DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2016-0029-EA PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr. Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 702–515–5000 Environmental Assessment Mojave Desert Burned Area Restoration of Desert Tortoise Habitat DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2016-0029-EA This page intentionally left blank Environmental Assessment iii Table of Contents _1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 _1.1. Identifying Information ................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Title, EA Number, and Type of Project ................................................................. 1 1.1.2. Location of Proposed Action ................................................................................. 1 1.1.3. Preparing Office and Lead Agency ........................................................................ 1 _1.2. Purpose and Need for Action .......................................................................................... 1 _1.3. Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 _1.4. Scoping, Public Involvement and Issues ........................................................................ 6 _2. Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................................................... 7 _2.1. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................................................ 9 2.1.1. Description of Areas Burned ................................................................................. 9 2.1.1.1. Clarifications of Terms Used .................................................................... 10 2.1.2. Overview Map and Tables ................................................................................... 11 2.1.3. Herbicide Treatments and Herbicide Use ............................................................ 15 2.1.4. Seeding ................................................................................................................. 16 2.1.5. Habitat Islands ..................................................................................................... 17 2.1.6. Access .................................................................................................................. 18 2.1.7. Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 18 2.1.8. Timeline ............................................................................................................... 20 2.1.9. Stipulations .......................................................................................................... 20 2.1.9.1. Air quality ................................................................................................. 20 2.1.9.2. Floodplains ................................................................................................ 21 2.1.9.3. Geology/Mineral Resources ...................................................................... 21 2.1.9.4. Lands/Access ............................................................................................ 21 2.1.9.5. Paleontology ............................................................................................. 21 2.1.9.6. Recreation ................................................................................................. 21 2.1.9.7. Utility Corridors ........................................................................................ 21 2.1.9.8. Visual Resources ....................................................................................... 21 2.1.9.9. Wastes (hazardous or solid) ...................................................................... 22 2.1.9.10. Water Resources/Quality ......................................................................... 22 2.1.9.11. Wetland/Riparian Zones .......................................................................... 22 2.1.9.12. Woodland/Forestry .................................................................................. 22 _2.2. Description of Alternatives Analyzed in Detail ............................................................ 22 2.2.1. Alternative 2 — No Action .................................................................................. 22 _2.3. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail .................................................... 22 2.3.1. No Use of Proposed Herbicides for Vegetation Control ...................................... 22 2.3.2. Full Restoration of Burned Areas ........................................................................ 23 2.3.3. Mechanical Mowing/Disking ............................................................................... 23 2.3.4. Mechanical Blading ............................................................................................. 23 2.3.5. Grazing Domestic Livestock ................................................................................ 23 2.3.6. Use of Forage Kochia .......................................................................................... 23 _2.4. Conformance ................................................................................................................. 24 Table of Contents iv Environmental Assessment 2.4.1. Record of Decision for the Approved Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (October 1998) ............................. 24 2.4.2. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision (2009) .......................................................................... 25 2.4.3. Record of Decision for the Approved Ely District Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (August 2008) ............................... 25 2.4.4. Relationship to Statutes, Regulations and Other Plans ........................................ 26 _3. Affected Environment: .......................................................................................................... 29 _3.1. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) ...................................................... 31 3.1.1. Geographic Scope ................................................................................................ 31 3.1.2. Existing Condition ............................................................................................... 31 3.1.3. Surveys ................................................................................................................. 31 3.1.4. Reference ............................................................................................................. 31 _3.2. Cultural Resources and Native American Concerns ..................................................... 32 3.2.1. Geographic Scope ................................................................................................ 32 3.2.2. Existing Condition ............................................................................................... 32 3.2.3. Surveys (Class III) ............................................................................................... 32 3.2.4. References ............................................................................................................ 33 _3.3. Fish and Wildlife Excluding Federally List Species (Including BLM Sensitive Species) ...................................................................................................................... 33 3.3.1. Geographic Scope ................................................................................................ 33 3.3.2. Existing Condition ............................................................................................... 33 3.3.3. Surveys ................................................................................................................. 34 3.3.4. References ............................................................................................................ 34 _3.4. Fuels and Fire Management .......................................................................................... 35 3.4.1. Geographic Scope ................................................................................................ 35 3.4.2. Existing Condition ............................................................................................... 35 3.4.3. Surveys ................................................................................................................. 35 3.4.4. References ............................................................................................................ 35 _3.5. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds ........................................................................... 35 3.5.1. Geographic Scope ................................................................................................ 35 3.5.2. Existing Condition ............................................................................................... 36 3.5.3. Surveys ................................................................................................................. 36 3.5.4. References ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona
    October 2015 BLM DOI-BLM-AZ-0000-2013-0001-EA ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona Final Environmental Assessment Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona DOI-BLM-AZ-0000-2013-0001-EA Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427 October 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii Acronym List ................................................................................................................................... iv Section 1 – Proposed Action, Purpose and Need, and Background Information ........................... 1 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Action Overview ............................................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand
    A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency Uranium 2001: Resources, Production and Demand NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to Article 1 of the Convention signed in Paris on 14th December 1960, and which came into force on 30th September 1961, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shall promote policies designed: − to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in Member countries, while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of the world economy; − to contribute to sound economic expansion in Member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development; and − to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The original Member countries of the OECD are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The following countries became Members subsequently through accession at the dates indicated hereafter: Japan (28th April 1964), Finland (28th January 1969), Australia (7th June 1971), New Zealand (29th May 1973), Mexico (18th May 1994), the Czech Republic (21st December 1995), Hungary (7th May 1996), Poland (22nd November 1996), Korea (12th December 1996) and the Slovak Republic (14 December 2000). The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD (Article 13 of the OECD Convention).
    [Show full text]
  • DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS VOLUME 8 A
    DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS VOLUME 8 a Desert Bighorn Council A COMPILATION OF FORMAL PAPERS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AT THE EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING, APRIL 7, 8, AND 9, 1964, IN MEXICO AT THE AUDITORIO DE SOCIAL SEGURIDO IN MEXICALI AND AT THE HOTEL VILLA DEL MAR AT PUERTO SAN FELIPE, BAJA CALIFORNIA. THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL TRANSACTIONS ARE PUBLISHED ANNUALLY AND ARE AVAILABLE BY WRITING THE . "DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL" P. 0. BOX 440, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA. COVER DRAWING. BY PAT HANSEN. EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING DESERT BHGI3ORN COUNCIL April 7, 8, 9, 1964 Mexicali and Puerto San Felipe, Baia California TABLE OF CONTEWS Page .. - program ........................................................ 111 Group Picture ................................................... vii Opening Remarks Dr. Rodolfo Hernandez Corzo, Chairman ............................. xv John P. Russo, Vice-Chairman ................................... x.ix . pp-ppp- . ........................................- -- ... -- --- - .- FORMAL PAPERS AND DISCUSSIONS DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP AT THE SAN DIEGO ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN George H. Pournelle, Curator of hlammals ............................ 1 .~DIXTIOSALNOTES ON PARASITES OF BIGHORN SHEEP ON THE DESERT GAME RANGE, NEVADA Rex W. Allen .............................................. 5 1-OXG-DISTASCE AND NIGHTTLME MOVEMENTS OF DESERT BIGHORh' SHEEP Gale hlonson ............................................... 11 IIESERT BIGHORN MAVAGEMENT NEEDS FROM THE ACADEhllC . porn?; OF VIEW U'ilIiamGraf ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Concepts of Recharge in the Desert Southwest: A
    Water Sci. and Appl. Groundwater Recharge in a Desert Environment: The Southwestern United States Vol. 9 FundamentalConcepts of Rechargein the Desert Southwest: A RegionalModeling Perspective Alan L. Flint, LorraineE. Flint, and JosephA. Hevesi U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Sacramento, California JoanB. Blainey U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Tucson, Arizona Rechargein arid basinsdoes not occur in all years or at all locationswithin a basin.In the desertSouthwest potential evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation on an averageannual basis and, in many basins,on an averagemonthly basis. Groundwatertravel time from the surfaceto the water table and rechargeto the water table vary temporallyand spatiallyowing to variationsin precipitation,air temperature,root zone and soil propertiesand thickness,faults and fractures,and hydrologicproperties of geologicstrata in the unsaturatedzone. To highlightthe fundamentalconcepts controlling recharge in the Southwest,and addressthe tem- poral and spatial variability of recharge, a basin characterizationmodel was developedusing a straightforwardwater balanceapproach to estimatepotential rechargeand runoff and allow for determinationof the locationof rechargewith- in a basin.It providesa meansfor interbasincomparison of the mechanismsand processesthat result in rechargeand calculatesthe potential for rechargeunder current,wetter, and drier climates.Model estimatesof rechargecompare favor- ably with othermethods estimating recharge in the Great Basin. Resultsindicate that net infiltration occursin less than 5 percentof
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Unit of Menlo Park, Calif
    In Cooperation with the National Park Service Geophysical studies based on gravity and seismic data of Tule Desert, Meadow Valley Wash, and California Wash basins, southern Nevada By Daniel S. Scheirer, William R. Page, and John J. Miller Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Open-File Report 2006-1396 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................1 Introduction and Geologic Setting.................................................................................................................................1 Gravity Observations.....................................................................................................................................................3 Gravity Analysis............................................................................................................................................................4 Rock Samples ................................................................................................................................................................6 Seismic Reflection Lines ...............................................................................................................................................6 Results ...........................................................................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Open-File Report 2007-1227
    Publications of the Western Earth Surface Processes Team 2006 Compiled by Charles Powell, II, and Paul Stone U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1227 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California 2007 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested citation: Powell, C.L., II, and Stone, Paul, 2007, Publications of the Western Earth Surface Processes Team 2006: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1227, 17 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1227/] Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. ii Contents Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................1 Additional 2005 Publications.............................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Crafting and Consuming an American Sonoran Desert: Global Visions, Regional Nature and National Meaning
    Crafting and Consuming an American Sonoran Desert: Global Visions, Regional Nature and National Meaning Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Burtner, Marcus 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 02/10/2021 04:13:17 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/268613 CRAFTING AND CONSUMING AN AMERICAN SONORAN DESERT: GLOBAL VISIONS, REGIONAL NATURE AND NATIONAL MEANING by Marcus Alexander Burtner ____________________________________ copyright © Marcus Alexander Burtner 2012 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Marcus A. Burtner entitled “Crafting and Consuming an American Sonoran Desert: Global Visions, Regional Nature, and National Meaning.” and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy ____________________________________________________________Date: 1/7/13 Katherine Morrissey ____________________________________________________________Date: 1/7/13 Douglas Weiner ____________________________________________________________Date: 1/7/13 Jeremy Vetter ____________________________________________________________Date: 1/7/13 Jack C. Mutchler Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate's submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Ecology and Management of the Major Ecosystems of Southern Utah
    Chapter 6 Creosotebush, Blackbrush, and Interior Chaparral Shrublands Matthew L. Brooks, Todd C. Esque, and Tim Duck Introduction Creosotebush Scrub The vegetation, fire regime, and Fire Regime Condi- Introduction tion Class descriptions in this paper apply broadly to the Mojave Desert, Colorado Plateau, and southern Great Low cover (5 to 30 percent) of woody shrubs of Basin of western North America. More detail on these various heights (0.5 to 1.5 m [1.6 to 4.9 ft] character- topics, including estimated percentages within each con- izes Creosotebush scrub (Vasek and Barbour 1995). dition class, is provided for the Mojave-Colorado Plateau It occurs across the warm desert regions of western ecotone spanning southern Nevada, the Arizona Strip North America and is the most common plant assem- northwest of the Grand Canyon, and southwestern Utah, blage in the Mojave Desert (fig. 1) (MacMahon 2000). including the area within the boundaries of the Southern Creosotebush scrub is typically found below 1,500 m Utah Fuel Management Demonstration Project (Hood (4,920 ft) on well-drained alluvial flats and slopes below and others, this volume; www.firelab.org/fep/research/ the blackbrush zone and above the saltbush zone that sufm/home.htm). Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) often occur within valley basins (Vasek and Barbour are an interagency, standardized tool for describing the 1995). It phases into shrub-steppe in regions with high natural range of variation in vegetation, fuels, and fire proportions of summer rainfall, typically encountered regime characteristics for a particular biogeographic in the eastern Mojave Desert and Sonoran Desert.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Is Available Online at Doi:10.5194/Cp-11-1375-2015-Supplement
    Clim. Past, 11, 1375–1393, 2015 www.clim-past.net/11/1375/2015/ doi:10.5194/cp-11-1375-2015 © Author(s) 2015. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Late-glacial to late-Holocene shifts in global precipitation δ18O S. Jasechko1,2, A. Lechler3, F. S. R. Pausata4, P. J. Fawcett1, T. Gleeson5, D. I. Cendón6, J. Galewsky1, A. N. LeGrande7, C. Risi8, Z. D. Sharp1, J. M. Welker9, M. Werner10, and K. Yoshimura11 1Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA 2Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 3Department of Geosciences, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, USA 4Department of Meteorology and Bolin Center for Climate Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 5Department of Civil Engineering, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada 6Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Sydney, Australia 7NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, USA 8Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL, UPMC, CNRS, Paris, France 9Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska, USA 10Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany 11Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan Correspondence to: S. Jasechko ([email protected]) Received: 28 February 2015 – Published in Clim. Past Discuss.: 27 March 2015 Revised: 22 September 2015 – Accepted: 5 October 2015 – Published: 14 October 2015 Abstract. Reconstructions of Quaternary climate are of-
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Localities of Interest to Botanists Author(S): T
    Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Arizona Localities of Interest to Botanists Author(s): T. H. Kearney Source: Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Oct., 1964), pp. 94-103 Published by: Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40022366 Accessed: 21/05/2010 20:43 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anas. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science. http://www.jstor.org ARIZONA LOCALITIESOF INTEREST TO BOTANISTS Compiled by T.
    [Show full text]
  • Nevadagascar Article Final Proof CSJ Nov 2005
    Special Conservation Report ing cactus and succuelnt species not adapted to humans with a fantastically diverse mix of dry burning. The problem is only likely to get worse tropical forest, seasonally arid deciduous wood- unless controls can be found for the most prob- land, and near-desert scrub located primarily in Nevadagascar? lematic weeds. the western half of the island. The eastern half contains an equally rich and varied mix of other The Threat that Invasive Weeds and Wildfires Pose Madagascar is well-known habitat types less conducive to succulents includ- to naturalists and biologists all over the globe for ing belts of wet tropical forest, cloud forest, man- to our North American Desert Biomes its rich biotic diversity and its marvelous array grove swamp, and evergreen mountain forest. of unique and endemic plants and animals. Unlike most of earth’s large landmasses, Part 1: The Mojave Desert and Joshua Tree woodlands Of course lovers of succulent and caudiciform Madagascar was populated by humans only 1500 plants are familiar with many natives of this fan- years ago. Groups of Indo-Malayan, African and tastic land. Some of the most charismatic and Arabian peoples arrived over the centuries begin- JAN EMMING widely-appreciated succulent and xeric plants ning about 500 AD, and each successive wave took are native to this country, including many its toll upon the island’s environment. Many of the pachypodiums, euphorbias, aloes, and seven of largest and most unusual animals were quickly the eight species of baobab trees in the genus hunted into extinction, and the remaining spe- t is ironic that, Adansonia.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Re-Analysis of Cumulative Impacts on the Sonoran Pronghorn ORGAN PIPE CACTUS National Monument • Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Re-Analysis of Cumulative Effects on the Sonoran Pronghorn Supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement For the 1997 General Management Plan/ Development Concept Plans For Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Summary At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the National Park Service (NPS) is re-analyzing the cumulative impact of actions on the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriense). The “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions. The Sonoran pronghorn is an endangered species that inhabits Sonoran desert habitats found primarily on federally-managed lands in southwestern Arizona, and in northern Sonora, Mexico. Current estimates indicate that approximately 100 pronghorn exist in the United States today. Factors threatening the continued survival of the pronghorn include lack of recruitment (survival of fawns), insufficient forage and/or water, drought coupled with predation, physical manmade barriers to historical habitat, illegal hunting, degradation of habitat from livestock grazing, diminishing size of the Gila and Sonoyta rivers, and human encroachment. The NPS is re-analyzing cumulative impacts on the pronghorn in response to a court order ruling (civil action No. 99-927) that found the environmental impact statement (EIS) on the 1997 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument General Management Plan/Development Concept Plans/Environmental Impact Statement (GMP/DCP/EIS) failed to address the cumulative impacts of activities on the pronghorn.
    [Show full text]