DOCSLIB.ORG

Galiuro Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Galiuro Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Galiuro Exploration Drilling Plan of Operations Environmental Assessment Forest Service Coronado National Forests Safford Ranger District December 2017 For More Information Contact: Richard Goshen 300 W. Congress St Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8341 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632- 9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Environmental Assessment Preface Acronyms and Abbreviations AAC Arizona Administrative Code ABA Acid Base Accounting ACHP Advisory Council of Historic Preservation ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AGFD Arizona Game & Fish Department AMA Active Management Area amsl Above Mean Sea Level APE Area of Potential Effects APP Aquafer Protection Permit ARD Acid Rock Drainage ARS Arizona Revised Statutes ASM Arizona State Museum ASOS Automatic Surface Observation System ASTM American Society for Testing & Materials AWQS Aquifer Water Quality Standard AZHGIS Arizona Heritage Geographic Information System AZPDES Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System BAE Biological Assessment & Evaluation BCC Birds of Conservation Concern BGEPA Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGP Construction General Permit CNF Coronado National Forest CO Carbon Monoxide CWA Clean Water Act DF Design Feature DMGP De Minimis General Permit E. coli Escherichia coli EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMA Ecology Management Area EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FP Forest Plan i Galiuro Exploration Drilling Project Plan of Operations FSH Forest Service Handbook FSM Forest Service Manual GIS Geographic Information Systems GLO General Land Office GMU Game Management Unit gpm Gallons per minute GPS Global Positioning System GTES General Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey HDMS Heritage Data Management System HP Horsepower HUC Hydrologic Unit Code IDT Interdisciplinary Team IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments IPaC Information for Planning & Construction IRA Inventoried Roadless Area KEC Kennecott Exploration Company LRMP Land Resource Management Plan LZ Landing Zone MA Management Area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MIS Management Indicator Species MM Mitigation Measure MSL Mean Sea Level NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFS National Forest System NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOAA National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration NOx Nitrogen Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places O&M Operations & Management PA Project Area PAC Protected Activity Center PM Particulate Matter PoO Plan of Operations PPEPM Proponent Proposed Environmental Protection Measure ppm Part per Million PRISM Parameter-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model RASES Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation System RMap USFS Region 3 GIS Riparian Map RP Reduced Pressure RecP Reclamation Plan SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need SHPO State Historic Preservation Office ii Environmental Assessment SIO Scenic Integrity Objective SMS Scenery Management System SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leach Procedures SRP Spill Response Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWQS Surface Water Quality Standard TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leach Procedures TEUI Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory ULSD Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel USC University of Southern California USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UV Ultra-violet VOC Volatile Organic Compounds VQO Visual Quality Objectives VRMS Visual Resource Management System WRCC Western Region Climate Center iii Galiuro Exploration Drilling Project Plan of Operations Contents Preface Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... i 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Location of the Proposed Project Area ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Direction ............................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Forest Service Mining Regulations .......................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Forest Service Mineral Policy .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.3 Forest Plan Consistency .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Need for the Proposal .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 Scope of the Federal Action ......................................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1 Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Access ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Drilling and Related Activities ............................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3 Equipment ............................................................................................................................................. 20 2.2.4 Proponent Proposed Environmental Protection Measures .................................................................. 20 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated .................................................................................................... 23 2.4 CNF Proposed Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 23 2.5 Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 28 3 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative ................................................. 31 3.1 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 32 3.2 Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director, or Director, as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest Draft Land and Resource Management Plan I Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coronado National Forest Southwestern Region Draft Land and Resource MB-R3-05-7 October 2013 Management Plan Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Front cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Meadow Valley in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area; saguaros in the Galiuro Mountains; deer herd; aspen on Mt. Lemmon; Riggs Lake; Dragoon Mountains; Santa Rita Mountains “sky island”; San Rafael grasslands; historic building in Cave Creek Canyon; golden columbine flowers; and camping at Rose Canyon Campground. Printed on recycled paper • October 2013 Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard, SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For Information Contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] Contents Chapter 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Galiuro Mountains Unit, Graham County, Arizona MLA 21
    I MI~A~J~L M)P~SAL OF CORONADO I NATIONAL FOREST, PART 9 I Galiuro Mountains Unit I Graham County, Arizona I Galiuro Muni~Untains I i A IZON I,' ' I BUREAU OF MINES UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR f United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES INTERMOUNTAIN FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER "m II P.O. BOX 25086 II BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER DENVER, COLORADO 80225 November 22, 1993 Nyal Niemuth Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources 1502 West Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Dear Mr. Niemuth: Enclosed are two copies of the following U.S. Bureau of Mines Open File Report for your use: MLA 21-93 Mineral Appraisal of the Coronado National Forest, Part 9, Galiuro Mountains Unit, Graham County, Arizona If you would like additional copies, please notify Mark Chatman at 303-236-3400. Resource Evaluation Branch I i I MINERAL APPRAISAL OF THE CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST PART 9, GALIURO MOUNTAINS UNIT, I GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZONA I I by. I S. Don Brown I MLA 21-93 I 1993 I I, i Intermountain Field Operations Center I Denver, Colorado I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary BUREAU OF MINES I HERMANN ENZER, Acting Director I I I PREFACE I A January 1987 Interagency Agreement between the U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, and U.S. Forest Service describes the purpose, authority, and I program operation for the forest-wide studies. The program is intended to assist the I Forest Service in incorporating mineral resource data in forest plans as specified by the National Forest Management Act (1976) and Title 36, Chapter 2, Part 219, Code of i Federal Regulations, and to augment the Bureau's mineral resource data base so that it can analyze and make available minerals information as required by the National I Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act (1980).
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to the GEOLOGY of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: the Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island
    A GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY OF THE SANTA CATALINA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA: THE GEOLOGY AND LIFE ZONES OF A MADREAN SKY ISLAND ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 22 JOHN V. BEZY Inside front cover. Sabino Canyon, 30 December 2010. (Megan McCormick, flickr.com (CC BY 2.0). A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island John V. Bezy Arizona Geological Survey Down-to-Earth 22 Copyright©2016, Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved Book design: M. Conway & S. Mar Photos: Dr. Larry Fellows, Dr. Anthony Lux and Dr. John Bezy unless otherwise noted Printed in the United States of America Permission is granted for individuals to make single copies for their personal use in research, study or teaching, and to use short quotes, figures, or tables, from this publication for publication in scientific books and journals, provided that the source of the information is appropriately cited. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new or collective works, or for resale. The reproduction of multiple copies and the use of articles or extracts for comer- cial purposes require specific permission from the Arizona Geological Survey. Published by the Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, #100, Tucson, AZ 85701 www.azgs.az.gov Cover photo: Pinnacles at Catalina State Park, Courtesy of Dr. Anthony Lux ISBN 978-0-9854798-2-4 Citation: Bezy, J.V., 2016, A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona This biological opinion responds to your request for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531- 1544), as amended (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Environmental Assessment for Operation
    MAY 2002 FINAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATION DESERT GRIP USBP TUCSON AND YUMA SECTOR, ARIZONA IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATION DESERT GRIP USBP TUCSON AND YUMA SECTOR, ARIZONA May 2002 Lead Agency: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Facilities and Engineering Division Washington, D.C. Responsible Official: Mr. Russ D’Hondt INS Headquarters Facilities and Engineering Division 425 I Street, Northwest, Room 2030 Washington, D.C. 20536 ABSTRACT PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed action would include the temporary placement of two trailers within an area of high undocumented alien (UDA) and drug trafficking crossings along the US/Mexico border. During the operation five agents would be stationed at the trailers 24-hours, seven days. PURPOSE AND NEED The primary purpose of the proposed action is to assist in FOR THE PROPOSED identifying and rescuing UDAs and illegal drug traffickers ACTION: who may be at risk of dying due to overexposure along the U.S./Mexico border within the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Tucson and Yuma Sectors’ Area of Operations (AO). A secondary purpose of the operation is to reduce illegal immigration and drug trafficking along the border by increasing the USBP’s presence in these remote areas. ALTERNATIVES TO THE Alternatives addressed in the EA include the no action and PROPOSED ACTION: proposed action described above. The no action alternative would not enhance the USBP mission to deter the UDAs from entering the U.S. and would thus, indirectly place more migrants and/or USBP agents at risk. Of the alternatives considered, the proposed action would be the most cost- efficient and strategically effective approach to ensuring the USBP agents’ and illegal entrants’ health and safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest
    CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Reviewed and Updated by _/s/ Chris Stetson ___________ Date __5/18/10 __________ Coronado Fire Management Plan Interagency Federal fire policy requires that every area with burnable vegetation must have a Fire Management Plan (FMP). This FMP provides information concerning the fire process for the Coronado National Forest and compiles guidance from existing sources such as but not limited to, the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), national policy, and national and regional directives. The potential consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected help determine the management response to wildfire. Firefighter and public safety are the first consideration and are always the priority during every response to wildfire. The following chapters discuss broad forest and specific Fire Management Unit (FMU) characteristics and guidance. Chapter 1 introduces the area covered by the FMP, includes a map of the Coronado National Forest, addresses the agencies involved, and states why the forest is developing the FMP. Chapter 2 establishes the link between higher-level planning documents, legislation, and policies and the actions described in FMP. Chapter 3 articulates specific goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and/or desired future condition(s), as established in the forest’s LRMP, which apply to all the forest’s FMUs and those that are unique to the forest’s individual FMUs. Page 1 of 30 Coronado Fire Management Plan Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION The Coronado National Forest developed this FMP as a decision support tool to help fire personnel and decision makers determine the response to an unplanned ignition.
    [Show full text]
  • Sw - an Area Command Center Has Been Established for the Dude Fire
    FIRE MANAGEMENT SITUATION REPORT SUNDAY 07/01/90 0900 HRS. MDT. PREPAREDNESS LEVEL III HIGHLIGHTS: SW - AN AREA COMMAND CENTER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE DUDE FIRE. DICK COX IS THE AREA COMMANDER. DUDE, TONTO N.F. - 28,480 ACRES. TYPE I TEAM (SHAW) COMMITTED TO THE WEST SIDE, TYPE I TEAM (MUECHEL) COMMITTED TO THE EAST SIDE AND TYPE I TEAM (GALLEGOS) COMMITTED TO THE APACHE-SITGREAVES. GOOD PROGRESS WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN ALL ZONES. MOP-UP STARTED IN ALL ZONES, WITH MAJOR EFFORT IN AND AROUND SUB DIVISIONS THAT WERE BURNED OVER, AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ZONE 1. FIRE IS 95% CONTAINED WITH FULL CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. FRIJOLE, GUADALUPE N.P. - 6,014 ACRES. TYPE I TEAM (DENTON) COMMITTED. FIRE WAS SLOWED BY A COMBINATION OF AIRTANKERS, HELICOPTERS BUCKET WORK AND HAND CREWS. ALL BUT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FIRE IS FULLY CONTAINED. MOP-UP CONTINUES ON THE FLANKS. SOME RELEASES OF TYPE I CREWS AND OVERHEAD HAS BEGUN. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. COMMISSARY, SANTA FE N.F. - 235 ACRES. TYPE II TEAM (LENTE) COMMITTED. CONTAINED. MONTOSA, ARIZONA STATE - 10,000 ACRES. TYPE II TEAM (SHIVE) COMMITTED. ERRATIC WINDS, THUNDERSTORMS AND SPOT FIRES CONTINUE TO CAUSE CONTROL PROBLEMS. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED TODAY, 7/1. MAVERICK, CORONADO N.F. - 800 ACRES. FIRE IS BURNING IN THE GALIURO WILDERNESS IN GRASS/OAK BRUSH FUELS. THE CONTROL STRATEGY IS TO USE NATURAL BARRIERS AND TO BURN OUT IF THE FIRE MOVES TO PREDETERMINED LOCATIONS. CONTAINMENT EXPECTED 7/10. APACHE, CIBOLA N.F. - 250 ACRES. HISTORICAL CABIN WITHIN A MILE OF THE FIRE IS THREATENED.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-98-F-399 July 29, 1999 John McGee, Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 W. Congress Tucson, Arizona 85701 RE: On-going and Long-term Grazing Consultation Dear Mr. McGee: This document transmits the Fish and Wildlife Service's final biological opinion on the proposed On-going and Long-term Grazing on the Coronado National Forest (Forest) in New Mexico (Hidalgo County) and Arizona (Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima, Pinal, and Graham Counties) following section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your November 5, 1998, request for formal consultation was received on November 5, 1998. By letter of March 26, 1999, we extended the 90-day consultation period by 60 days. The draft biological opinion was delivered to you on April 16, 1999. We received your comments on the draft opinion and a summary of applicant comments and their original comments on June 21, 1999. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance of your staff and permittees during the consultation period. We look forward to assisting the Coronado National Forest with the implementation of this biological opinion. If you have any questions on the biological opinion please contact me or Doug Duncan (520/670-4860). Sincerely, /s/ David L. Harlow Field Supervisor 2 Enclosures: biological opinion zip disk 2 cc: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM (GARD-AZ/NM, PARD-ES) Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Albuquerque, New Mexico DKD:finalbo.cnf BIOLOGICAL OPINION On-going and Long-term Grazing on the Coronado National Forest Arizona Ecological Services Field Office US Fish and Wildlife Service AESO/SE 2-21-98-F-399 July 29, 1999 Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's Wildlife Linkages Assessment
    ARIZONAARIZONA’’SS WILDLIFEWILDLIFE LINKAGESLINKAGES ASSESSMENTASSESSMENT Workgroup Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment Prepared by: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Siobhan E. Nordhaugen, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Evelyn Erlandsen, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch Paul Beier, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry Bruce D. Eilerts, Arizona Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Management Group Ray Schweinsburg, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Terry Brennan, USDA Forest Service, Tonto National Forest Ted Cordery, Bureau of Land Management Norris Dodd, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Research Branch Melissa Maiefski, Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental Planning Group Janice Przybyl, The Sky Island Alliance Steve Thomas, Federal Highway Administration Kim Vacariu, The Wildlands Project Stuart Wells, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT First Printing Date: December, 2006 Copyright © 2006 The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written consent from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written consent of the copyright holder. Additional copies may be obtained by submitting a request to: The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup E-mail: [email protected] 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT The Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup Mission Statement “To identify and promote wildlife habitat connectivity using a collaborative, science based effort to provide safe passage for people and wildlife” 2006 ARIZONA’S WILDLIFE LINKAGES ASSESSMENT Primary Contacts: Bruce D.
    [Show full text]
  • CHA Final Report January 29-2013 (PDF)
    Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 - 2013 Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 1 Graham County Community Health Assessment 2012 - 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 History and Regional Information……………………………………………………………….…….………5 Climate……………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..6 Population…………………..………………………………………………………………………….………..7 Economics……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 Community Health Assessment……………………………………….…………………………….………...9 The Model……………….………………………………………………………………………………….……9 The Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………...….10 Community Survey……………….………………………………………………………………...…….……11 The Findings…………………………………………………………….……………………………………..12 Secondary Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………..13 Stakeholder Group Discussions ……………………………………………………………………..………15 Post Survey Community Assessment Meeting…………………………………….………………….……21 Forces of Change…………………………………………………………………………………………...…21 Voices of the Community Meetings………………………………………………………………….………23 Photo Voice…………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 Community Vision and Values Statements...………………..……………………………………………..29 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………...30 Acknowledgements………………………………..…………………………………………………………..31 References....................................................................................................................................….. 31 Note: Contents of this report were compiled and written by: Laura Rogers, Health Program Coordinator GrahamCommunity County Health
    [Show full text]