DOCSLIB.ORG

Yuma RMP/ROD

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yuma RMP/ROD ABSTRACT The Yuma Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP) describes the plan for managing approximately 1.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)–administered land in southwestern Arizona and southeastern California. Information provided by the public, other agencies, Native American tribes, organizations, and BLM personnel was used to develop this RMP. The Approved RMP seeks to provide an optimal balance between authorized resource uses and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resource values within the planning area. Major issues addressed in the RMP include the management of special designations, fish and wildlife habitat management, wild horse and burro management, recreation management, travel management, the maintenance of wilderness characteristics, and lands and realty. MISSION STATEMENT The BLM is responsible for the balanced management of BLM-administered lands and resources and their various values so that they are considered in a combination that will best serve the needs of the American people. Management is based upon the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, a combination of uses that take into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources. These resources include recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, fish and wildlife, wilderness and natural, scenic, scientific, and cultural values. BLM/AZ/PL-09/002 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Yuma Field Office 2555 E. Gila Ridge Road Yuma, Arizona, 85635 www.blm.gov/az / In Reply Refer To: 1610 (AZC020) Dear Reader: We are pleased to announce that after 5 years of hard work and collaborative effort, the revision of the Yuma Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) is complete. This document provides guidance for the management of 1.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-administered lands in southwestern Arizona and southeastern California. These lands are within the BLM Colorado River District in La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma counties in Arizona and Imperial and Riverside counties in California. The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and RMP have been prepared in accordance with the Federal Land Policy Management Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The ROD and RMP have been sent to members of the public who requested a copy and to pertinent local, State, Federal, and Tribal governments. The ROD finalizes the proposed decisions presented in the Yuma Field Office Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that was released in April 2008 and was subject to a 30-day protest period. Seven protest letters were received and reviewed by the BLM Assistant Director for Renewable Resources and Planning in Washington, D.C. After careful consideration of all points raised in the protest letters, the Assistant Director concluded that the planning team and responsible decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resource considerations in developing the Proposed RMP in the FEIS. Minor modifications or points of clarification incorporated into the RMP in response to issues raised during the protest process and final BLM review are discussed in the ROD under the sections entitled Modifications and Clarifications. The protest review did not result in any significant changes to the RMP. This ROD serves as the final decision for the land use planning decisions described in the attached RMP. Now that the ROD is signed, we look forward to your assistance and participation as we implement the decisions contained in this RMP. Copies of the ROD and RMP can be obtained on the web at <http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/fo/yuma_field_office.html>. Additional printed or CD copies may be obtained at the address above or requested by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (928) 317-3200. We greatly appreciate all who contributed to the completion of this RMP, including other Federal agencies and Tribal, State, and local governments. This includes the many Cooperating Agencies named in Section 1.7.1 of this RMP. We also appreciate the extensive public Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract and Mission Statement Dear Reader Letter RECORD OF DECISION 1.0 Introduction ROD-1 1.1 Results of Protest Review ROD-1 1.2 Decision ROD-2 1.2.1 What the Decision/Approved RMP Provides ROD-3 1.2.2 Key Decisions in the Approved RMP ROD-4 1.2.3 What the Decision/Approved RMP Does Not Provide ROD-5 1.2.4 Implementation Decisions ROD-6 1.2.5 Modifications ROD-6 1.2.6 Clarifications ROD-7 1.3 Overview of the Alternatives ROD-8 1.3.1 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ROD-9 1.3.2 Alternative B ROD-9 1.3.3 Alternative C ROD-9 1.3.4 Alternative D ROD-9 1.3.5 Alternative E (Proposed Plan) ROD-9 1.4 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved RMP ROD-11 1.5 Mitigation Measures ROD-12 1.6 Plan Monitoring ROD-12 1.6.1 Implementation Monitoring ROD-13 1.6.2 Effectiveness Monitoring ROD-13 1.6.3 Validation Monitoring ROD-13 1.7 Implementation of the RMP ROD-14 1.8 Consistency Review ROD-14 1.9 Public Involvement ROD-14 1.10 Availability of the Plan ROD-15 Signature Page ROD-16 Yuma Field Office Page i Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan January 2010 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 CHAPTER 1.0—INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Vision 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for a Resource Management Plan Revision 1-2 1.2.1 Purpose 1-2 1.2.2 Need 1-5 1.3 Planning Area 1-5 1.3.1 Bureau of Reclamation Project Lands 1-6 1.3.2 Historical Overview of Planning Area 1-7 1.4 Planning Process 1-7 1.4.1 Steps in the Process 1-7 1.4.2 Public Involvement 1-9 1.5 Planning Criteria and Legislative Constraints 1-10 1.5.1 General Planning Criteria 1-10 1.5.2 Program-Specific Planning Criteria 1-12 1.6 Public Scoping Issues 1-16 1.6.1 Issues Addressed in this Approved RMP 1-17 1.6.2 Issues Not Addressed in this Approved RMP 1-19 1.6.3 Laws and Regulations 1-19 1.7 Collaboration and Partnerships 1-20 1.7.1 Cooperating Agencies 1-21 1.7.2 Consultation with Native American Tribes 1-22 1.7.3 Consultation with USFWS 1-24 1.8 Related Plans 1-24 1.9 Plan Implementation 1-25 1.9.1 Immediate Decisions 1-25 1.9.2 One-Time Decisions 1-25 1.9.3 Long-Term Guidance/Life of Plan Direction 1-25 1.9.4 General Implementation Schedule of “One-Time” Actions 1-26 1.9.5 Implementation Updates 1-26 1.9.6 Maintaining the Plan 1-26 1.9.7 Changing the Plan 1-27 1.10 Plan Evaluation and Adaptive Management 1-27 1.10.1 Plan Evaluation 1-27 1.10.2 Adaptive Management 1-28 1.10.3 Administrative Actions 1-29 1.10.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 1-29 Page ii Yuma Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan January 2010 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) CHAPTER 2.0―MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.1.1 Decision Lettering 2-2 2.2 Land Health Standards 2-3 2.2.1 Standard 1 for Upland Sites 2-3 2.2.2 Standard 2 for Riparian–Wetland Sites 2-4 2.2.3 Standard 3 for Desired Resource Conditions 2-5 2.3 Special Designations Management 2-5 2.3.1 National Landscape Conservation System 2-6 2.3.2 National Recreation Trail 2-12 2.3.3 National Byways 2-12 2.3.4 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 2-15 2.4 Coordinated Management Areas 2-28 2.4.1 Fortuna Pond CMA 2-35 2.4.2 Limitrophe CMA 2-35 2.4.3 Mittry Lake Wildlife Area 2-37 2.5 Vegetation Management 2-38 2.5.1 Desired Plant Communities 2-40 2.5.2 Vegetation Habitat Management Areas 2-42 2.5.3 BLM Sensitive Plant Species 2-46 2.5.4 Priority Plant Species 2-48 2.5.5 Invasive Non-Native Plants 2-49 2.5.6 Vegetative Use Authorization 2-50 2.6 Wildland Fire Management 2-52 2.7 Fish and Wildlife Management 2-56 2.7.1 Priority Species 2-59 2.7.2 Wildlife Habitat Management Areas 2-64 2.8 Special Status Species Management 2-71 2.8.1 Federally Listed Species and Designated Critical Habitat 2-73 2.8.2 Federal Candidate Species 2-80 2.8.3 State-Listed Species 2-81 2.9 Livestock Grazing Management 2-87 2.10 Wild Horse and Burro Management 2-93 2.11 Recreation Management 2-97 2.11.1 Planning Area-Wide Management 2-97 2.11.2 Recreation Management Allocations 2-101 Yuma Field Office Page iii Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan January 2010 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) 2.12 Travel Management 2-118 2.12.1 OHV Management Areas 2-118 2.12.2 YFO Transportation System 2-126 2.12.3 Travel Management Areas 2-131 2.13 Visual Resource Management 2-135 2.14 Wilderness Characteristics Management 2-139 2.15 Cultural Resource Management 2-145 2.15.1 Special Cultural Resource Management Areas 2-147 2.15.2 Allocation to Use Categories 2-152 2.16 Paleontological Resource Management 2-157 2.17 Air, Water, and Soil Management 2-159 2.17.1 Air Resource Management 2-159 2.17.2 Water Resource Management 2-160 2.17.3 Soil Resource Management 2-162 2.18 Lands and Realty Management 2-163 2.18.1 Land Use Authorizations 2-164 2.18.2 Land Tenure 2-175 2.19 Mineral Resource Management 2-178 2.19.1 Leasable Minerals 2-178 2.19.2 Locatable Minerals 2-179 2.19.3 Salable Minerals 2-181 2.20 Public Health and Safety Management 2-183 2.20.1 Abandoned Mines 2-183 2.20.2 Unexploded Ordnance 2-184 2.20.3 International Boundary Issues 2-184 2.20.4 Hazardous Materials 2-185 FIGURE 1-1: Conceptual Planning Process & BLM Documents 1-8 TABLES 2-1: Approved RMP Special Designations 2-6 2-2: Approved RMP National Scenic and Back Country Byways Nominations 2-13 2-3: Approved RMP Coordinated Management Areas 2-28 2-4: Approved
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Impact of Arizona's Principal Military Operations
    Economic Impact Of Arizona’s Principal Military Operations 2008 Prepared by In collaboration with Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND STUDY 1 METHODOLOGY Chapter Two DESCRIPTIONS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 11 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Three EMPLOYMENT AND SPENDING AT ARIZONA’S 27 PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Four ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 32 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Five STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES DERIVED FROM 36 ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Six COMPARISONS TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN 38 ARIZONA Chapter Seven COMPARISONS OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN FY 43 2000 AND FY 2005 APPENDICES Appendix One HOW IMPLAN WORKS A-1 Appendix Two RETIREE METHODOLOGY A-6 Appendix Three ECONOMETRIC MODEL INPUTS A-7 Appendix Four DETAILED STATEWIDE MODEL OUTPUT A-19 Appendix Five REGIONAL IMPACT INFORMATION A-22 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3-1 Summary of Basic Personnel Statistics 27 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-2 Summary of Military Retiree Statistics 28 Arizona Principal Military Operations Table 3-3 Summary of Payroll and Retirement Benefits 30 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-4 Summary of Spending Statistics 31 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 4-1 Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts 34 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 5-1 Summary of Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 5-2 Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 6-1 Comparison of Major Industries / Employers in Arizona 41 Table 7-1 Comparison of Military Industry Employment in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 Table 7-2 Comparison of Military Industry Economic Output in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation Arizona’s Principal Military Operations Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge and thank the leadership and personnel of the various military operations included within this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 & 2022 Fishing Regulations Fishing Regulations
    ArizonaArizona Game and Fish DepartmentDepartment 20212021 & 2022 FishingFishing Regulations i Get a GEICO quote for your boat and, in just 15 minutes, you’ll know how much you could be saving. If you like what you hear, you can buy your policy right on the spot. Then let us do the rest while you enjoy your free time with peace of mind. geico.com/boat | 1-800-865-4846 Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. In the state of CA, program provided through Boat Association Insurance Services, license #0H87086. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2020 GEICO ii ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT — AZGFD.GOV 2021 & 2022 ARIZONA FISHING REGULATIONS 1 AdPages2019.indd 2 12/11/2020 11:36:21 AM AdPages2019.indd 1 12/11/2020 11:35:54 AM Table of Contents Fishing License Fees GETTING STARTED Licenses available at all license dealers, Department offices and online at azgfd.gov. License Information and Fees .......................................................... 3 More information about the new licenses can be found under Commission Rules R12-4-207, R12-4-209 and R12-4-210. Regulation Changes .............................................................................4 All fishing and combo hunt/fish licenses listed are valid for the take of all aquatic wildlife, which includes legal fish species, crayfish, frogs, waterdogs and Douglas A. Ducey, Governor softshell turtles. How to Use This Booklet .................................................................... 5 Started Getting ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION LICENSES PRIVILEGES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Kurt R.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Access and Equity for Orange County
    HEALTHY PARKS, SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES: Green Access and Equity for Riverside County ABOUT THIS REPORT This policy report is a summary for Riverside County of The City Project’s 2011 report, Healthy Parks, Schools, and Communities: Mapping Green Access and Equity for Southern California, which maps and analyzes green access and equity in nine counties in Southern California—Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, Kern, Santa Barbara and Imperial—using narrative and legal analyses, geographic information system (GIS) mapping tools, and demographic and economic data. Unlike other studies, which plot either green space or population, the maps in this report plot green space in relation to population and other metrics that indicate accessibility, such as distance to the park. This report also provides multidisciplinary analyses of the vital benefits of parks and other green space to people and the environment. It describes the consequences of disparities in green access and the benefits that could be reaped in “park poor” and “income poor” communities if resources were fairly allocated. It concludes with recommendations for equitable investments in green space in Riverside County and throughout California and the nation. The goal of this work is to combine research and analyses with effective outreach to provide concerned citizens, community groups, elected and other government officials, planners, funders and other stakeholders with the best available information upon which to prioritize actions and decisions that positively impact green access and quality of life for all. Together we can help children be active, eat well, stay healthy and do their best in school and life.
    [Show full text]
  • Etched Magazine, January 2015 Issue
    MAGAZINE ([SHULHQFH7KH6RXWKZHVWFRP OUTDOOR Finding Common Ground 2015 PRESERVATION &2//$%25$7,21RECREATION $3.95 U.S. #theevolutionofelan Finding Common Ground PRESERVATION&2//$%25$7,21 RECREATION contents options art lovers a conversation with greg istock 18 creating art, music, and life in abstracts the art of interior design 22 artisans who bring function and style to life the allure of watercolor 26 an historical perspective through the eyes (and brush) of roland lee soul searchers the dark night of the soul 30 a space in time where new life begins let’s try some civility 32 the longing for meaningful (and civil) conversation adventure in wellness 34 a “dream” vacation that truly benefits mind, body, and soul adventure seekers the day we set the colorado river free 41 a grand experiment in ecological restoration boots and burgers 50 a deliciously novel hiking and dining guide concrete to canyons 58 when inner city students step foot into zion desert dwellers building ice age park 62 a prehistoric venture takes shape in urban style story keepers 66 expectations historic structures: in every issue the mouthpiece of history the green that turned golden 70 etched in time 8 the 50th anniversary of leaving their mark 10 dixie red hills golf course #theevolutionofelan 12 experiencethesouthwest.com 13 saving an oasis 74 meditations 14 the collaboration of preservation snapshots 92 and recreation in southern utah culture creators the hills are alive 80 a journey through the years of making music on our cover community arts and Writer, Rowan Jacobsen events information 84 Photography By: Fred Phillips the people, the places, the dates, the vibe...the culture of southern utah leaving their mark FINDING COMMON GROUND EXPERIENCE volume 9 – issue 1 ENJOY THE OUTDOOR ISSUE AWARENESS EDUCATE 2015 PRESERVE Darci Hansen Founder Editor in Chief │ │ Laurie James Design Editor ROWAN JACOBSEN writes about place and how it shapes ecosystems, │ │ cultures, cuisines, and us.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks, Basin
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks Basin and Range Province, Arizona Part I General Geology and Chronology of Pre-late Miocene Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks By Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt Open File Report 79-1429 1979 This report was funded by U.S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-08-0001528. It;has not been edited for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards or with accepted U.S. Geological Survey stratigraphic nomenclature. FOREWORD This report by Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt summarizes the results of a study made for the U.S. Geological Survey jointly by the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology and the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, College of Earth Sciences, University of Arizona, under Grant No. 14-08-0001528. Age dating by the K/Ar method was cost-shared with. NSF Grant No. EAR78-11535 which supports volcanic rock studies by the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry. It is considered that this report adequately fulfills the agreement objectives. Principal Investigator: H. Wesley Peirce, Principal Geologist Geological Survey Branch Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology University of Arizona, Tucson Co-Principal Investigator: Paul E. Damon, Chief Scientist Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry Department of Geosciences College of Earth Sciences University of Arizona, Tucson CONTENTS Page Abstract ,....,,...,...,........« « 1 Introduction ...,.,..*....««..« «« 3 General statement ........ , ».....,....». 3 Purpose and scope .«..,,.....,.......... 3 Acknowledgments ..................... * . 4 Location and physiographic setting .............. 4 Approach ........................... 5 General Cenozoic geology of Basin and Range Province sediments . General statement ...................... 7 Group I localities with radioactive anomalies ........ 9 Mineta Formation ..................... 9 Cardinal Avenue sediments ................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Long-Range Transportation Plan for the Colorado River Indian
    2014 Strategic Long Range Transportation Plan for the Colorado River Indian Tribes Final Report Prepared by: Prepared for: COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES APRIL 2014 Project Management Team Arizona Department of Transportation Colorado River Indian Tribes 206 S. 17th Ave. 26600 Mohave Road Mail Drop: 310B Parker, Arizona 85344 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Don Sneed, ADOT Project Manager Greg Fisher, Tribal Project Manager Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Telephone: 602-712-6736 Telephone: (928) 669-1358 Mobile: (928) 515-9241 Tony Staffaroni, ADOT Community Relations Project Manager Email: [email protected] Phone: (602) 245-4051 Project Consultant Team Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 333 East Wetmore Road, Suite 280 Tucson, AZ 85705 Mary Rodin, AICP Email: [email protected] Telephone: 520-352-8626 Mobile: 520-256-9832 Field Data Services of Arizona, Inc. 21636 N. Dietz Drive Maricopa, Arizona 85138 Sharon Morris, President Email: [email protected] Telephone: 520-316-6745 This report has been funded in part through financial assistance from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial Irrigation District Final EIS/EIR
    Contents Contents Section Page Preface/Abstract.................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables .....................................................................................................................................xv List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. xxi Acronyms.......................................................................................................................................xxvii Glossary ..........................................................................................................................................xxxv Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................ES-1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................ES-1 Project Background and History...................................................................................ES-2 Project Overview .............................................................................................................ES-3 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ........................................................................ES-6 Other Proposed Agreements, Plans, and Projects Related to Resources Affected by the Proposed Project..........................................................................ES-9
    [Show full text]
  • North American Deserts Chihuahuan - Great Basin Desert - Sonoran – Mojave
    North American Deserts Chihuahuan - Great Basin Desert - Sonoran – Mojave http://www.desertusa.com/desert.html In most modern classifications, the deserts of the United States and northern Mexico are grouped into four distinct categories. These distinctions are made on the basis of floristic composition and distribution -- the species of plants growing in a particular desert region. Plant communities, in turn, are determined by the geologic history of a region, the soil and mineral conditions, the elevation and the patterns of precipitation. Three of these deserts -- the Chihuahuan, the Sonoran and the Mojave -- are called "hot deserts," because of their high temperatures during the long summer and because the evolutionary affinities of their plant life are largely with the subtropical plant communities to the south. The Great Basin Desert is called a "cold desert" because it is generally cooler and its dominant plant life is not subtropical in origin. Chihuahuan Desert: A small area of southeastern New Mexico and extreme western Texas, extending south into a vast area of Mexico. Great Basin Desert: The northern three-quarters of Nevada, western and southern Utah, to the southern third of Idaho and the southeastern corner of Oregon. According to some, it also includes small portions of western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming. Bordered on the south by the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts. Mojave Desert: A portion of southern Nevada, extreme southwestern Utah and of eastern California, north of the Sonoran Desert. Sonoran Desert: A relatively small region of extreme south-central California and most of the southern half of Arizona, east to almost the New Mexico line.
    [Show full text]
  • ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower
    ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT B Dams and Reservoirs Along the Lower Colorado River This attachment to the Colorado River Interim Surplus Criteria DEIS describes the dams and reservoirs on the main stream of the Colorado River from Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona to Morelos Dam along the international boundary with Mexico. The role that each plays in the operation of the Colorado River system is also explained. COLORADO RIVER INTERIM SURPLUS CRITERIA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COLORADO RIVER DAMS AND RESERVOIRS Lake Powell to Morelos Dam The following discussion summarizes the dams and reservoirs along the Colorado River from Lake Powell to the Southerly International Boundary (SIB) with Mexico and their specific roles in the operation of the Colorado River. Individual dams serve one or more specific purposes as designated in their federal construction authorizations. Such purposes are, water storage, flood control, river regulation, power generation, and water diversion to Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. The All-American Canal is included in this summary because it conveys some of the water delivered to Mexico and thereby contributes to the river system operation. The dams and reservoirs are listed in the order of their location along the river proceeding downstream from Lake Powell. Their locations are shown on the map attached to the inside of the rear cover of this report. Glen Canyon Dam – Glen Canyon Dam, which formed Lake Powell, is a principal part of the Colorado River Storage Project. It is a concrete arch dam 710 feet high and 1,560 feet wide. The maximum generating discharge capacity is 33,200 cfs which may be augmented by an additional 15,000 cfs through the river outlet works.
    [Show full text]
  • June Temperature Trends in the Southwest Deserts of the USA (1950–2018) and Implications for Our Urban Areas
    atmosphere Article June Temperature Trends in the Southwest Deserts of the USA (1950–2018) and Implications for Our Urban Areas Anthony Brazel School of Geographical Sciences & Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-5302, USA; [email protected] Received: 7 November 2019; Accepted: 9 December 2019; Published: 11 December 2019 Abstract: Within the United States, the Southwest USA deserts show the largest temperature changes (1901–2010) besides Alaska, according to the most recent USA National Climate Assessment report. The report does not discuss urban effects vs. regional effects that might be evident in trends. Twenty-five temperature stations with ca. 68-year records (1950 to 2018) have been accessed from US Global Historical Climate Network archives. Land cover data are accessed from a National Land Cover Database. June results considering both urban and rural sites show an astounding rate per year change among sites ranging from 0.01 to 0.05 C for maximum temperatures and 0.01 to 0.11 C − ◦ ◦ for minimum temperatures ( 0.8 to 3.2 C, and 0.8 to 8.0 C for the entire period). For maximum − ◦ ◦ temperatures, almost half of the sites showed no significant trends at a stringent 0.01 level of statistical significance, but 20 of 25 were significant at the 0.05 level. For minimum temperatures, over 75% of sites were significant at the 0.01 level (92% at 0.05 level of significance). The urban-dominated stations in Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma show large minimum temperature trends, indicating emerging heat island effects. Rural sites, by comparison, show much smaller trends.
    [Show full text]