douglas K. Martin.

http://www.asmi.state.az.us/98Annrpt.pdf

Arizona State Parks. 2009. Arizona Trails 2010: A Statewide Motorized & Non-Motorized

Trails Plan. Phoenix, Arizona.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1352 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

_____. 2004. Arizona Trails 2005: Statewide Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Phoenix

Office, Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 2003. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). October 2002.

Phoenix Office, Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 1999. Arizona Trails 2000: State Motorized and Nonmotorized Trails Plan. Phoenix

Office, Phoenix, Arizona.

AZSITE Consortium. 2003. AZSITE Cultural Resource Inventory. Arizona State Museum,

Arizona State University, Museum of Northern Arizona, State Historic Preservation Office.

Electronic document, http://azsite.asu.edu (data acquired on 26 October 2003).

Belnap, J., J.H. Kaltnecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001.

Biological Soil Crusts: Ecology and Management. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI),

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Technical Reference 1730-2, 119.

Bent, A.C. 1940. Life histories of North American Cuckoos, Goastsuckers, Hummingbirds, and

their allies. U.S. Natural Museum Bulletin. pp 176.

Bolen, W. P. 2001. Sand and Gravel, Construction. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook

2001._____. 2002. Sand and Gravel, Construction. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook

2002._____. 2003. Sand and Gravel, Construction. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook

2003._____. 2004. Sand and Gravel, Construction. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook

2004._____. 2005. Sand and Gravel, Construction. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook

2005.

Brown, B.T. 1988. Breeding ecology of a willow flycatcher population in Grand Canyon.

Arizona. Western Birds 19:25-33.

Brown, D. E. ed. 1994. Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern

Mexico. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press. 342 p.

Brown, D.E., and C. H. Lowe. 1980. Biotic Communities of the Southwest. General Technical

Publication RM-78, U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain and Range Experimental Station.

Brown, D.E., C.H. Lowe, and C.P. Pace. 1979. A digitized classification system for the biotic

communities of North America, with community (series) and association examples for the

Southwest, J. Arizona-Nevada Acad. Sci., 14 (Suppl. 1), 1–16, 1979

Browning, M.R. 1993. Comments on the taxonomy of Empidonax traillii (willow flycatcher).

Western Birds 24:241-257.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2005. “July 1, 2005 Population Estimates for Arizona's Counties,

Incorporated Places and Balance of County,” Population Statistics Unit, Research Administration.

July 1.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US. Department of Interior (USDI). In Press. Phoenix

District Fire Management Plan.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI). 2005. Analysis

of the Management Situation for the Phoenix South and Sonoran Desert National Monument

RMPS/EIS. Prepared for the Lower Sonoran Field Office. July 2005.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1353

_____. 2005a. Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1.

_____. 2005b. Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan: Five-Year Evaluation.

Phoenix Field Office.

_____. 2005. Personal communication between Myrna Galaz of BLM and Jaime Wood of URS

regarding land disposal and acquisition and utility rights-of-way within existing corridors.

_____. 2004. Phoenix South and Sonoran Desert National Monument Resource Management

Plans and Environmental Impact Statement Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report.

Prepared by: URS Corporation. April. Pp. 110.

_____. 2004a. Personal communication between Camille Champion and Jim Andersen of

BLM and Jennifer Frownfelter of URS regarding utility rights-of-way within existing corridors.

March 17.

_____. 2004a. News Release, BLM Budget Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/

news/releases/pages/2004/040202_budget/pr040202_budget_FS.html February 2.

_____. 2004b. News Release. BLM Proposes $1.7 Billion for FY 2005 Budget to

Enhance Multiple-Use Management through Conservation Partnerships. Available at

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/ releases/pages/2004/pr040202_budget.htm. February 2.

_____. 2004. Final Energy and Mineral Resource Potential Report. Phoenix South and Sonoran

Desert National Monument Resource Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statement.

April.

_____. 2003a. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air

Quality Management. Arizona State Office. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and

Environmental Assessment. September.

_____. 2003. Telephone call from Danny Rakestraw, URS Corporation, to Byron Lambeth,

BLM, Phoenix Field Office. December 16.

_____. 2003b. Final Energy and Mineral Potential Report. Phoenix South and Sonoran Desert

National Monument Resource Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statement. 62 pp

_____. 2003. Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-275, Consideration of Wilderness

Characteristics in Land Use Plans (Excluding Alaska). September 29.

_____. 2003. Woolsey Peak Wilderness and Signal Mountain Wilderness Management Plan,

Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Decision Record, Phoenix

Field Office. December.

_____. 2003c. Summary of October 8 RMP/EIS URS/BLM Interdisciplinary Team Field Trip.

Recorded by Carol Wirth.

_____. 2003. GIS Generated Data (potential error +0.05).

_____. 2003b. BLM Financial Management Information System, Arizona Labor/Operations

Target Reports. For Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Dated November 4.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1354 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

_____. 2003d. Recreation Management Information System data for the Phoenix Field Office,

Sonoran Desert National Monument. October 21.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/cost_recovery.Par.62768.File.dat/ObtainingaROWPamphlet.ss04-08-05.pdf

_____. 2003g. Bureau of Land Management, Washington Office. Information Bulletin No.

2003-138, Annual Adjustment of Linear Right-of-Way (R/W) Rental Rates. September 12.

_____. 2003i. Tables, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, Total Payments and Total Acres by State/County,

Entitlement Acreage by County and Agency, 1999 through 2003. Information obtained from:

http://www.blm.gov/pilt. December 16.

_____. 2003. Phoenix Field Office. Surface Management Information.

_____. 2002b. BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-164, Guidance to Address

Environmental Justice in Land Use Plans and Related National Environmental Policy Act

Documents.

_____. 2002c. Public Land Statistics 2002. http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls02/

_____. 2002. Sonoran Desert National Monument Current Management Guidance. Phoenix

Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona. May.

_____. 2002. Instruction Memorandum No. 2002-167, Social and Economic Analysis for Land

Use Planning, May 2002. Henri R. Bisson, Assistant Director Renewable Resources and Planning.

_____. 2001. National Management Strategy for Motorized Off-Highway Vehicle Use on Public

Lands. January 2001. Washington, D.C. Office, Washington, D.C.

_____. 2001. National Landscape Conservation System. Arizona Wilderness and Wilderness

Study Areas. Map and listing by field office with acreage. Printed by the U.S. Government

Printing Office. 763-079/43-5 Region No. 8.

_____. 2001. Integrating GIS Technologies with the Visual Resource Management Inventory

Process. Technical Note 407. National Science & Technology Center, Denver, Colorado.

November.

_____. 2000c. Bureau of Land Management, Lands and Realty Group, Washington, D.C.

Land Use Authorizations-Leases and Permits. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/

land_use_authorizations.html

_____. 1997. Arizona Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing

Administration. Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 1997. Mining claims and sites on Federal lands. BLM Solid Minerals Group brochure

_____. 1996. Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Washington, D.C.

_____. 1996b. Washington, D.C. Obtaining a Right-of-Way on Public Lands. United States

Government Printing Office. 573-016/40510.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1355

_____. 1995. Maricopa Complex Wilderness Management Plan, Environmental Assessment, and

Decision Record. Lower Gila Resource Area, Phoenix.

________. 1990. Strategy for Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on Public Lands in Arizona.

Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, Phoenix. 19pp.

_____. 1990. Final Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan (Goldwater Amendment).

Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, Arizona. 13 November.

_____. 1988. Desert Tortoise Habitat Management on the Public Lands: A Rangewide Plan.

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 23 pp.

_____. 1988. Rangewide plan for managing habitat of desert bighorn sheep on public lands.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. 41 pp.

_____. 1988. Record of Decision for the Lower Gila South RMP.

_____. 1988. BLM Manual section 1613 – Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

_____. 1986. H-8410-1. Visual Resource Inventory. Government Printing Office. Washington,

D.C

_____. 1985. Final Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact

Statement. Phoenix District Office, Phoenix, AZ. August.

_____. 1984. Manual Section 8400. Visual Resource Management. Government Printing Office.

Washington, D.C. 10

_____. 1983a. Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan. Phoenix District Office,

Phoenix, Arizona. March.

_____. 1983b. Lower Gila South Management Situation Analysis. Phoenix District Office,

Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 1983c. Phoenix Resource Area Management Situation Analysis. Phoenix District Office,

Phoenix, Arizona. March.

_____. 1980. Wilderness Review, Arizona: Intensive Inventory of Public Lands Administered by

Bureau of Land Management, Decision Report. Arizona State Office, Phoenix.

Business Week online. 2006. “Copper's Golden Hue.” By Mara DerHovanesian with Colin

Barraclough. May 9.

Cameron, R.E. 1960. Communities of soil algae occurring in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona.

Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 1:85-88.

Carpenter, _____. 1999. “South-Central Arizona: Earth fissures and subsidence complicate

development of desert water resources,” In Land Subsidence in the United States, edited by D.

Galloway, D.R. Jones and S.E. Ingebritsen. U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1182, Pages 65-78.

City of Apache Junction. 1999. Apache Junction General Plan.

City of Goodyear. 2001. City of Goodyear Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1356 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

City of Goodyear. 2003. Goodyear General Plan Update 2003-2013.

City of Phoenix. 2004. Aviation Department, Historical Traffic Statistics. Available at

http://skyharbor.com/pdf/historic_statistics.pdf (accessed on 20 January).

_____. 2003. Facility Plan, City of Phoenix SR 85 Landfill, Buckeye, Arizona.

_____. 2001. City of Phoenix General Plan.

Clinton, William J. 2001. Proclamation 7397 – Establishment of the Sonoran Desert National

Monument.

Cordy, G.E., J.A. Rees, R.J. Edmonds, J.B. Gebler, L. Wirt, D.J. Gellenbeck and D.W. Anning.

1998. Water-Quality Assessment of the Central Arizona Basins, Arizona and Northern Mexico –

Environmental Setting and Overview of Water Quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources

Investigation Report 98-4097.

Corman, T. 2005. Yellow-billed cuckoo. In: Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. T. Corman and C.

Wise-Gervais, eds. University of New Mexico Press, Albequerque, NM. 2pp.

DeLorme. 1999. Arizona Atlas and Gazetteer. Topo Maps of the Entire State. Public Lands.

Back Roads. Third Edition.

Ehrlich, P.R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook. Simon and Schuster,

New York, p.286.

Eller, B.M. 1997. Road dust induced increase of leaf temperature. Environmental Pollution

13:99-107

Esque, T.C., C.R. Schwalbe, L.A. DeFalco, R.B. Duncan, and T.J. Hughes. 2003. Effects of desert

wildfires on desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and other small vertebrates. The Southwestern

Naturalist 48(1): 103-111. Referenced in USDI, BLM. 2003. Arizona Statewide Land Use Plan

Amendment for Fire, Fuels and Air Quality Management. Arizona State Office. Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment. September.

Esque, T.C., and C.R. Schwalbe. In Review. Alien Annual Plants and Their Relationships to

Fire and Vegetation Change In Sonoran Desertscrub. In Invasive Organisms in the Sonoran

Desert. Tellman, B., and T. R. Van Devender, eds. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. Publisher to

be determined. Tucson, Arizona.

Farmer, A.M. 1992. The effects of dust on vegetation – a review. Environmental Pollution

79:63-75.

Federal Register. 2002. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical

Habitat for the Arizona Distinct Population Segment of the Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl

(Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). Vol. 67, No. 229. 71032-71064.

Fleming, T.H., M.D. Tuttle, and M.A. Horner. 1996. Pollination biology and the relative

importance of nocturnal and diurnal pollinators of three species of Sonoran Desert cacti.

Southwestern Naturalist. 41:257-269.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1357

Fleming, T.H., R.A. Nunez, and L.S.L. Steinberg. 1993. Seasonal changes in the diets of migrant

and non-migrant nectarivorous bats as revealed by carbon stable isotope analysis. Occologia

94: 72-74.

Flesch, A.D., and R.J. Steidl. 2007. Association between roadways and cactus ferruginous

pygmy-owls in northern Sonora, Mexico. Final Report for Arizona Department of Transportation ,

Environmental Planning Group, Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation.

Foti, P. and C. Patterson. 2003. Sonoran Desert National Monument Recreation Impact Inventory

Dispersed Sites. Northern Arizona University. October.

Galliano, S. J. and G. M. Loeffler. 1999. Place Assessment: How People Define Ecosystems. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest, Research Station; U.S. Department

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-462.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr_462.pdf. September.

GAO. 2007. Climate Change: Agencies should develop guideance for addressing the effects on

federal land and water resources. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Accountability

Office.

Garfin, G., M.A. Crimmins, and K. Jacobs. 2007. "Drought, Climate Variability, and Implications

for Water Supply and Management." In Arizona Water Policy: Management Innovations in an

Urbanizing, Arid Region, by B.G. Colby and K. (eds Jacobs, 61-78. Washington, D.C.: Resources

for the Future.

Gellenbeck, D.J., and D.W. Anning. 2002. Occurrence and Distribution of Pesticides and Volatile

Organic Compounds in Groundwater and Surface Water in Central Arizona Basins, 1996-98, and

Their Relation to Land Use. Water-Resources Investigation Report 01-4144.

Gila County. 2003. Draft Gila County 2012 Comprehensive Plan.

Groschupf, K. 1987. Status of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) in

Arizona and west Texas. Report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under contract

no. 20181-86-00731. 34 pp.

Hann et al. 2008. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy Fire Regime Condition Class website.

USDA Forest Service, USDA Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy and Systems

for Environment Management [www.frcc.gov].

Hall, J.A., P. Comer, A. Gondor, R. Marshall and S. Weinstein. 2001. Conservation Elements

of and a Biodiversity Management Framework for the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Arizona.

The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, Tucson.

Hanson, R. 2006. E-mail communication with Ryan Rausch, URS, regarding recreation activities

in SDNM, June 12, 2006.

Harp, A. J., N.R. Rimbey and T. D. Darden. 2001. Cohesion, Integration, and Attachment in

Owyhee County Communities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Range

Management, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, February 17-23.

Headwaters Economics. 2009. "Economic Profile System." Headwaters Economics, Bozeman,

Montana.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1358 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Hubbard, J.P. 1987. The status of the willow flycatcher in New Mexico. Endangered Species

Program, New Mexico Department of Fish and Game, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 29 pp.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1996. Fundamentals of conservation biology. Blackwell Science, Inc.,

Cambridge, MA.

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE). 2000. Spatial and

Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the United States:

Report III. Available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/Reports/2000/

2000.htm (accessed March 31, 2006).

Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations Task Group. 2010. Environmental

Guidelines for Delivery of Retardant or Foam near Waterways.

IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Geneva: United Nations Environmental

Programme.

Jacob, G. R. and R. Schreyer. 1980. Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoretical perspective.

Journal of Leisure Research 12(4): 368-380.

Johnson, R.R., L.T. Haight, and J.M. Simpson. 1987. Endangered habitats versus endangered

species: a management challenge. Western Birds 18:89-96.

Justus, J.R., and S.R. Fletcher. 2007. Global Climate Change. Nova Acience Publishing, Inc.

Kade, A., and S.D. Warren. 2002. Soil and plant recovery after historic military disturbances in

the Sonoran Desert, USA. Arid Land Research and Management 16: 231-243.

Katibah, E.F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California.

Pages 23-29 in R.E. Warner and K.M. Hendrix eds. California Riparian Systems: Ecology,

Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Keith, S. B., D. E. Gest, E. DeWitt, N. W. Toll, and B. A. Everson. 1983. Metallic Mineral

Districts and Production in Arizona. Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology

Bulletin 194, 58 pp.

Krausman, P.R., J.R. Morgart, L.K. Harris, C.S O’Brien, J.W. Cain III, and S.S. Rosenstock.

2005. Introduction: management for the survival of Sonoran pronghorn in the United States.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 33(1):5-7.

Maricopa. 2006. (City of Maricopa) Special Census 2005 Executive Summary. May 2. Phoenix,

Arizona.

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) 2003. Interim Projections of Population, Housing

and Employment by Municipal Planning Area and Regional Analysis Zone. July.

_____. 2003. Final Regional Transportation Plan. November 25. Available at

http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/detail.cms?item=3082.

_____. 2000. Desert Spaces Plan. Available at http://www.mag.maricopa.gov/

detail.cms?item=2560

Maricopa County. 2004. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan. August 16.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1359

_____. 2003. Maricopa County 2020 Eye To The Future Rainbow Valley Area Plan Update.

Maricopa County Planning and Development, Phoenix, Arizona. March.

_____. 2003. Draft Rainbow Valley Area Plan.

_____. 2003. Draft State Route 85 Corridor Area Plan.

_____. 2003. White Tanks Grand Avenue Area Plan.

_____. 2002. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Phase One.

_____. 2002b. Maricopa County Regional Trail System. Presentation to the Phoenix Association

of Realtors. http://www.maricopa.gov/trail/pdf/realtors.pdf.

_____. 2002. Maricopa County 2020, Eye to the Future Comprehensive Plan.

_____. 2002. Tonopah/Arlington Area Plan.

_____. 1992. Grand Avenue Corridor Area Land Use Plan.

_____. 1992. Maricopa County Land Use Plan Queen Creek Planning Area.

_____. 1991. Maricopa County Land Use Plan Mobile Planning Area.

Maricopa County Parks and Recreation. 2004. San Tan Mountains Regional Park Master Plan

Environmental Assessment.

McFadden, L.D., E.V. McDonald, S.G. Wells, K. Anderson, J. Quade, and S.L. Forman. 1998.

The vesicular layer and carbonate collars of desert soils and pavements: formation, age, and

relation to climate change. Geomorphology 24:101-145.

Mine Safety and Health Administration. 2004. Mine Yearly Reported Production Information

from 1983 to 2003 for Mine IDs 0201049, 0200112, 0202503, 0202416, 0202859, 0201136,

0202614, 0200156, and 0202798. Sum Average of Annual Employment data (totals).

http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm.

Monson, G., and L. Sumner. 1980. The Desert Bighorn: Its Life History, Ecology and

Management. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Morrison Institute for Public Policy. 2000. Hits and Misses: Fast Growth in Metropolitan

Phoenix. Copyright by the Arizona Board of Regents for and on behalf of Arizona State University

and its Morrison Institute for Public Policy. http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/

HitsAndMisses-FastGrowthMetroPhx/view?searchterm=hits%20and%20misses

Morrison, P.H., H.M. Smith IV and S.D. Snetsinger. 2003. The Natural Communities and

Ecological Condition of the Sonoran Desert National Monument and Adjacent Areas. Winthrop,

Washington: Pacific Biodiversity Institute.

Munzer, O.M., H.C. English, A.B. Smith, and A.A. Tudor. 2005. Southwestern willow flycatcher

2004 survey and nest monitoring report. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical

Report 244. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NASS). National Weather Service. Available

at http://www.nws.noaa.gov.

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1360 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

National Weather Service Forecast Office. 2009. Phoenix Monthly Precipitation 1896 to Present.

2009. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/psr/climate/ (accessed October 30, 2009).

National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (2001-2005).

National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2008. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology.

Available at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/pms205.pdf.

Niemuth, Nyal J. 2006. Arizona’s Metallic Resources, Trends and Opportunities 2006, Open File

Report 06-23. Phoenix, Arizona. February.

_____. 2005. Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources, Arizona 2004 Mining

Review. Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 2003. Copper production. Letter from Nyal Niemuth, Arizona Department of Mines and

Mineral Resources, to Dennis Carlson, URS. August 25. 6 pp.

Okin. G.S., B. Murray, and W.H Schlesinger. 2001. Degradation of sand arid shrubland

environments: observations, process modeling, and management implications. Journal of Arid

Environments 47: 123-144.

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM). 1999. Ecological monitoring program annual

report, 1996. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona.

_____. 1998. Ecological Monitoring Program Annual Report, 1995. Organ Pipe Cactus National

Monument, Arizona.

Phillips, K.. A., N. J. Niemuth and D.R. Bain. 2002. Active Mines in Arizona - 2001-2002.

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources Directory 49, 34 pp.

Pima County. 2004. Draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan.

_____. 2004. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. Pima County, Tucson, Arizona.

_____. 2003. Pima County Comprehensive Plan. Pima County Development Services

Department Planning Division, Tucson, Arizona. Adopted in 1992, revised in June 2003.

_____. 2002. Pima County, Arizona, Department of Finance. 2002. Comprehensive Annual

Financial Report, Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2002.

Pinal County. 2001. Pinal County Comprehensive Plan. Pinal County Planning, Florence,

Arizona. December.

Pollack, E. D. 2002. Arizona’s Tourism Impact, Arizona Blue Chip. June. Available at

http://www.arizonaeconomy.com/word_docs/azbc02-06.htm

P Plus Corporation. 2002. Second Biennial Transmission Assessment 2001-2011. Prepared for

the Arizona Corporation Commission, Phoenix, Arizona. December.

Rosenstock, S.S., M.J. Rabe, C.S. O’Brien and R.B. Waddell. 2004. Studies of wildlife water

developments in southwestern Arizona: wildlife use, water quality, wildlife diseases, wildlife

mortalities and influences on native pollinators. Arizona Game and Fish Department Research

Branch Technical Guidance Bulletin No. 8. Phoenix, 15 pp.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1361

Saunders, S., C. Montgomery, T. Easley, and T. Spencer. 2008. Hotter and Drier: The West's

Changed Climate. The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, Natural Resources Defense

Council.

Sheppard, Paul R., Andrew C. Comrie, Gregory D. Packin, Kurt Angersbach, and Malcolm K.

Hughes. 2002. "The climate of the US Southwest." Climate Research 21 (July): 219-238.

Sogge, M.K. 1995a. Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) monitoring

at Tuzigoot National Monument. 1995 progress report to the National Park Service. National

Biological Service Colorado Plateau Research Station/Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff,

Arizona. 20 pp.

Sogge, M.K. 1995b. Southwestern willow flycatchers in the Grand Canyon. Pages 89-91 in

LaRoe, E.T., G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac, eds. 1995. Our living

resources: A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants,

animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service,

Washington, DC. 520 pp.

Sogge, M.K., B.E. Kus, S.J. Sferra, and M.J. Whitfield. 2003. Ecology and conservation of the

southwestern willow flycatcher. Studies in avian biology 26. Cooper ornithological Society,

Camarillo, California. 210 pp.

Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1991. Soil Survey for Pinal County, Arizona – Western Part.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service (now Natural Resource Conservation

Service

_____. 1977. Soil Surveys for Maricopa County – Central Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), Soils Conservation Service (now Natural Resource Conservation Service. 117 p. plus

maps.

_____. 1974. Soil Survey for Eastern Maricopa and Northern Pinal Counties. USDA Soils

Conservation Service (now Natural Resource Conservation Service. 61 p. plus maps.

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Data and reports prepared by the Sonoran Institute for the Bureau of Land

Management to contribute to planning for the Sonoran Desert National Monument. Including

(1) reports on Socioeconomic Trends for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties; Ajo; Buckeye;

Casa Grande; Gila Bend; Phoenix; Sells; and Tucson; and (2) Data Sets and Calculations for

Civics, Education, Employment, Health and Safety, Housing, Income, Population, Resource and

Land Use, and Transportation. May.

Southwick Associates. 2003. Economic Impact Analysis of Nonconsumptive

Wildlife-Related Recreation in Arizona. Conducted for the Arizona Game and

Fish Department by Southwick Associates in conjunction with the Responsive

Management project, Arizona Residents’ Attitudes Toward Nongame Wildlife.

http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/w_c/AZ%20County%20Impacts%20-%20Southwick.pdf.

(accessed June, 2010).

Tepordei, V. V. 2001. Stone, Crushed. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2001._____.

2002. Stone, Crushed. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2002._____. 2003. Stone,

Crushed. U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2003._____. 2004. Stone, Crushed. U.S.

Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2004._____. 2005. Stone, Crushed. U.S. Geological

Survey Minerals Yearbook 2005

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1362 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

Thompson, J.R., P.W. Mueller, W. Fluckiger, and A.J. Rutter. 1984. The effect of dust on

photosynthesis and its significance for roadside plants. Environmental Pollution (Series A) 34:

171-190.

Tibbits, T.J., M.K. Sogge, and S.J. Sferra. 1994. A survey protocol for the southwestern

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). National Park Service Technical Report

NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04. 24 pp.

Tucson Electric Power. 2006. Springerville Generating Station Solar System Description.

Tucson, Arizona. January 1 update. http://greenwatts.com/pages/SolarStats/SolarDescr.html

_____. 2003. Tucson Electric Power Company Ten-Year Plan for Years 2003-2012. Prepared for

the Arizona Corporation Commission. Phoenix, Arizona. January.

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: an endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18:137-162.

URS Corporation. 2004. Phoenix South and Sonoran Desert National Monument Resource

Management Plans and Environmental Impact Statements Final Air Quality Baseline Report.

U.S. Air Force. 1999. Renewal of the Barry M. Goldwater Range Land Withdrawal Final

Legislative Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1. March.

_____. 1996. Final Characterization Plan for the Munitions Residue Burial Site on the Barry M.

Goldwater Range, Arizona.

U.S. Departments of the Air Force, Navy, and Interior (Lead Agency) and Arizona Game and Fish

Department. 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Proposed Integrated Natural

Resources Management Plan for the Barry M. Goldwater Range.

U.S. Departments of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Interior. 2003. Draft Environmental

Impact Statement Proposed Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan for the Barry M.

Goldwater Range, Arizona. February.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Annual New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits

http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml

_____. 2003a. New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized - Top 20 CMSAs/MSAs: 2002

http://www.census.gov/const/www/02msawebchart.pdf 02. May 1.

_____. 2003b. Monthly New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits, Cumulative to Date

Estimates with Imputation, December 2000 for Pinal County (021) and Maricopa County (013).

http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml

_____. 2003c. United States Census Bureau. 2003c. GCT-PH1-R-1 Table, Population, Housing

Units, Area, and Density (geographies ranked by total population): 2000 for Arizona and

Counties.

_____. 2003d. DP-1 Tables, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 for Arizona

and Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties. Information obtained from:

_____. 2003e. GCT-PH1-R-1 Table, Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density (geographies

ranked by total population): 2000 for Arizona and Counties.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1363

_____. 2003f. Poverty in the United States: 2002. Poverty Thresholds in 2002 by Size of Family

and Number of Related Children Under 18 Years. Issued September.

_____. 2003g. DP-3 Table, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Information

obtained from:

_____. 2003h. P6 Table, Race. Information obtained from:

_____. 2003i. QT-H10 Table, Units in Structure, Householder 65 Years and Over and

Householder Below Poverty Level: 2000 for United States, Arizona and Counties. Information

obtained from:

_____. 2003j. GCT-H5 Table, General Housing Characteristics: 2000 for Arizona and Counties.

_____. 2003k. H18 Table, Average Household Size of Occupied Housing Units by Tenure [3] –

Universe: 2000 for United States, Arizona and Counties. Information obtained from:

_____. 2003l. Census 2000 Brief: The Foreign-Born Population: 2000. C2KBR-34. By Nolan

Malone, Kaari F. Baluja, Joseph M. Costanzo, and Cynthia J. Davis. _____. 2003m. Census 2000

Special Reports, State-to-State Migration Flows: 1995 to 2000. CENSR-8. By Marc J. Perry.

_____. 2002a. Poverty Thresholds in 1999, by Size of Family and Number of Related Children

Under 18 Years.

_____. 2002b. The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief.

C2KBR/01-15. http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/c2kbr01-15.pdf. Issued February.

_____. 2001a. Census 2000 PHC-T-2. Ranking Tables for States: 1990 and

2000. Table 3. States Ranked by percent Population Change: 1990 to 2000.

http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/phc-t2/tab03.txt. Internet Release date: April 2.

_____. 2001b. Population Change and Distribution, Census 2000 Brief. C2KBR/01-2.

Information obtained from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf. Issued April.

_____. 2001c. The Hispanic Population, Census 2000 Brief. C2KBR/01-3. Information obtained

from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf. Issued May.

_____. 2001d. Age:2000, Census 2000 Brief. C2KBR/01-12. Information obtained from

http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf. Issued October.

_____. 2000a. Monthly New Privately-Owned Residential Building Permits, Cumulative to Date

Estimates with Imputation, December 2000 for Pinal County (021) and Maricopa County (013).

http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml

_____. 2000b. Land Area, Population, and Density for States and Counties: 1990. Table 1.

Data are consistent with 1990 Summary Tape File 1C.Released: March 12, 1996; Revised:

June 26, 2000 (Corrected population number for Alaska). Information obtained from

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/90den_stco.txt

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).

2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture, Arizona State and County Data. Available online at http://

www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Census_by_State/Arizona/index.asp

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1364 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Soil

Survey for the Gila Bend–Ajo Area. USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 257 p.

plus maps.

_____. 1991. Soil Survey for the Gila River Indian Community, USDA, Natural Resource

Conservation Service. 232 p. plus maps.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2003a. National Solar Radiation Database. Renewable

Resource Data Center (RReDC), National Renewable Energy Laboratory website:

http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/solar_resource.html.

______. 2003b. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Renewable

Resource Data Center (RReDC), National Renewable Energy Laboratory website:

http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/wind_resource.html.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DES) National Strategy for the Physical

Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets. February 2003. Available at

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Physical_Strategy.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI), National Park Service (NPS). 2003. Juan Bautista

de Anza National Historic Trail Long Range Interpretive Plan. Information obtained from

http://www.nps.gov/juba/parkmgmt/index.htm.

_____. 1998. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Final General Management Plan

Development Concept Plans Environmental Impact Statement.

_____. 1996. Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management

and Use Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Information obtained from

http://www.nps.gov/archive/juba/plan/anzaplan.htm. April.

_____. 1995. Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors A

Resource Book. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance. Fourth Edition. Revised.

U.S. Department of Interior. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Mineral Commodity

Summaries 2007.

_____. 2007a. Mineral Industry Surveys.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2001. Final Regional

Transportation Plan. Maricopa Association of Governments, 2003.

U.S. Department of Transportation (UDOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2003. FAA

Order 7400.2E. Procedure for Handling Airspace Matters. May 15.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Appendix G: Measures of Visibility

Impairment and Light Extinction. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/reports/

pmspapg.pdf. (accessed March 31, 2006).

_____. 2003. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, Section

13.2.2: Unpaved Roads. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0202.pdf

(accessed May 11, 2006).

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1365

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2006. Available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

arizona/Threatened.htm#CountyList. Accessed March 30, 2006.

_____. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat

for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Final Rule. Federal Register 70 (201): 60886-61009.

October 19.

_____. 2004. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Form for Yellow-billed

cuckoo, Western United States Distinct Population Segment. Available at:

http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r8/B06R_V01.pdf

_____. 2003a. Cactus Ferruginous Pygmy-owl Abstract. Species Abstract Compiled and Edited

by the Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

Phoenix, Arizona.

_____. 2003b. Sonoran Pronghorn Abstract. Species Abstract Compiled and Edited by the

Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix,

Arizona.

_____. 2003c. Revised Biological Opinion: Proposed and Ongoing Activities by the Marine

Corps Air Station-Yuma (MCAS-Yuma) (02-21-95-F-0114R4).

_____. 2002. Southwestern willow flycatcher recovery plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix

+210 pp.

_____. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month finding for a petition to

list the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the western continental United States.

Federal Register 66(143): 38611-38626.

_____. 1998. Final Revised Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Albuquerque, NM.

_____. 1998. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Future Management of

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

_____. 1997. Biological Opinion for Five Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

_____. 1995. Final rule determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher.

Federal Register 60(38):10694-10715.

_____. 1995. Lesser Long-nosed Bat Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 45 pp.

_____. 1993. Proposed Rule to list the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher as Endangered with

Critical Habitat. Federal Register 58(40):39495-39522.

United States Global Change Research Program. 2010. Regional Climate Information:

Southwest. http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/

regional-climate-change-impacts/southwest (accessed March 26, 2010).

August 2011

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1366 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2003. Office of Policy and Planning, Estimates

of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf. January.

_____. 1996. Illegal Alien Resident Population. Available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/

statistics/illegal.pdf. October.

Van Devender, T.R., R.S. Felger, and A. Búrquez. 1997, Exotic Plants in the Sonoran Desert

Region: Arizona and Sonora, California Exotic Pest Plant Council Annual Symposium.

Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS). 2006. Trends data for Tonto National

Monument. Available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/DataWarehouse/IMPROVE/Data/

SummaryData/group_means_nia_20060306.csv (accessed March 31, 2006).

Weiss, J.L., and J.T. Overpeck. 2005. "Is the Sonoran Desert losing its cool?" Global Change

Biology 11, no. 12: 2065-2077.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hidalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. "Warming and earlier

spring increase western U.S. forest wildfire activity." Science 313, no. 5789, August: 940-943.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2003a. Arizona Climate Summaries. Available at

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/azF.html (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2003b. Average Wind Speeds by State. Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/

westwind.final.html (accessed on March 31, 2006).

_____. 2003c. RAWS Data. Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/wraws/az.html (accessed

on March 31, 2006).

Whitfield, M.J. and C.M. Strong. 1995. A brown-headed cowbird control program and monitoring

for the southwestern willow flycatcher, South Fork Kern River, California. California Department

of Fish and Game, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Report 95-4. Sacramento, California.

17 pp.

Wright, R.L., and J.C. deVos Jr. 1986. Final Report on Sonoran Pronghorn Status in Arizona.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Phoenix, Arizona. 132pp.

Yoakum, J.D. 1978. Pronghorn. In Big game of North America: Ecology and management, edited

by J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, Pp.103-121. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Yuma County. 2001. Yuma County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.

Zalaznik, S. Wildlife Specialist, Game Branch. AGFD, Phoenix Office. October 2003 – Written

communication regarding hunt use days for game management units within the Planning Area

from 1993-1997.

Appendix Z References

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1367

Appendix AA. Abbreviations & Acronyms

ACEC area of critical environmental concern MAG Maricopa Association of Governments

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act MDOT Maricopa County Department of Transportation

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality MIST minimum-impact suppression tactics

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation MLWA Military Lands Withdrawal Act

ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources MOU memorandum of understanding

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department mph miles per hour

AMA active management area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

ARS analysis of the management situation NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

ATV Arizona Revised Statute NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act

AUM animal unit month NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

AWC Arizona Wilderness Coalition NF national forest

BLM Bureau of Land Management NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

BGR Barry M. Goldwater Range NHT National Historic Trail

BMP best management practice NO2 nitrogen-dioxide

CEQ U.S. Council on Environmental Quality NPS National Park Service

CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

CO carbon-monoxide NRHP National Register of Historic Places

CO2 carbon-dioxide NSPL National System of Public Lands

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane NWR national wildlife refuge

DEIS draft environmental impact statement O ozone

DFC desired future condition OHV off-highway vehicle

DHS Department of Homeland Security ONA outstanding natural area

DOI Department of the Interior ORV off-road vehicle

DPC desired plant community PILT payment in lieu of taxes

DRC desired resource condition PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or

less

DRMP draft range management plan PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or

less

EIS environmental impact assessment R&PP recreation & public purposes

EPA Environmental Protection Agency RMP resource management plan

ERMA extensive recreation management area RMZ recreation management zone

ESA Endangered Species Act ROD record of decision

FAA Federal Aviation Administration ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

FAMS facility and asset management system ROW right-of-way

FHWA Federal Highway Administration SCRMA special cultural resource management area

FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act SDNM Sonoran Desert National Monument

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

GHG greenhouse gas SRMA special recreation management area

HMA herd management area SO2 sulfur-dioxide

HMP habitat management plan SR-85 State Route 85

I-8 Interstate 8 SRP special recreation permit

I-10 Interstate 10 T&E threatened and endangered

IFNM Ironwood Forest National Monument TMA travel management area

IM instruction memorandum UDA undocumented alien

IMPROVE integrated monitoring of protected visual

environments

USAF United States Air Force (U.S. Air Force)

LAC limits of acceptable change USC United States Code

LSFO Lower Sonoran Field Office USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

LTVA long-term visitor area USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

LUA land us authorization USFS U.S. Forest Service

LUP land use plan USGS U.S. Geological Survey

August 2011

Appendix AA Abbreviations & Acronyms

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions
1368 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

LWCs lands with wilderness characteristics UXO unexploded ordnance

VIEWS Visibility Information Exchange Web System WSA wilderness study area

VRM visual resource management WUI wildland-urban interface

WHA wildlife habitat areas YPG Yuma Proving Ground

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

Appendix AA Abbreviations & Acronyms

Standard Three: Desired Future Conditions August 2011
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1369

Index

- -

, xlviii

- Aabandoned mines, lviii, lxiii, 78, 180, 212, 215, 269, 347, 347, 348, 348, 348, 348, 348, 352, 352,

379, 406, 445, 818, 822, 822, 822, 826, 826, 1222

air quality, lii, lii, lv, lix, lix, lix, 2, 42, 46, 48, 48, 48, 49, 49, 49, 49, 50, 50, 114, 188, 189, 202,

219, 221, 222, 224, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 234, 236, 239, 240, 241, 245, 246, 247, 248, 253,

254, 254, 254, 255, 255, 255, 256, 256, 257, 257, 258, 259, 374, 377, 377, 377, 385, 385, 386,

386, 387, 387, 388, 388, 388, 388, 391, 394, 396, 397, 399, 399, 543, 548, 550, 554, 557, 559

Ajo, 585, 586, 586, 598, 599, 629, 632, 645, 651, 668, 694, 707, 709, 709, 709, 716, 717

Ak-Chin Indian Community, lii, lxiv, 4, 7, 58, 199, 206, 346

Area of Critical Environmental Cocnern (ACEC), xlix, lvii, 37, 55, 60, 134, 182, 194, 389, 889

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), lii, 8, 26, 98, 169, 200, 307

Arizona Game and Fish Department (ADOT), 1023, 1215, 1226, 1228, 1241, 1241, 1243, 1244,

1245

Arizona State Land Department, 4, 145, 318, 360, 361, 989

- BBack Country, 30, 32, 134, 170, 172, 176, 201, 416, 416, 461, 506

bighorn sheep, 20, 21, 65, 79, 267, 441, 460, 562

Buckeye Hills, lvii, 4, 165, 169, 187, 629, 1298, 1299

Bureau of Reclamation, 4, 311, 317, 323, 618

Burro, 12, 46, 67, 345, 949

Byway (Back Country, Scenic), 30, 32, 345, 671, 952

- Ccactus ferruginous pygmy-owl, 71, 71, 77, 275, 1247, 1247, 1248, 1327, 1327

Cooperating agency, lii, 7, 219, 349, 954

critical habitat, 20, 81, 81, 83, 123, 218, 970, 1000

Cuerda de Lena, 34, 70, 72, 109, 155, 196, 1241, 1306

- Ddesert tortoise, liii, lx, 1, 10, 20, 63, 65, 67, 67, 68, 68, 68, 163, 274, 274, 957

- Eendangered species, xlv, lii, liii, lxiii, 1, 8, 16, 22, 22, 25, 31, 45, 53, 63, 67, 81, 83, 89, 108,

109, 117, 118, 120, 123, 128, 128, 137, 164, 194, 271, 299, 321, 367, 368, 370, 961, 967, 982,

993, 1086, 1087, 1354

environmental justice, lviii

- FFederal Land Policy Management Act, xxxix

fee(s), 12, 46, 83, 114, 114, 114, 115, 116, 167, 168, 168, 211, 220, 223, 227, 228, 229, 1090,

1091, 1220, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300

fire management, lxiii

Fred J. Weiler, 32, 33, 34, 36, 74, 92, 134, 134, 143, 155, 207, 207, 1027
1370 Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS

front country, lvii, 3, 4, 5, 13, 70, 71, 72, 95, 126, 126, 127, 129, 129, 129, 131, 131, 132, 159,

166, 167, 168, 169, 169, 171, 171, 172, 173, 279, 291, 291, 292, 296, 301, 304, 310, 310, 310,

310, 311, 311, 1023, 1032, 1037, 1037, 1038, 1134, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1289, 1290

- GGila Bend, xl

grazing allotment, 2, 32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 83, 137, 137, 138, 139, 145, 219, 238, 271, 271,

275, 280, 280, 281, 321, 321, 322, 446, 452, 475, 499, 512, 514, 567, 584, 592, 594, 606, 614,

645, 650, 653, 655, 656, 657, 658, 662, 662, 663, 687, 696, 697, 799, 851, 916, 917, 917, 918,

927, 928, 929, 929

- Hhazardous materials, lvii, lxiii, 47, 209, 209, 209, 209, 209, 211, 211, 211, 211, 211, 211, 215,

220, 222, 224, 1228, 1228, 1229, 1229, 1269, 1276

herd management area (HMA), 106, 107, 297, 297, 965, 965, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1259, 1260

- JJuan Bautista de Anza Trail, liii, 20, 116, 280, 473, 478, 483, 484, 544, 554, 575, 576, 624, 643,

720, 728, 734, 1051, 1073

- LLand Health Standards, 42, 43, 43, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 102, 137, 139, 145, 146, 146, 147, 188,

189, 190, 190, 191, 280, 319, 319, 319, 321, 991, 996

land tenure, lxii, lxii, 12, 41, 118, 122, 128, 129, 130, 135, 135, 307

land use authorizations, lxii

leasable minerals, xlviii, 56, 57, 72, 76, 77, 77, 80, 151, 151, 153, 155, 157, 167, 168, 326,

326, 1296

locatable minerals, xlviii, lvii, 57, 80, 151, 153, 154, 154, 156, 167, 169, 324, 324, 324, 325,

325, 326, 329, 360, 968

- Mmineral materials, 72, 111, 112, 152, 156, 156, 196, 204, 324, 328, 328, 328, 328, 328, 329, 329,

329, 329, 360, 953, 962, 969, 969

- NNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), xxxix, 1, 6, 6, 8, 16, 22, 22, 25, 29, 29, 30, 30, 31,

31, 53, 69, 86, 127, 152, 971, 1354

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 93, 145, 1361, 1361, 1361

noxious weed(s), 89, 89, 89, 94, 117, 973, 973

- Ooff-highway vehicle (OHV), xlvii, 8, 30, 30, 180, 182, 183, 281, 299, 1089, 1302

- Pprescribed fire (burning), 73, 94, 114, 115, 115, 116, 116, 116, 306, 306, 1217, 1226, 1226, 1244,

1246, 1246, 1247, 1247, 1247, 1247, 1249, 1249, 1249, 1249, 1250, 1250, 1250, 1250

Primitive Recreation, li, 34, 331, 976, 976, 1088, 1314

priority wildlife, xlviii, liii, lix, 32, 46, 63, 63, 63, 63, 65, 69, 69, 70, 221, 222, 223

Public Health and Safety, 17, 22, 209, 209, 210, 1347
Lower Sonoran/SDNM Draft RMP/EIS 1371

- RRange Improvements, lxii, 147, 271, 323, 323, 352, 977, 1104

Record of Decision (ROD), 191, 215, 340

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act, 13, 123, 124, 130, 135, 135, 1193

Recreation Management Zone (RMZ), 1295

renewable energy, xlvi, xlviii, xlix, lvi, lvi, lviii, 3, 196, 232, 235, 982

Right of Way (ROW), 119, 120, 128, 128, 271, 307, 316, 334, 334, 364, 1215, 1215, 1216,

1218, 1223

route desingnation, l, lxiii, 14, 31, 57, 87, 180, 180, 180

- Ssaleable minerals, 152, 1332, 1336

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, lxiv, 4, 58, 199, 206, 346, 346, 346

sensitive species, 46, 63, 266, 267, 267, 278, 952, 988

Sonoran pronghorn, liii, 10, 11, 11, 20, 21, 34, 66, 70, 72

southwestern willow flycatcher, liii

Special Cultural Resource Management Area (SCRMA), xlviii, xlix, 33, 52, 56, 58, 987

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), xlviii, l, 32, 158, 159, 161, 331, 987

- TTohono O’odham Tribal Nation, 1032, 1032, 1089, 1325, 1326

- UU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, lii, 1, 4, 83, 127, 267, 951, 951, 952, 960, 985, 991, 1240, 1241,

1268

- Vvegetation treatments, 24, 24, 73, 93, 97, 116, 1244, 1247, 1247, 1248, 1250, 1250, 1250, 1250

Vekol Valley, liv, lvii, lvii, 20, 37, 85, 87, 152, 194, 195, 198, 276, 281, 314, 320, 334, 344,

351, 1000, 1089, 1095, 1145, 1314

- Wwater quality, lv, 45, 87, 102, 102, 103, 104, 104, 104, 210, 211, 294, 294, 1142, 1213, 1246,

1254, 1340

wilderness characteristics, lv, lxi, 9, 9, 13, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46, 99, 108,

108, 109, 109, 109, 110, 110, 112, 134, 134, 154, 180, 185, 220, 221, 229, 230, 232, 299, 299,

300, 301, 301, 339

wilderness study area, 9, 43, 160, 180, 300, 339, 345, 1270

wildlife habitat management area (WHA), 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 63, 64, 64, 64, 64,

64, 70, 70, 71, 71, 71, 81, 99, 122, 154, 214

withdrawal, 12, 13, 25, 55, 72, 77, 80, 104, 105, 118, 124, 124, 124, 124, 125, 151, 153, 155, 155,

169, 207, 208, 285, 307, 316, 324, 1001, 1001, 1001, 1146, 1146, 1217, 1263

- Yyellow-billed cuckoo, liii, 70, 74, 74, 74, 269, 273, 273, 1031, 1032, 1035, 1035, 1036, 1036,

1236, 1249

yuma clapper rail, liii, 70, 74, 74, 74, 116, 269, 273, 273, 295, 1031, 1032, 1032, 1035, 1035,

1036, 1036, 1037, 1236, 1249, 1249, 1249