DOCSLIB.ORG

Havasu Tra Envir DOI‐BLM U.S. D Burea Col Lak Lake Avel Managem Ronmental As M‐AZ‐LHFO‐2 Prepared B Department O Au of L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Havasu Tra Envir DOI‐BLM U.S. D Burea Col Lak Lake Avel Managem Ronmental As M‐AZ‐LHFO‐2 Prepared B Department O Au of L Havasu Travel Management Plan (TMP) Environmental Assessment DOI‐BLM‐AZ‐LHFO‐2013‐0020‐EA Prepared by: U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Colorado River District Lake Havasu Field Office Lake Havasu City, Arizona August 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Plan Area .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Land Use Plan Conformance ............................................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4.1 Decisions To Be Made ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Scoping and Issues ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5.1 Internal Scoping .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5.2 External Scoping ......................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5.3 Issues ............................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Proposed Action & Alternatives Considered ...................................................................................................... 6 2.1 No Action (Alternative A) ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Resource Protection (Alternative B) ............................................................................................................ 7 2.3 Proposed Action (Alternative C) .................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Access (Alternative D) ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.5 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ..................................................................................... 9 3.0 Affected Environment & Environemental Effects ............................................................................................ 9 3.1 Area of Environmental Concern, Crossman Peak (ACEC) ................................................................... 9 Affected Environment .................................................................................................................................................. 9 Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Cultural/Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................................... 10 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Fish & Wildlife Excluding Federally Listed Species ............................................................................. 11 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 Hazardous or Solid Wastes............................................................................................................................. 13 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 13 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 13 3.5 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................................... 14 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 14 3.6 Native American Religious Concerns ......................................................................................................... 15 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 15 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 16 3.7 Public Health & Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 16 3.8 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 17 3.9 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 19 3.10 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 20 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 21 3.11 Threatened and Endangered Species/Special Status Species ......................................................... 21 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 21 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 28 3.12 Travel Management........................................................................................................................................... 29 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 29 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 29 3.13 Vegetation/ Invasive & Non‐Native Species ........................................................................................... 30 Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................................... 30 3.14 Visual Resources ................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • P Residents Message
    Volume 22, Number 1 January 2014 residents Message Wow! What a month December has been! We started with a great turn out for our Desert Clean up! Our “Trash King”, Mike Yahrmarkt, organized a great event! We picked up almost 6,000 pounds of trash— including a hot tub , a ski boat, and a sleeper sofa! For the hours we worked it was about 140 lbs. per person or about 40 lbs. of trash per hour! Bruce Spiers did another fine job in helping our club get some P very good publicity—a front page article and a nice editorial by the editor a few days later. Our run Chairman, John Strong, reported we have over 120+ runs so far this year, about the same number as last year! Darryld Kautzmann made a recon trip with three member Jeeps and three BLM employees to map out the dangerous mine openings we will be fencing in the near future. We also had several of our members donate an afternoon to helping the Arizona Game and Fish Dept. film a brief movie about off roading in the LHC area. Our retired medical doctor, Andy Lucas, held a very successful AED training class. Our club received a nice certificate from the LHC Marine Corps League for our contributions of toys to the Toys for Tots program in the past and the very large stack of toys at our last meeting! Cheryl MacLean took charge of all the cans we had for the food bank in making sure they got to the proper place! And—we have 23 events scheduled next month! From runs to mine fencing, gps classes, winch classes, breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and a run leader training/meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Investigation of a Crossman Peak Wilderness Study Area, Mohave County, Arizona
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF MINES Mineral investigation of a Crossman Peak Wilderness Study Area, Mohave County, Arizona: U.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Land Assessment MLA 82-83 1983 By Light, T.D., and McDonnel, J.R., Jr., This open file report summarizes the results of a Bureau of Mines wilderness study and will be incorporated in a joint report with the U.S. Geological Survey. The report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with the U.S. Bureau of Mines editorial standards. Work on this study was conduced by personnel from Intermountain Field Operations Center, Building 20, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. i ~l17¸ ¸ :/ UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF MINES i ii:![1 MINERAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CROSSMAN PEAK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA I. ill. il, By Thomas D. Light and John R. McDonnell, Jr. MLA 82-83 1983 :l This open file report summarizes the results of a Bureau of Mines wilderness study and will be incorporated in a joint report with the U.S. I, Geological Survey. The report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with the U.S. Bureau of Mines editorial standards. Work I on this study was conducted by personnel from Intermountaln Field Operations Center, Building 20, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. ' 1 I STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas I The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Kingman EA/FONSI
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT KINGMAN FIELD OFFICE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOI-BLM-AZ-CO10-2012-0014-EA TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Introduction 5 1.1 Project Name and Location 5 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Action 6 1.3 Lease Stipulations 6 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plan 7 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives 8 2.1 Proposed Action 8 2.2 No Action Alternative 13 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 13 3.1 Introduction 13 3.2 Air Quality 14 3.3 Climate 15 3.4 Soil Resources 19 3.5 Water Quality, Surface and Ground 20 3.6 Vegetation Resources 21 3.7 Invasive, Non-Native Species 22 3.8 Special Status Species 23 3.9 Wildlife Resources and Migratory Birds 24 3.10 Range Management 27 3.11 Visual Resources 28 3.12 Geology and Minerals 28 3.13 Cultural Resources 29 3.14 Native American Religious Concerns 30 3.15 Lands and Realty 30 3.16 Cumulative Impacts 32 3.17 Reasonably Foreseeable Development 33 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination _33 4.1 Tribes, Individuals, Organizations and Agencies Consulted 33 4.2 Preparers 34 Chapter 5 – References_ 35 1 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Kingman Field Office 2755 Mission Blvd. Kingman, Arizona 86401 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Environmental Assessment Number: DOI-BLM-AZ-CO10-2012-0014-EA 1.1 Project Name and Location KINGMAN FIELD OFFICE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE Approximately 20 miles south of Kingman, Mohave County, Arizona (see Map 1).
    [Show full text]
  • Hassayampa Forestry
    Project Summary: 2015/2016 Inventory for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics BLM Kingman Field Office, Arizona Joe Trudeau & Amber Fields PO Box 1013 Prescott AZ 86302 hassayampa 603-562-6226 ∞ [email protected] forestry www.hassayampa-forestry.com January 27, 2016 This report provides a summary of the findings of the 2015/2016 inventory of the Kingman Field Office for Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC’s). Joe Trudeau and Amber Fields, principals of Hassayampa Forestry, performed the inventory on behalf of Arizona Wilderness Coalition (AWC), which included spending 65 days and nights in the field in and around Proposed LWC’s, oversight and training of 6 volunteers, coordination with AWC and its partners, and preparation of Final Proposal Reports for 15 identified LWC’s. The starting point for this inventory process was a GIS analysis (performed by others) that identified large blocks of contiguous BLM lands that were likely to contain LWC’s; these are referred to as “initial survey units”. Field inventory efforts refined that work and identified LWC boundaries based on the criteria established in BLM manual 6310. Specifically, these items are included in this summary report: Map 1 illustrating the overall inventory results, including a prioritization of the remainder of the initial survey units; Table 1 describing the 15 Proposed LWC units we have identified and reported on, encompassing ~461,500 acres; Map 2 illustrating the 15 Proposed LWC’s and existing BLM Wilderness Areas Table 2 describing DISQAULIFIED initial survey units we have determined do not meet LWC criteria and why they do not; Map 3 illustrating the initial survey units that are disqualified from LWC consideration Tables 3a – 3c and Maps 4a -4c describe and illustrate the remainder of the initial survey units that we have applied a revised prioritization, based on our own GIS analyses and field surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • By Robert W. Simpson, Thomas B. Gage, and Robert E. Bracken
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR TO ACCOMPANY MAP MF-1602-B U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AEROMAGNETIC AND ISOSTATIC GRAVITY MAPS OF TUB CROSSMAN PEAK WILDERNESS STUDY AREA, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA By Robert W. Simpson, Thomas B. Gage, and Robert E. Bracken STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys of certain areas to determine their mineral resource potential. Results must be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report presents the results of aeromagnetic and gravity surveys of the Crossman Peak Wilderness Study Area (5-7B), Mohave County, Arizona. INTRODUCTION allochthonous above another major Tertiary fault, the Whipple Mountains detachment fault, which projects under The Crossman Peak Wilderness Study Area (fig. 1) is in the area from the west. Miocene strata within the area western Arizona, 3 mi east of Lake Havasu City. Ariz. and generally dip steeply southwestward, owing to tilting of 45 mi southwest of Kingman, Ariz. The study area covers structural blocks (Pike and Hansen, 1982; Howard and others, approximately 38,000 acres in the topographically rugged 1982). center and flanking foothills of the Mohave Mountains, which are sometimes included as part of the Chemehuevi Mountains. AEROMAGNETIC DATA (The Chemehuevi Mountains, as referred to in this report, are adjacent to the northwest Mohave Mountains but across the Data collection and processing Colorado River in California.) The Mohave Mountains form a northwest-trending range adjacent to Lake Havasu (elevation The total-field aeromagnetic data for the Crossman 448 ft) on the Colorado River.
    [Show full text]
  • February, 2017 Prepared By: Joseph M
    PROPOSED LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS: MOHAVE WASH NORTH PUBLIC LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MOHAVE WASH LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS MANAGED BY THE BLM LAKE HAVASU FIELD OFFICE, ARIZONA A proposal report to the Bureau of Land Management, Kingman Field Office, Arizona February, 2017 Prepared by: Joseph M. Trudeau & Amber R. Fields Mohave Wash North Proposed LWC TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE: This Proposal was developed according to BLM Manual 6310 page 3 Section 1: Overview of the Proposed Lands with Wilderness Characteristics Unit Introduction: Overview map showing unit location and boundaries page 5 • provides a brief description and labels for the units’ boundary Previous Wilderness Inventories: Map of former WSA’s or inventory unit’s page 6 • provides comparison between this and past wilderness inventories, and highlights new information Section 2: Documentation of Wilderness Characteristics The proposed LWC meets the minimum size criteria for roadless lands page 7 The proposed LWC is affected primarily by the forces of nature page 7 The proposed LWC provides outstanding opportunities for solitude and/or primitive and unconfined recreation page 8 The proposed LWC has supplemental values that enhance the wilderness experience & deserve protection page 11 Conclusion: The proposed area should be managed for protection of wilderness characteristics page 11 Section 3: Detailed Maps and Description of the Unit Boundary, Roads, Ways and Human Impacts Detail Maps with Photopoint Locations page 12 Narrative Description of the Proposed LWC Boundary and Vehicle Routes page 14 Section 4: Photopoint Data Data Tables and Geotagged Photographs to accompany the Detailed Boundary & Vehicle Routes Description page 16 Literature cited in this report: BLM, 1980.
    [Show full text]
  • NI43-101 Technical Report on the Millennium Gold Property Mojave County, Arizona, U.S.A
    NI43-101 Technical Report on the Millennium Gold Property Mojave County, Arizona, U.S.A. Prepared for: Stevens Gold Nevada Inc. 350- 1650 West 2nd Ave. Vancouver, British Columbia Canada V6J 1H4 Project Location Mohave County, Arizona, U.S.A. T 14 N, R 19 W, Sections 17, 18 and 20 UTM Coordinates: 749458mE, 3826097mN Prepared by: Mark Fedikow, Ph.D. P.Geo. C.P.G. Mount Morgan Resources Ltd. Exploration Geochemistry and Mineral Deposits Geology 1207 Sunset Drive Saltspring Island, B.C., Canada V8K1E3 Effective Date: November 9, 2020 Signature Date: November 18, 2020 1 SIGNATURE PAGE.MOUNT MORGAN RESOURCES LTD. Nl 43-101 Technical Report on the Millenium Gold Property Mojave County, Arizona, U.S.A. Prepared for: Stevens Gold Nevada lnc. 350- 1650 West 2nd Ave. Vancouver, British Columbia CanadaV6J 1H4 Proiect Location Mohave County, Arizona, U.S.A. T 14 N, R 19 W, Sections 17 , 18 and 20 UTM coordinates: 3,826,098 m N, 749,459 m E M.A.F. FEDIKOW /s/ Mark Fedikow Mark Fedikow, Ph;D. P.Geo. C.P.G. =ffii{ffi qi-\4s )i'r Mi*fS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHOR-MARK FEDIKOW I, Mark A.F. Fedikow, B.Sc. (Honours) M.Sc. Ph.D. P.Eng. P.Geo. C.P.G., do hereby certify that: I am currently a self-employed Consulting Geologist/Geochemist with a field office at: 1207 Sunset Drive, British Columbia, Canada V8K 1E3. I am the author of the 43-101 Technical Report “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Millennium Gold Property, Mojave County, Arizona, U.S.A.” with an effective date of November 9, 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Mohave County, Arizona
    Scholars' Mine Professional Degree Theses Student Theses and Dissertations 1930 Geology of Mohave County, Arizona Earl Ross Householder Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/professional_theses Part of the Mining Engineering Commons Department: Recommended Citation Householder, Earl Ross, "Geology of Mohave County, Arizona" (1930). Professional Degree Theses. 213. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/professional_theses/213 This Thesis - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Professional Degree Theses by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GBOLOGY OF MOHAVE COUNTY \~\tf ARIZONA. ... " by I.Ross Householder .il. THESIS su.bmitted to lhe faOw.11' 0:1 the SCHOOL OF MINES AND METALLURGY OF ['HE UNlVERSITY():F MISSOURI. in pa.rtla.l fulfillment ot the work required for the DEGEEE OF ENGINEER OF MINES Rolla,Mo. lli}30 APproved by 36407 TlElltlED ,.,.Ol"IItSSIONAL. lENOINlEllt1lt SUI'tVEYS, "'lE~OI'tTS AND ASSAVS E. ROSS HOUSHOLDER MINING ENt;INEER KINGMAN, ARIZONA April 28th, 1930. Mr. Noel Hubbard, Asst. Registrar, Missouri School of Mines, Rolla, 14issour1. Dear Mr. Hubbard: I am making application for the professional degree of Engineer of Mines, and herewith submit my thesis entitled GEOLOGY OF MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA, consisting of thirty-three (33) pages, including a Mohave County Road and Mine map; a small photostat of this map; a geological cross-section map along line "1 - B"; a photostat of a geological map included in U.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific to Arizona Crustal Experiment (PACE) Investigation of a Transect of the Lithosphere Across the Southwestern United States
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Bibliography of the Pacific to Arizona Crustal Experiment (PACE) Investigation of a Transect of the Lithosphere across the Southwestern United States Compiled by Keith A. Howard and Ruby M. Harper'1 Open-file Report 92-511-A 1992 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American stratigraphic code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purpose only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Government. iMenlo Park, CA 94025 CONTENTS Introduction 3 PACE workshops, seminars, and symposia 4 Workshops 4 Seminars 4 Symposia 6 Publications 7 General publications 7 Reports 7 Abstract 7 Seismology 8 Reports 8 Abstracts 10 Heat-flow 13 Abstracts 13 Electrical conductivity 13 Reports 13 Abstract 14 Gravity and magnetics 14 Reports . 14 Abstracts 14 PACE-related reports and abstracts 15 Paleomagnetics 17 Reports 17 Abstracts 17 Petrology and isotope geology 18 Reports 18 Abstracts 20 PACE-related reports and abstracts 24 Geology 26 Reports 26 Abstracts 35 PACE-related reports and abstracts 40 Alphabetic list of publications 44 PACE STEERING COMMITTEE Warren B. Hamilton - U.S.G.S., Denver, Colorado Gordon B. Haxel - U.S.G.S., Flagstaff, Arizona Keith A. Howard (coordinator) - U.S.G.S., Menlo Park, California Ivo Lucchitta - U.S.G.S., Flagstaff, Arizona Peter E. Malin - University of California, Santa Barbara, California (now at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina) Douglas M. Morton - U.S.G.S., Riverside, California David Okaya - CALCRUST & University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California John H.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants: Proceedings of the Third
    The White-Margined Penstemon (Penstemon albomnrginn tus Jones), a Rare Mohave Desert Species, and the Hualapai Mountains Land Exchange in Mohave County, Arizona JOHN L. ANDERSON U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona Abstract: The white-margined penstemon (Penstemon albonzargimtzls Jones) is a rare Mohave Desert species with an unusual tripartite distribution with disjunct localities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. The Arizona population is the largest single population occurring with a range of 15 miles by 5 miles in Dutch Flat near Yucca, Arizona in Mohave County. The land ownership pattern in Dutch Flat was a checkerboard of public and private land, a legacy of railroad lands. Although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) designated the white- margined penstemon Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) in 1993 for conserva- tion of this Arizona BLM sensitive species, the checkerboard pattern of public and private lands within the ACEC made its conservation management difficult. Rural development was increasing impacts to the Dutch Flat area as the private land was being sold off in 40 acre parcels. The Hualapai Mountains Land Exchange between the Santa Fe Pacific Railroad and the BLM provided a tool for consolidating a portion of the ACEC into a solid block of public land, thereby increasing its manageability for the conservation and survivability of the white- margined pens temon. A real estate artifact of the westward U.S. expan- lic lands selected by the proponent) and 70,000 sion in the nineteenth century is the large areas of acres of offered lands (private lands offered to the checkerboard land ownership patterns between BLM by the proponent).
    [Show full text]
  • Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ORKEINAL 000009041 9
    lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ORKEINAL 000009041 9 s 1 BEFORE THE ARIZONA CQRPORATIQN COMMISSION I ? QS 2 COMMISSIONERS * ; l " I" 4 1 : 3 MIKE GLEASON, Chairman WILLIAM A. MUNDELL 4 JEFF HATCH-MILLER KRISTIN K. MAYES 5 GARY PIERCE 6 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DOCKET no. SW-20379A-05-0489 7 PERKINS MOUNTAIN UTILITY COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE 8 AND NECESSITY. 9 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF DOCKET NO. W-20380A-05-0490 PERKINS MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY 10 FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY. NOTICE OF FILING 13 During the pre-hearing conference on February 8, 2007, Commissioner Mayes requested the 14 status of a study being performed by the United States Geological Survey ("USGS") in conjunction 15 with the Arizona Department of Water Resources ("ADWR"). USGS in conjunction with ADWR 16 recently published Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5182 regarding Detrital, Hualapai, and 17 Sacramento Valley Basins, in Mohave County, Arizona. Attached is the filing of the report. 18 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of November, 2008. 19 20 21 Arizona MV/ 4 Commission 22 Attorney, Legal Division CJ, i"\ Hz. i ED Arizona Corporation Commission 23 1200 W. Washington St. v Phoenix, AZ 85007 24 (602) 542-3402 [MOL JI I_* Y 25 1\l\ -. ~- _ 26 • 0 I 27 • I I 28 1 1 Original and fiiieen (15) copies of the foregoing were filed this 2 17th day of November, 2008 Mth: 3 Docket Control Arizona Corporation Commission 4 1200 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 85008 5 Copy of the foregoing mailed this 6 17th day of November, 2008 to : 7 Jeffrey Crockett Bradley S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alamo Lake and the Harcuvar Mountains
    Abstract The Lake Havasu Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing approximately 1.3 million acres of public land in Northwestern Arizona and Eastern California along the Colorado River and east to Alamo Lake and the Harcuvar Mountains. Information provided by the public, other agencies and organizations, and BLM personnel has been used to develop and analyze the alternatives is this PRMP/FEIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and represents continuation of current management. Alternative 2 emphasizes preservation of undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreation and resource development. Alternative 4 makes land available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to experience natural settings than in Alternative 2. Alternative 5, the agency Proposed Plan, provides for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long- term sustainability of sensitive resources. Major issues addressed in the PRMP/FEIS are identification of lands that would be made available for disposal, management of recreation and public access, designation and management of Special Designations, management of wilderness characteristics, management of wild burros around Alamo Lake, and BLM’s role in the management of Lake Havasu. Front Cover Photo: Lake Havasu 2006 BLM Photo by Diane Williams BLM/AZ/PL-06/008 Contents Volume II Chapter
    [Show full text]