DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment BUREAU OF RECLAMATION YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADOT GRANT NO.E5S2Z Final Report ROLLE AIRFIELD SAN LUIS, ARIZONA | APRIL 2017 Environmental Assessment Rolle Airfield San Luis, Arizona Prepared for: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office 7301 Calle Agua Salada Yuma, Arizona 85364 Prepared by: Armstrong Consultants, Inc. 2345 S. Alma School Road Mesa, Arizona 85210 In associated with: The Genesis Consulting Group, LLC SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc. Yuma County Airport Authority ADOT Grant Number: E5S2Z April 2017 | version 1.0 Yuma County Airport Authority 2191 East 32nd street Yuma, Arizona | 85365 Environmental Assessment Rolle Airfield April 2017 Version 1.0 This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with provisions and requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 et seq. relating to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action................................................................................................................. 1-3 Chapter 2 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ............................................................................ 2-1 2.1 History and Location .................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2.2 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-7 Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts ................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.2-1 No Action ......................................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.2-2 Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.3 Management and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.4 Best Management Practices ..................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-10 3.2.2-1 No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.2.2-2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-10 3.2.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-13 3.2.4 Best Management Practices ................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................. 3-14 3.3.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................................. 3-22 3.3.2-1 No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 3-22 3.3.2-2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-23 3.3.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-29 3.3.4 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 3-30 3.4 Cultural/Historic Resources ..................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.4.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-31 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-32 3.4.2-1 No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.2-2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-32 3.4.4 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 3-32 3.5 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.5.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-32 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-33 3.5.2-1 No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.5.2-2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-33 Rolle Airfield – Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents 3.5.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-33 3.5.4 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 3-33 3.6 Hazardous and Solid Waste ...................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.6.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-33 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-34 3.6.2-1 No Action ...................................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.6.2-2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.6.3 Management and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 3-34 3.6.4 Best Management Practices .................................................................................................................. 3-34 3.7 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.7.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-34 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences/Impacts ............................................................................................. 3-35 3.7.2-1 No Action .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Dakota Rangelands: More Than a Sea of Grass
    212 RANGELANDS 18(6), December 1996 South Dakota Rangelands: More than a Sea of Grass F. Robert Gartner and Carolyn Hull Sieg re-settlement explorers described the region's land- the continent. Elevation increases from about 900 to 1,500 scape as a "sea of grass." Yet, this "sea" was quite feet above sea level along the eastern border to 3,000 to p varied, and included a wealth of less obvious forested 3,500 feet along the western border. The highest point in communities. Both physiographic and climatic gradients the United States east of the Rocky Mountains is Harney across the state of South Dakota contributed to the devel- Peak in the Black Hills at 7,241 feet elevation. opment of variable vegetation types of South Dakota. The The major portion of the state lies within the Great Plains diverse flora truly identifies the state as a "Land of Infinite physiographicprovince (Fig. 1), and a smaller portion in the Variety." Variations in climate, soils, and topography help to Central Lowlands Province (Denson 1964). The Great accentuate this label. Large herbivores such as bison and Plains Province is a broad highland that slopes gradually periodic fires ignited by lightning and American Indians also eastward from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the contributed to the formation of the pre-settlement land- Central Lowlands on the east. That portion of the Great scape. Plains Province in the western two-thirds of South Dakota has been termed the Missouri Plateau by some authors. The Central Lowlands Province extends from the drainage Climate Topography, Physiography, basin of the James River (approximatelythe 99th Meridian) eastward.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION Aeronautics Division
    View metadata,citationandsimilarpapersatcore.ac.uk ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Aeronautics Division TENTATIVE (amended) FIVE YEAR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FY 2004 – 2008 provided by brought toyouby ASU DigitalRepository CORE Arizona Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division Five - Year Airport Development Program FY 2004 - 2008 Table of Contents Airport Development Program Overview .......................................................................... ii Airport Development Programming Guidelines................................................................ iii Map of Primary & Secondary Airports ...................................................................... iv & v Glossary ..............................................................................................................................vi Airport Development Program 2003 - 2004 Airport Development Program........................................................................1 2004 - 2005 Airport Development Program......................................................................11 2005 - 2006 Airport Development Program......................................................................25 2006 - 2007 Airport Development Program......................................................................37 2007 - 2008 Airport Development Program......................................................................47 FY 2004 – 2008 Summary........................................................................................55 & 81 Alphabetical
    [Show full text]
  • Insurance Report of Activity September 2016
    Insurance Report of Activity For More Information Contact the Appropriate Regional Director or the Office of Public and Congressional Affairs (703) 518-6330 September 2016 Office of Consumer Protection INSURANCE REPORT OF ACTIVITY - SUMMARY 9/1/2016 THRU 9/30/2016 SINGLE COMMON BOND EXPANSION MULTIPLE COMMON BOND EXPANSION Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem 1 1001 0 1 117 0 0 21 17,405 2 1001 100 2 204 0 4 39 17,049 3 0000 0 3 70 0 0 26 20,583 4 0000 0 4 66 1 7 19 129,883 5 1001 57 5 156 0 1 16 20,702 Total 3003 157 Total 613 1 12 121 205,622 % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% % 97.9% 0.2% 1.9% COMMUNITY EXPANSION COMMUNITY CONVERSION Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem # Dup. Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem # Dup. 1 0000 00 1 0000 00 2 1001800,909 0 2 0000 00 3 0010 00 3 1001 48,0570 4 0000 00 4 0000 00 5 1001185,079 1 5 1001 362,895 1 Total 2012985,988 1 Total 2002 410,952 1 % 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% LOW INCOME COMMUNITY EXPANSION UNDERSERVED AREA Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem # Dup. Region Approved Denied Deferred # of FCU Pot Mem # Dup. 1 0000 00 1 0000 00 2 0000 00 2 0000 00 3 0000 00 3 4004 361,965 0 4 0000 00 4 1001 44,9160 5 0000 00 5 10011,647,249 0 Total 0000 00 Total 60062,054,130 0 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Prepared by NCUA 11/16/2016 INSURANCE REPORT OF ACTIVITY - SUMMARY 9/1/2016 THRU 9/30/2016 Charter Conversions Insurance Applications NICU to Non CU Non CU FISCU to FCU FCU to FISCU NICU to FCU FISCU to
    [Show full text]
  • MEETING NOTICE and AGENDA Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-431, Et Seq
    YCBOS PACKET -- Regular Session: October 19, 2020 1 of 288 OFFICE OF THE MARTIN PORCHAS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DISTRICT 1 198 S. Main Street RUSSELL MCCLOUD Yuma, Arizona 85364 DISTRICT 2 DARREN R. SIMMONS SUSAN K. THORPE DISTRICT 3 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MARCO A. (TONY) REYES CLERK OF THE BOARD DISTRICT 4 LYNNE PANCRAZI DISTRICT 5 MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes § 38-431, et seq. and amendments thereto, A REGULAR SESSION of the YUMA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Also sitting as all SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS Will be held on OCTOBER 19, 2020 -- 9:00 A.M. 198 South Main Street, Yuma, Arizona Board members will attend either in person, by telephone, or remotely via electronic conferencing. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO THE PUBLIC: •Call to the Public is held for public benefit to allow individuals to address issue(s) within the Board's jurisdiction. Board members may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §38-431.01(H), action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to criticism, or scheduling the matter for further discussion and decision at a future date. •Anyone who is concerned about COVID-19 and does not want to be put into an open setting can submit an email “Call to the Public” statement at: [email protected] These email forms of Public Comment will be accepted until 8:00 a.m. the morning of the meeting. All public comments will be read aloud during the Yuma County Board of Supervisors meeting that starts at 9:00 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Joint Petition to Amend to Delete TRANS-8
    DOCKETED Docket Number: 09-AFC-06C Project Title: Blythe Solar Power Project - Compliance TN #: 232709 Document Title: Request For Joint Petition To Amend to Delete TRANS-8 Description: N/A Filer: Scott Galati Organization: DayZenLLC Submitter Role: Applicant Representative Submission Date: 4/10/2020 10:58:28 AM Docketed Date: 4/10/2020 BLYTHE SOLAR POWER PROJECT REQUEST FOR JOINT PETITION To AMEND DELETION OF TRANS-8 Submitted by: NextEra Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC Submitted to: California Energy Commission April 2020 Prepared by: Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND NextEra Blythe Solar Energy Center, LLC (Blythe Solar), a wholly owned subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, is the current owner of the Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP). Blythe Solar files this Request For a Joint Petition To Amend1 (Petition) to delete Condition of Certification TRANS-8 which requires that Blythe Solar provide an avigation easement executed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM will not encumber its land with such an avigation easement, therefore making it a legal impossibility for Blythe Solar to comply with TRANS-8. As discussed in this Petition, TRANS-8 was included in the original and amended Final Decisions in order to ensure compliance with a provision requiring an avigation easement in the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Master Plan (Airport Master Plan). The requirement was determined to be a Law, Ordinance, Regulation, or Standard (LORS) and was not included to mitigate any potential environmental impact. Further research definitely proves that the requirements of the Airport Master Plan are inapplicable to BLM land and therefore should not have been applied to the BSPP as a LORS.
    [Show full text]
  • Build It. Test It. Fly It
    BUILD IT. TEST IT. FLY IT. THEDEFENSE CONTRACTOR COMPLEX JOE FOSS HANGAR AT YUMA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 2191 E. 32nd Street, Suite 218 | Yuma, Arizona 85365 | www.defensetesting.comDefenseTesting.com DefenseTesting.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yuma County Airport Authority (YCAA) is proud to introduce the Defense Contractor Complex (DCC). With new hangars, new office spaces, expanded infrastructure and Million Air FBO, the DCC is a solution for the aviation and aerospace industry to manufacture, perform aircraft testing or maintenance/repair operations. The YCAA management team is composed of experienced aviation professionals and has a long history of providing support to the aviation and aerospace industry. As an independent body politic, the Airport’s Board of Directors has the ability to fast-track an agreement to secure land and facilities. One of the highlighted features associated with Yuma International Airport is the secured perimeter which includes MilSpec security system. Yuma International Airport shares the airfield with Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Yuma, the nation’s largest Marine Aviation installation. The two agencies are defined as ‘Aviation Partners’ through a Joint Use Agreement. Enclosed is additional information about the assets and capabilities available within the Defense Contractor Complex to accommodate and support your company’s program. Please call (928) 726-5882 with any questions or to schedule a site tour. 1 DefenseTesting.com ABOUT THE YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY Yuma International Airport is managed and operated by the Yuma County Airport Authority, Inc. (YCAA). Under Arizona law, an Airport Authority is an independent public agency and incorporated as a non-profit organization in the State of Arizona on December 30, 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Environmental Assessment Rolle Airfield San Luis, Arizona
    BUREAU OF RECLAMATION YUMA COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ADOT GRANT NO.E5S2Z Draft Report ROLLE AIRFIELD SAN LUIS, ARIZONA | FEBRUARY 2017 DRAFT Environmental Assessment Rolle Airfield San Luis, Arizona Prepared for: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Yuma Area Office 7301 Calle Agua Salada Yuma, Arizona 85364 Prepared by: Armstrong Consultants, Inc. 2345 S. Alma School Road Mesa, Arizona 85210 In associated with: The Genesis Consulting Group, LLC SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc. Yuma County Airport Authority ADOT Grant Number: E5S2Z February 2017 | version 1.0 Yuma County Airport Authority 2191 East 32nd street Yuma, Arizona | 85365 Environmental Assessment Rolle Airfield February 2017 Version 1.0 This environmental assessment has been prepared in accordance with provisions and requirements of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500 et seq. relating to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Need for the Proposed Action .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Action................................................................................................................. 1-3 Chapter 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER V AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction V-1 Climate V-1 Air Quality V-2 Noise V-5 Topography
    CHAPTER V AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Introduction V-1 Climate V-1 Air Quality V-2 Noise V-5 Topography V-7 Geology V-8 Soils V-8 Land Use and Transportation V-10 Groundwater V-21 Vegetation and Wildlife V-27 Special Status Species V-42 Recreation V-54 Visual Resources V-60 Economics V-61 Cultural Resources V-66 Indian Sacred Sites V-74 Indian Trust Assets V-76 Environmental Justice V-77 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts V-81 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources V-81 Relationship Between Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity V-82 Chapter V Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the existing physical and biological resources and environmental factors in the study area (affected environment) and the effects of the alternatives on certain resources and environmental factors (environmental consequences). Resources include soils, groundwater, vegetation, wildlife, special status species, recreation and visual resources, cultural resources, Indian sacred sites, and Indian trust assets. Environmental factors include climate, air quality, noise, topography, geology, land use, transportation, economics, and environmental justice. All resources and factors within the study area are described in the affected environment section; however, only those resources and factors that could be affected by the alternatives are analyzed in the environmental consequences section. The No Action Alternative, which provides the basis of comparison for the effects of the three action alternatives, describes conditions in the future if no action were implemented. The analysis of the potential effects of the alternatives on resources is based on the professional judgment and experience of Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) staff specialists, their discussions with other experts and professionals, literature review, and field trips to the study area.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Chapter Six: Current Aviation System Performance
    6. CHAPTER SIX: CURRENT AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION As previously discussed, the 2018 State Aviation System Plan (SASP) Update system goals and performance measures were enhanced and refined compared to the 2008 SASP. For the 2018 SASP Update, three goals were established to describe a statewide system of airports that fully meets the needs of citizens, visitors, and businesses. The goals established to evaluate the system are presented in order of priority as follows: 1. Safety and security. Arizona should maintain a safe and secure airport system as measured by compliance with applicable safety and security standards while supporting health and safety-related services and activities. 2. Fiscal responsibility. Arizona should implement cost-effective investment strategies to meet current and projected demand while remaining adequately accessible to Arizona’s citizens, visitors, and businesses. 3. Economic support. Arizona should advance a system of airports that promote Arizona’s economic growth and development. Based on these goals, performance measures and system indicators were developed that provide the framework for measuring the system’s ability to achieve existing and future demands, while assessing the overall health and adequacy of the aviation system. Performance measures quantitatively evaluate specific aspects of system performance that can be directly affected by project funding, policies, and other external inputs. System indicators are a new measurement tool in the 2018 SASP Update that generally serve as reporting mechanisms on aspects of system performance that cannot be affected by project funding, policies, and inputs. However, some indicators may influence a policy decision and/or be related to a performance measure that has an action associated with enhancing the system’s performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Abundance of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in the Great Plains: a Historical Perspective
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences Great Plains Studies, Center for Fall 2002 Distribution and Abundance of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in the Great Plains: A Historical Perspective Dallas Virchow University of Nebraska - Lincoln Scott E. Hygnstrom University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch Part of the Other International and Area Studies Commons Virchow, Dallas and Hygnstrom, Scott E., "Distribution and Abundance of Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs in the Great Plains: A Historical Perspective" (2002). Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences. 609. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/greatplainsresearch/609 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Great Plains Studies, Center for at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Plains Research: A Journal of Natural and Social Sciences by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Great Plains Research 12 (Fall 2002): 197 -218 © Copyright by the Center for Great Plains Studies DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF BLACK­ TAILED PRAIRIE DOGS IN THE GREAT PLAINS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Dallas R. Virchow and Scott E. Hygnstrom School of Natural Resource Sciences University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68583-0759 [email protected] ABSTRACT -It is a common belief that the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) was an extremely abundant species throughout the Great Plains prior to European settlement. We examined accounts from explorers, naturalists, and travelers in the Great Plains in the 19th and 20th centuries and found few that adequately document the relative abundance and distribution to support this view.
    [Show full text]
  • Sistrurus Catenatus) in Colorado
    UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO Greeley, Colorado The Graduate School THE MASSASAUGA RATTLESNAKE (SISTRURUS CATENATUS) IN COLORADO A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Justin Peter Hobert College of Arts and Sciences Department of Biological Sciences August, 1997 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © 1997 JUSTIN PETER HOBERT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THESIS COMMITTEE: *THESIS SPONSOR (Stephen P. Mackessy, PhTD.) (William. E. Harmon, Ph.D.) (David Chiszar, Phdj.) DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL yle R. Carter, Ph.D.) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Hobert, Justin Peter. The massasauga rattlesnake (Sistrurus catenatus) in Colorado. Published Master of Arts Thesis, University of Northern Colorado, 1997. The massasauga rattlesnake, Sistrurus catenatus, is currently considered a species of special concern by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. From. July, 1994 to October, 1996, 255 massasaugas were captured or recovered from 11 counties in Colorado. Life history and distribution were investigated for the massasauga in Colorado, including an analysis of the distribution pattern and habitat characteristics at sites of capture and recovery. Information gathered included trends in population size and abundance, areal vegetative analysis, seasonal/temporal activity patterns, reproduction, and prey and predators. This study also investigated the morphological variation of the massasauga from Colorado and an evaluation of its current taxonomic status relative to S. c. edwardsi and S. c. tergeminus, the neighboring subspecies. Morphometric characters from samples from each group were measured and examined for diagnostic reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the United States Army in the Exploration And
    THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY IN THE EXPLORATION AND MAPPING OF THE KANSAS AREA: 1806- 1845 Lieutenant Colonel John B. Garver, Jr. * United States Military Academy The military campaigns between the United States Army and the plains Indians of the trans-Mississippi West have been the subject of many books and articles, both popular and scholarly. Some writers have emphasized the romantic aspects of frontier military service; others have portrayed the soldier as a ruthless and persistent threat to the simple life of the noble Indian. Few have attempted critically and objectively to describe and inter- pret the broader role of the United States Army in the story of national development, that is, as an agent of coloniza- tion in the West.l Fewer still have written from an historical-geographical perspective. As early as 1893, Frederick Jackson Turner described the spatial movement of Americans west as a cultural suc- cession of frontier types. Stand at Cumberland Gap and watch the pro- cession of civilization, marching single file-- the buffalo following the trail to the salt springs, the Indian, the fur-trader and hunter, *Lieutenant Colonel Garver is an assistant professor of geography at the united States Military Academy IThe first substantial contribution in this regard was the early work of Henry P. Beers, The Western Military Frontier 1815-1846 (1935). More recent book length publi- cations include: Averam B. Bender, The March of Empire (1952); W. Turrentine Jackson, Wagon Roads West (1952); Francis P. Prucha, Broadax and Bayonet (1953); and William H. Goetzmann, Army Exploration in the American West (1959), and Exploration and Empire (1966).
    [Show full text]