DOCSLIB.ORG

1 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Keystone Peak Prescribed Burn Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AZ-G020-2015-0009-EA 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Decision to be Made .............................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plan .......................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Scoping and Issues ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.5.1 Internal Scoping ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.5.2 External Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 12 1.5.3 Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................ 12 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................. 13 2.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Resource Management Objectives ..................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Pre-burn Preparation Work ................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 Ignition Techniques ........................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4 Minimum Organization or Capabilities Needed ................................................................................. 16 2.1.5 Holding Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1.6 Scheduling ........................................................................................................................................ 17 2.1.7 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Proposed Action Project Design Features .............................................................................................. 20 2.2.1 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................... 20 2.2.2 Fire/Fuels Conservation Measures ..................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 Amphibians ....................................................................................................................................... 27 2.2.4 Flowering Plants................................................................................................................................ 28 2.2.5 Mammals .......................................................................................................................................... 28 2.3 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................................ 29 2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ............................................................ 30 2.3.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ................................................................................. 30 2.5 2.4 Resources Analyzed in Detail .......................................................................................................... 33 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 35 3.1 Project Area Description .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Ecological Site Description .................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.1 Granitic Hills 12”-16” p.z. ................................................................................................................. 36 3.2.2 Reference Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 37 3.2.3 Desired Future Conditions ................................................................................................................. 39 2 3.3 Current Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 39 3.3.1 Monitoring Data ................................................................................................................................ 40 3.3.2 Fire Regime Condition Class ............................................................................................................. 41 3.4 Elements/Resources of the Human Environment .................................................................................... 43 3.5 Resources Brought Forward for Analysis ............................................................................................... 48 3.5.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 48 3.5.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 50 3.5.3 Grazing Management ........................................................................................................................ 50 3.5.4 Native American Religious Concerns ................................................................................................ 51 3.5.5 Rangeland Health .............................................................................................................................. 52 3.5.6 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 54 3.5.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ............................................................................... 55 3.5.8 Wildlife and Fisheries........................................................................................................................ 68 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................... 73 4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action............................................................................ 73 4.1.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 73 4.1.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 74 4.1.3 Grazing Management ........................................................................................................................ 74 4.1.4 Rangeland Health .............................................................................................................................. 75 4.1.5 Native American Religious Concerns ................................................................................................ 75 4.1.6 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 75 4.1.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ............................................................................... 75 4.1.8 Wildlife and Fisheries........................................................................................................................ 84 4.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ................................................................... 86 4.2.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................ 86 4.2.2 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 86 4.2.3 Grazing Management ........................................................................................................................ 86 4.2.4 Native American Religious Concerns ................................................................................................ 86 4.2.5 Rangeland Health ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.6 Soils .................................................................................................................................................. 86 4.2.7 Threatened, Endangered,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DGM-13 Report(PDF)
    Surficial Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Amado-Tubac area, Santa Cruz and Pima Counties, Arizona Amado and Tubac 7.5’ Quadrangles by Ann Youberg and Walter R. Helmick Arizona Geological Survey Digital Geologic Map 13 November, 2001 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Tucson, AZ 85701 Includes 17 pages of text and two 1:24,000 scale geologic maps Research supported by the Arizona Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey, National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program, under USGS award number #00HQAG0149. INTRODUCTION This report and accompanying maps describe the surficial geology, geomorphology, and geologic hazards of the rapidly developing Amado-Tubac area, south of the Green Valley area. The mapping covers the Amado and Tubac 7 1/2’ quadrangles (Figure 1). The map area is in unincorporated Santa Cruz and southern Pima Counties. It includes much of the southern part of the upper Santa Cruz Valley, between the Santa Rita Mountains on the east and the Tumacacori Mountains on the west. There are several potentially conflicting land use issues in the area covered by these maps. The Santa Rita and Tumacacori mountain ranges are public lands owned by the U.S. Forest Service. Several large ranches are located within the mapping area and are interspersed with state trust lands. Urbanization has occurred, and continues to occur, along the Santa Cruz River and around the communities of Arivaca Junction, Tubac, and Rio Rico, just south of the map area. Many areas of the Santa Rita piedmont have been subdivided and prepared for development, although development remains sparse. This report is intended to enhance our understanding of the surficial geology of the Amado-Tubac area and to aid in assessing and understanding geologic hazards in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]
    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001] Area Overview Size and Location: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) encompasses 37,330 acres. This area is located in the Tumacacori and Atacosa Mountains, which are part of the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona (see Map 4 at the end of this document). The Tumacacori PWA is overlapped by 30,305 acres of the Tumacacori Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 81 percent of the PWA. Vicinity, Surroundings and Access: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area is approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The Tumacacori PWA is centrally located within the mountain range and encompasses an area from Sardina and Tumacacori Peaks at the northern end to Ruby Road at the southern end and from the El Paso Natural Gas Line on the eastern side to Arivaca Lake on its western side. The PWA is adjacent to the Pajarita Wilderness Area, Arivaca Lake and Peña Blanca Lake. Both Pena Blanca and Arivaca Lakes are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Interstate 19 (I-19) connects the Tucson metropolitan area to the City of Nogales and the incorporated community of Sahuarita. The unincorporated communities of Green Valley, Arivaca Junction-Amado, Tubac, Tumacacori-Carmen and Rio Rico, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are within close proximity to the eastern side of the Tumacacori Mountains and the PWA. State Highway 289 provides access from I-19 across private and National Forest System lands into the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area to Peña Blanca Lake and Ruby Road (NFS Road 39).
    [Show full text]
  • The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How Ranchers Have Shaped the West—And Continue to Do So
    A History of Working Landscapes: The Altar Valley, Arizona, USA How ranchers have shaped the West—and continue to do so. By Nathan F. Sayre pproaching rangelands as working landscapes be- Although relatively overlooked by scientists, agencies, and gins from the premise that people and the envi- environmentalists during the 20th century, the Altar Valley ronment shape each other over time. Sustainable has recently emerged as a focal point in the politics of conser- management is therefore not only an ecological but vation in Pima County, Arizona. Despite dramatic changes in Aalso a social process, strongly infl uenced by local histories of the structure and composition of vegetation and in watershed resource use, management, change, and learning. The case of function (see below), the area provides habitat to numerous the Altar Valley, Arizona, offers insights into how economics, listed threatened or endangered species. Compared to the range science, mental models, and the scale of decision mak- rest of eastern Pima County, the Altar Valley is also remark- ing have shaped ranchers and the landscape over time. In par- ably unfragmented by residential development, although the ticular, it provides empirical answers to important questions fringes of metropolitan Tucson (population approximately 1 facing range science today: How do scientifi c knowledge and million) reach right up to its northeastern edge. In conse- recommendations affect on-the-ground management? How quence, advocates of wildlife and open space conservation do ranchers weigh economic, ecological, and cultural goals are increasingly interested in the activities of the families against one another? What kinds of information do ranchers who own the valley’s major ranches.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure and Mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona
    Structure and mineralization of the Oro Blanco Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Knight, Louis Harold, 1943- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 27/09/2021 20:13:55 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565224 STRUCTURE AND MINERALIZATION OF THE ORO BLANCO MINING DISTRICT, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, ARIZONA by * Louis Harold Knight, Jr. A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 7 0 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by Louis Harold Knight, Jr._______________________ entitled Structure and Mineralization of the Pro Blanco______ Mining District, Santa Cruz County, Arizona_________ be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy________________________________ a/akt/Z). m date ' After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:* SUtzo. /16? QJr zd /rtf C e f i, r --------- 7-------- /?S? This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate1s adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination. The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination.
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE the Sonoran Desert Has 2,000 Endemic Plant Species—More Than Anywhere Else in North America
    in the shadow of the wall: borderlands conservation hotspots on the line Borderlands Conservation Hotspot 2. Sonoran Desert GEORGE GENTRY/FWSGEORGE The Sonoran Desert has 2,000 endemic plant species—more than anywhere else in North America. hink deserts are wastelands? A visit to one of the national monuments or national wildlife refuges in the Sonoran Desert could change your mind. These borderlands are teeming with plants and animals impressively adapted to extreme conditions. T During your visit you might encounter a biologist, a volunteer or a local activist in awe of the place and dedicated to protecting it. The Sonoran Desert is so important to the natural heritage of the United States and Mexico that both countries are vested in conservation lands and programs and on a joint mission to preserve it. “A border wall,” says one conservation coalition leader, “harms our mission” (Campbell 2017). The Sonoran Desert is one of the largest intact wild areas mountains, where they find nesting cavities and swoop in the country, 100,387 square miles stretching across the between cactuses and trees to hunt lizards and other prey. southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico. This Rare desert bighorn sheep stick to the steep, rocky slopes of desert is renowned for columnar cactuses like saguaro, organ isolated desert mountain ranges where they keep a watchful pipe and cardón. Lesser known is the fact that the Sonoran eye for predators. One of the most endangered mammals in Desert has more endemic plant species—2,000—than North America, Sonoran pronghorn still occasionally cross anywhere else in North America (Nabhan 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • WS Syllabus Template
    THE SKY ISLANDS PROGRAM: WILDLIFE CONSERVATION IN ACTION SPRING 2021: APRIL 8 – MAY 22 ACADEMIC SYLLABUS Faculty: Aletris Neils, PhD Contact Hours: We will all be in close contact, meeting every day throughout the course. There will be a number of “check-in days” where we will schedule student-faculty meetings. Students are encouraged to engage with faculty to discuss assignments or any other issues or concerns as needed. Class Meetings: The Wildlands Studies Sky Islands Program involves seven days per week of instruction and field research with little time off. Faculty and staff work directly with students 6-10+ hours a day and are available for tutorials and coursework discussion before and after scheduled activities. Typically, scheduled activities each day begin at 7am, with breaks for meals. Scheduled activities will include a variety of things including but not limited to lectures, discussions, hikes, and field research. Most evenings include scheduled activities such as guest lectures, structured study time, and workshops. When in the backcountry or at a field site, our activities may start as early as 4am or end as late as 11pm (e.g., for wildlife observation). Students should also expect to spend a few hours a day studying, writing in their journals, and completing readings. It is necessary for students to have a flexible mindset and to be able to accommodate a variety of class, activity, and independent study times. Course Credit: Students enrolled in a Wildlands Studies Program receive credit for three undergraduate courses. These three courses have distinct objectives and descriptions, and we integrate teaching and learning through formal learning situations (lectures and seminars), field work, field surveys and hands-on activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands
    Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands David Gori, Gitanjali S. Bodner, Karla Sartor, Peter Warren and Steven Bassett September 2012 Animas Valley, New Mexico Photo: TNC Preferred Citation: Gori, D., G. S. Bodner, K. Sartor, P. Warren, and S. Bassett. 2012. Sky Island Grassland Assessment: Identifying and Evaluating Priority Grassland Landscapes for Conservation and Restoration in the Borderlands. Report prepared by The Nature Conservancy in New Mexico and Arizona. 85 p. i Executive Summary Sky Island grasslands of central and southern Arizona, southern New Mexico and northern Mexico form the “grassland seas” that surround small forested mountain ranges in the borderlands. Their unique biogeographical setting and the ecological gradients associated with “Sky Island mountains” add tremendous floral and faunal diversity to these grasslands and the region as a whole. Sky Island grasslands have undergone dramatic vegetation changes over the last 130 years including encroachment by shrubs, loss of perennial grass cover and spread of non-native species. Changes in grassland composition and structure have not occurred uniformly across the region and they are dynamic and ongoing. In 2009, The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) launched its Sky Island Grassland Initiative, a 10-year plan to protect and restore grasslands and embedded wetland and riparian habitats in the Sky Island region. The objective of this assessment is to identify a network of priority grassland landscapes where investment by the Foundation and others will yield the greatest returns in terms of restoring grassland health and recovering target wildlife species across the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Geochemistry of Ground Water in Avra Valley, Pima County, Arizona
    Geochemistry of ground water in Avra Valley, Pima County, Arizona Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Conner, Leslee Lynn,1957- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 12:48:22 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191892 GEOCHEMISTRY OF GROUND WATER IN AVRA VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Leslee Lynn Conner A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN HYDROLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1986 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re- quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained by the author.
    [Show full text]
  • A STRUCTURAL and GEOCHEMICAL STUDY of the SIERRITA PORPHYRY COPPER SYSTEM, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Paul William Jensen a Thesis
    A STRUCTURAL AND GEOCHEMICAL STUDY OF THE SIERRITA PORPHYRY COPPER SYSTEM, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Paul William Jensen A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1998 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: -1 ., ./lG+ .. /lf j^.S/ /`¡ÿ FÇ Spencer R. Titley Date// Professor of Geosciences 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirementsfor an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited inthe University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without specialpermission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requestsfor permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole orin part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the GraduateCollege when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests ofscholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Canoa Ranch Groundwater Evaluation
    Canoa Ranch Groundwater Evaluation Hydrologic Evaluation of the Occurrence and Nature of Groundwater, and Water Level Trends and Water Balance Related to Future Water Resource Use in the Canoa Ranch Area, Upper Santa Cruz Basin, Pima County, Arizona By Frank G. Postillion, C.G.W.P. Chief Hydrologist David Scalero, Principal Hydrologist Mark Krieski, P.E. Engineering Manager Pima County Regional Flood Control District Executive Summary The Water Resources Division of the Pima County Regional Flood Control District has conducted a hydrologic evaluation of the Canoa Ranch and vicinity, with a focus on the historical and current water balance and how it has affected local groundwater- level conditions, and the potential impacts on the hydro- and meso-riparian vegetation of the Ranch. Numerous data sources were evaluated during the study, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), Pima County, Pima Association of Governments, and consulting reports. The Canoa Ranch hydrologic study area is centered along the Santa Cruz River (SCR) from the Santa Cruz/Pima County Line in Pima County, Arizona to about 7.5 miles downstream along the River (Figure 1-1). Large portions of the study area along the SCR (4,800 acres) are owned by Pima County as part of the old Canoa Ranch; Elephant Head Road from the South to Santa Rita Springs Development and the Farmers Investment Company (FICO) on the north; from Interstate 19 on the west to the floodplain pediments on the east. The historic Canoa Ranch is undergoing building restoration and is slated for riparian restoration in some targeted areas.
    [Show full text]