DOCSLIB.ORG

Keystone Peak Prescribed Burn Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AZ-G020-2011-0033-EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Keystone Peak Prescribed Burn Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AZ-G020-2011-0033-EA United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Keystone Peak Prescribed Burn Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AZ-G020-2011-0033-EA U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Gila District Tucson Field Office 3201 East Universal Way Tucson, AZ 85756 Phone: (520) 258-7200 FAX: (520) 258-7238 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 1.3 Conformance with Land Use Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Scoping and Issues .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.1 Internal Scoping .................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.2 External Scoping ................................................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4.3 Issues Considered but not Analyzed in Further Detail ........................................................................................ 8 1.4.4 Issues Identified .................................................................................................................................................................. 10 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................... 10 2.1 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Resource Management Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 13 2.1.2 Burn Plan................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 Pre-burn Preparation Work .......................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.4 Ignition Techniques ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.5 Scheduling ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.6 Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.7 Proposed Action Project Design Features ............................................................................................................... 14 2.2 No Action Alternative ............................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ....................................................................... 14 2.4 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans ............................................................................................. 15 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................... 17 3.1 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 Ecological Sites and Vegetation Communities ............................................................................................................ 19 3.2.1 Current Condition .............................................................................................................................................................. 22 3.2.2 Reference Condition .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 3.3 Grazing Management ............................................................................................................................................................. 23 3.4 Soils ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 3.5 Special Status Species ............................................................................................................................................................ 25 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................................................. 25 3.7 Wildlife, including Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................. 38 3.7.1 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................................................................... 38 2 3.7.2 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................... 42 4.1 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................... 42 4.1.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................. 42 4.1.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 4.1.3 Grazing Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 44 4.1.4 Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 44 4.1.7 Special Status Species ....................................................................................................................................................... 46 4.1.5 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Environmental Consequences of the No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 56 4.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................. 56 4.2.2 Grazing Management ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 4.2.3 Rangeland Health ............................................................................................................................................................... 57 4.2.4 Soil Resources ...................................................................................................................................................................... 57 4.2.5 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................................................................... 59 5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 59 5.1 Geographic Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis .................................................................................... 59 5.2 Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ............................................................................................... 60 5.2.1 Air Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62 5.2.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62 5.2.3 Grazing and Range ............................................................................................................................................................
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]
  • Geochemistry of Ground Water in Avra Valley, Pima County, Arizona
    Geochemistry of ground water in Avra Valley, Pima County, Arizona Item Type Thesis-Reproduction (electronic); text Authors Conner, Leslee Lynn,1957- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 12:48:22 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/191892 GEOCHEMISTRY OF GROUND WATER IN AVRA VALLEY, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Leslee Lynn Conner A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN HYDROLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1986 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re- quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained by the author.
    [Show full text]
  • A STRUCTURAL and GEOCHEMICAL STUDY of the SIERRITA PORPHYRY COPPER SYSTEM, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Paul William Jensen a Thesis
    A STRUCTURAL AND GEOCHEMICAL STUDY OF THE SIERRITA PORPHYRY COPPER SYSTEM, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Paul William Jensen A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1998 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR This thesis has been approved on the date shown below: -1 ., ./lG+ .. /lf j^.S/ /`¡ÿ FÇ Spencer R. Titley Date// Professor of Geosciences 2 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirementsfor an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited inthe University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without specialpermission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requestsfor permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole orin part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the GraduateCollege when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests ofscholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • Canoa Ranch Groundwater Evaluation
    Canoa Ranch Groundwater Evaluation Hydrologic Evaluation of the Occurrence and Nature of Groundwater, and Water Level Trends and Water Balance Related to Future Water Resource Use in the Canoa Ranch Area, Upper Santa Cruz Basin, Pima County, Arizona By Frank G. Postillion, C.G.W.P. Chief Hydrologist David Scalero, Principal Hydrologist Mark Krieski, P.E. Engineering Manager Pima County Regional Flood Control District Executive Summary The Water Resources Division of the Pima County Regional Flood Control District has conducted a hydrologic evaluation of the Canoa Ranch and vicinity, with a focus on the historical and current water balance and how it has affected local groundwater- level conditions, and the potential impacts on the hydro- and meso-riparian vegetation of the Ranch. Numerous data sources were evaluated during the study, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR), Pima County, Pima Association of Governments, and consulting reports. The Canoa Ranch hydrologic study area is centered along the Santa Cruz River (SCR) from the Santa Cruz/Pima County Line in Pima County, Arizona to about 7.5 miles downstream along the River (Figure 1-1). Large portions of the study area along the SCR (4,800 acres) are owned by Pima County as part of the old Canoa Ranch; Elephant Head Road from the South to Santa Rita Springs Development and the Farmers Investment Company (FICO) on the north; from Interstate 19 on the west to the floodplain pediments on the east. The historic Canoa Ranch is undergoing building restoration and is slated for riparian restoration in some targeted areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Keystone Peak Prescribed Burn Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-AZ-G020-2015-0009-EA 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 8 1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Decision to be Made .............................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 Conformance with Land Use Plan .......................................................................................................... 11 1.5 Scoping and Issues ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.5.1 Internal Scoping ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.5.2 External Scoping ............................................................................................................................... 12 1.5.3 Issues Identified ................................................................................................................................ 12 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE ARCHAIC OCCUPATION of the ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA by Bruce B. Huckell K with Cont
    THE ARCHAIC OCCUPATION OF THE ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA by Bruce B. Huckell K with contributions by Lisa W. Huckell Robert S. Thompson Cultural Resource Management Division Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. I THE ARCHAIC OCCUPATION OF THE ROSEMONT AREA, NORTHERN SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS, SOUTHEASTERN ARIZONA by Bruce B. Huckell Contributions by Lisa W. Huckell Robert S. Thompson Submitted by Cultural Resource Management Division Arizona State Museum University of Arizona Prepared for ANAMAX Mining Company 1984 Archaeological Series No. 147, Vol. I CONTENTS FIGURES vii TABLES PREFACE xiii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvi ABSTRACT xviii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION 1 The Archaic Period 2 Previous Research 5 2. THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE ROSEMONT AREA AND SURROUNDING REGIONS 11 General Geography 11 Geology 13 Climate 17 Vegetation 19 Fauna 28 The Paleoenvironment 29 Recent Changes in the Local Biotic Communities 30 Long-Term Changes in the Environment 32 3. A FRAMEWORK FOR RESEARCH AT THE ROSEMONT ARCHAIC SITES 35 Hunter-Gatherer Organization 35 Research Domains 38 Problem Domain I: Subsistence-Settlement Systems 38 Problem Domain II: Cultural and Temporal Affinities 40 Site Selection 41 4. INVESTIGATIONS AT AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SITES 43 Field Methods 43 Results of Excavations: Site Descriptions 46 AZ EE:2:62--The Wasp Canyon Site 48 Investigation 50 Features 52 Structures 52 Rock Clusters 56 Artifacts 58 iii iv Contents AZ EE:2:65 59 Investigation 59
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 54 March 20, 2012 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:12 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\20MRR2.SGM 20MRR2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2 16324 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background submitting the critical habitat rules to the Federal Register. Fish and Wildlife Service It is our intent to discuss in this final We published a proposed rule to rule only those topics directly relevant reassess the listing status and propose 50 CFR Part 17 to the listing and development and critical habitat for the Chiricahua designation of critical habitat for the leopard frog in the Federal Register on [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2010– Chiricahua leopard frog under the Act 0085;4500030114] March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14126) with a (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more request for public comments. On RIN 1018–AX12 information on the biology and ecology September 21, 2011, we made available of the Chiricahua leopard frog refer to the draft environmental assessment and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the final listing rule (67 FR 40790; June draft economic analysis for the and Plants; Listing and Designation of 13, 2002) or our April 2007 final proposed designation of critical habitat Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua recovery plan, which are available from and reopened the public comment on Leopard Frog the Arizona Ecological Services Field the proposed rule (76 FR 58441).
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study for the SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA
    Feasibility Study for the SANTA CRUZ VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA FINAL Prepared by the Center for Desert Archaeology April 2005 CREDITS Assembled and edited by: Jonathan Mabry, Center for Desert Archaeology Contributions by (in alphabetical order): Linnea Caproni, Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona William Doelle, Center for Desert Archaeology Anne Goldberg, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona Andrew Gorski, Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona Kendall Kroesen, Tucson Audubon Society Larry Marshall, Environmental Education Exchange Linda Mayro, Pima County Cultural Resources Office Bill Robinson, Center for Desert Archaeology Carl Russell, CBV Group J. Homer Thiel, Desert Archaeology, Inc. Photographs contributed by: Adriel Heisey Bob Sharp Gordon Simmons Tucson Citizen Newspaper Tumacácori National Historical Park Maps created by: Catherine Gilman, Desert Archaeology, Inc. Brett Hill, Center for Desert Archaeology James Holmlund, Western Mapping Company Resource information provided by: Arizona Game and Fish Department Center for Desert Archaeology Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau Pima County Staff Pimería Alta Historical Society Preservation Studies Program, University of Arizona Sky Island Alliance Sonoran Desert Network The Arizona Nature Conservancy Tucson Audubon Society Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona PREFACE The proposed Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area is a big land filled with small details. One’s first impression may be of size and distance—broad valleys rimmed by mountain ranges, with a huge sky arching over all. However, a closer look reveals that, beneath the broad brush strokes, this is a land of astonishing variety. For example, it is comprised of several kinds of desert, year-round flowing streams, and sky island mountain ranges.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulation of Ground-Water Flow and Potential Land Subsidence, Avra Valley, Arizona
    SIMULATION OF GROUND-WATER FLOW AND POTENTIAL LAND SUBSIDENCE, AVRA VALLEY, ARIZONA By R.T. HANSON, S.R. ANDERSON, and D.R. POOL U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 90-4178 Prepared in cooperation with the CITY OF TUCSON Tucson, Arizona December 1990 U.S DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section Federal Building, FB-44 Federal Center, Building 810 300 West Congress Street Box 25425 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1393 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract.......................................................... 1 Introduction...................................................... 1 Hydrogeologic setting............................................. 3 Geology...................................................... 4 Aquifer system............................................... 6 Ground-water development..................................... 9 Simulation of ground-water flow................................... 11 Steady-state simulation...................................... 13 Transient-state simulation................................... 18 Sensitivity analysis......................................... 28 Simulation of potential land subsidence........................... 28 Summary........................................................... 35 Selected references..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Appraisal of the Ground Water Resources of Avra and Altar Valleys
    WATER-RESOURCES REPORT NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPARTMENT OBED M. LASSEN, COMMISSIONER AN APPRAISAL OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF AVRA AND ALTAR VALLEYS PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA BY NATALIE D. WHITE WG. MATLOCK AND H.C. SCHWALEN I PREPARED BY THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PHOENIX, ARIZONA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FEBRUARY 1966 AND THE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA "Water Rights AdjlJdiCll\ion Team Civil Division Attorney Generars Office: CONTENTS Page Abstract ------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------- 3 Location and extent of the area ------------------------- 3 History of agricultural development--------------------- 9 Purpose and scope of the study ------------------------- 10 Previous investigations -------------------------------- 12 Acknowledgments and personnel ------------------------ 13 The geohydrologic system ---------------------------------- 13 Climat.e -------------------------- - --- - -- - ------- - - - -- 14 Geologic setting -------------------------------------- 16 Surface water----------------------------------------- 19 Ground water-occurrence and movement --------------- 19 Chemical quality of the ground water -------------------- 27 Hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer ---------------- - --- 28 Transmissibility determined from well-data analysis -- - -- 29 Transmissibility determined from aquifer tests --- - ------ 30 Storage coefficient determined from analysis of the effects of ground-water withdrawal
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Potential of Eastern Pima County, Arizona
    MINERAL POTENTIAL OF EASTERN PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA by Southwestern Minerals Exploration Association Tucson, Arizona July 15, 2001 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTRIBUTED REPORT 01-B This report was written under the direction of Charles P. Miller, Coordinator for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Project, with contributions by: Russell Corn Jonathan DuHamel Dirk Den-Baars Ted Eyde Richard Hahman Grover Heinrichs James Loghry Kenneth Lovstrom Robert Metz James Sell Southwestern Minerals Exploration Association Tucson, Arizona July 15, 2001 PREAMBLE As a result of the large contribution of minerals to national, regional, and local economies, resource assessment in support of land-use planning is one of the most consequential activities to be performed. Decisions made today will affect society for generations to come. Resource Science, Inc. 1994 Land-use planners are increasingly required to respond to land-use conflicts between mineral industries and alternative land uses. In resolving these conflicts, planners seek to be responsive to current and future needs of society when choosing between varied, alternative land uses. Land-use planning, however, has increasingly become a resolution of competing ideologies, and land-use planners are struggling to acquire the objective information necessary to make informed decisions. An increased understanding of natural science has proven useful in this regard. If proposed land- uses can be cast within a holistic model of the natural world, then more informed decisions are possible. This report seeks to convey to land-use planners an essential piece of information, an inventory of mineral resource potential across eastern Pima County. Mineral production has always been viewed as an essential industry, not only to generate wealth and provide employment, but also for the array of products that are consumed by a society.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on the Proposedconstruction of the Sierrita
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife 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 02EAAZOO-2013-F-0035 April 14, 2014 Mr. David Swearingen Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Gas – Environment and Engineering 888 First Street, NE, Room 1A Washington, D.C. 20426 OEP/DG2E/Gas 4 Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC Sierrita Pipeline Project Docket Nos. CP13-73-000; CP13-74-000 Dear Mr. Swearingen: Thank you for your request for formal 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 (ESA). Your request was received by us on October 31, 2013, as was your additional request related to designated jaguar critical habitat on March 5, 2014. Your requests were supplemented with additional information from Sierrita Gas Pipeline LLC (Sierrita) on December 5, 2013 and December 17, 2013. At issue are possible effects of the proposed construction of the Sierrita Pipeline Project, a proposal by Sierrita to construct approximately 61 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in the Altar Valley of Pima County, Arizona. You (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) concluded that the proposed project “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the endangered Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina), and it is this species that is the subject of this Biological Opinion (BO).
    [Show full text]