APPENDIX I ALLANDS NEPA PROFILE 14947 W. Piccadilly Road, Goodyear, AZ 85395 • Phone: 623-535-7800 • Fax: 623-535-7900 www.allands.com • e-mail: [email protected]
Historical Title and Environmental Research
NEPA PROFILE
YOUR FILE NO: 200045EA
ALLANDS FILE NO: 2020-01-036
DATE OF REPORT: January 17, 2020
ALLANDS hereby reports the search results of Federal and State Databases. Allands is not responsible for errors in the available records. The total liability is limited to the fee paid for this report. This is a confidential, privileged and protected document for the use of Speedie & Associates.
1. The land referred to in this report is located in Yavapai County, Arizona, described as follows:
Property located at 1455 Sundog Ranch Road, Prescott, Arizona, being in the Southwest quarter of Section 24 and Northwest quarter of Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 2 West, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian.
2020-01-036 1of 9 WILDERNESS
This database is comprised of information from the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Areas, National Park Service Lands, National Forest Service Lands, National Parkways and Scenic Rivers, and the state of Arizona State Park Service. This list has been searched for wilderness areas located within a 1.0 mile search radius from the exterior boundaries of subject property.
No wilderness areas were found located within a 1.0 mile search radius of subject property.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
This database is comprised of information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. This list has been searched for national wildlife refuges located within a 1.0 mile search radius from the exterior boundaries of subject property.
No national wildlife refuges were found located within a 1.0 mile search radius of subject property.
2020-01-036 2of 9 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The US Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of endangered plant and animal species on their website: (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac) and potential critical habitat areas (http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical- habitat.html)
No endangered plant and animal species were recorded on the property.
Subject site is not located within a critical habitat area.
See attached habitat map and IPaC printout.
SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the United States regulated under this program include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 requires a permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States.
Proposed activities are regulated through a permit review process. An individual permit is required for potentially significant impacts. Individual permits are reviewed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which evaluates applications under a public interest review, as well as the environmental criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, regulations promulgated by EPA.
Subject property was reviewed via the US Army Corps of Engineers Permit finder located at: https://permits.ops.usace.army.mil/orm-public
No permits were found impacting subject property.
2020-01-036 3of 9 WETLANDS
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maintains and updated 1:24k and 1:24k quadrangle maps and digital data representing wetland locations and classifications as defined by the US Fish and Wildlife Service at the online mapper application: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
See map attached.
Property overlaps the following wetlands code R4SBC:
R System RIVERINE: The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. 4 Subsystem INTERMITTENT: This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. SB Class STREAMBED: Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide.
C Water Regime Seasonally Flooded: Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface.
In addition, within a 1 mile radius there are additional wetlands coded PEM1A, PFO1A, R4SBA; PEM1AH and PEM1ch. Codes follow:
P System PALUSTRINE: The Palustrine System includes all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 ppt. It also includes wetlands lacking such vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 8 ha (20 acres); (2) active wave- formed or bedrock shoreline features lacking; (3) water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 2.5 m (8.2 ft) at low water; and (4) salinity due to ocean-derived salts less than 0.5 ppt.
2020-01-036 4of 9 EM Class EMERGENT: Characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. 1 Subclass Persistent: Dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season. This subclass is found only in the Estuarine and Palustrine systems. A Water Regime Temporary Flooded: Surface water is present for brief periods (from a few days to a few weeks) during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the ground surface for the most of the season.
h SPECIAL MODIFIER Diked/Impounded: These wetlands have been created or modified by a man-made barrier or dam that obstructs the inflow or outflow of water.
C Water Regime Seasonally Flooded: Surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the growing season in most years. The water table after flooding ceases is variable, extending from saturated to the surface to a water table well below the ground surface..
h SPECIAL MODIFIER Diked/Impounded: These wetlands have been created or modified by a man-made barrier or dam that obstructs the inflow or outflow of water.
FO Class FORESTED: Characterized by woody vegetation that is 6 m tall or taller. 1 Subclass Broad-Leaved Deciduous: Woody angiosperms (trees or shrubs) with relatively wide, flat leaves that are shed during the cold or dry season; e.g., black ash (Fraxinus nigra). A Water Regime Temporary Flooded: Surface water is present for brief periods (from a few days to a few weeks) during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the ground surface for the most of the season.
2020-01-036 5of 9
Description for code R4SBA:
R System RIVERINE: The Riverine System includes all wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with two exceptions: (1) wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and (2) habitats with water containing ocean-derived salts of 0.5 ppt or greater. A channel is an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between two bodies of standing water. 4 Subsystem INTERMITTENT: This Subsystem includes channels that contain flowing water only part of the year. When the water is not flowing, it may remain in isolated pools or surface water may be absent. SB Class STREAMBED: Includes all wetlands contained within the Intermittent Subsystem of the Riverine System and all channels of the Estuarine System or of the Tidal Subsystem of the Riverine System that are completely dewatered at low tide.
A Water Regime Temporary Flooded: Surface water is present for brief periods (from a few days to a few weeks) during the growing season, but the water table usually lies well below the ground surface for the most of the season
2020-01-036 6of 9
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP) AND LOCAL HISTORIC PROPERTY REGISTERS
This database is comprised of information from the National Park Service, National Register Information System (NRIS) which is the official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects significant in American History. In addition, online Prescott historic property and neighborhood information has been reviewed. These lists have been searched for historic places located within a 1.0 mile search radius from the exterior boundaries of subject property.
Within the 1.0 mile search radius, no historic properties or historic districts were found on the NRHP or in online municipal data.
The historic Santa Fe, Prescott, and Phoenix Railway Line runs northeast-southwest approximately .13 miles northwest of the project parcel. The historic Prescott-Jerome Highway (US 89A) runs parallel to the railroad tracks approximately .36 miles to the northwest of the project area. Neither are within the current project area.
ASU AZSITE PUBLIC DATABASE
The ASU AZSITE Public Database has been searched for cultural/archaeological resource sensitivity in Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 2 West.
Survey density of Section 25 is 42.4%, and archaeological site density is 0%. Survey density for adjacent Section 24 is 20.2%, and archaeological site density is 1.7%.
The subject parcel is not covered by maps showing known projected prehistoric canals.
2020-01-036 7of 9 HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOS
NETROnline shares historic aerial photos including Yavapai County. Review of the website shows the construction of the Prescott Lakes Parkway around 2003, and that the project parcel was used much as it is today back to 2005, and appears to have been largely vacant to back 1980. Unfortunately no available photos go further back in time.
COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVEMENT ACT AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION CLASSIFICATION
The purpose of the Coastal Barriers Resources Act (CBRA) is to promote more appropriate use and conservation of coastal barriers along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines. "Coastal barriers" are defined as bay barriers, barrier islands, and other geological features composed of sediment that protect landward aquatic habitats from direct wind and waves. The Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) disclose communities, coastal barriers, and other protected areas identified by the Department of the Interior legislation in either the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 or the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. Established in 1966 by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the National Register of Historic Places is the nation's official list of properties considered worthy of preservation. The National Register Information System (NRIS) contains information on every property in the Register.
Subject property was not found on these lists.
2020-01-036 8of 9 1/17/2020 BLM AZ - Wilderness Areas Map
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Arizona
Wilderness Areas Location Map
The numbers below correspond to the numbered sites on the map
1. Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness
2. Cottonwood Point Wilderness
3. Kanab Creek Wilderness
4. Mount Trumbull Wilderness
5. Mount Logan Wilderness
6. Beaver Dam Mountains Wilderness
7. Paiute Wilderness
8. Grand Wash Cliffs Wilderness
9. Mount Wilson Wilderness
10. Mount Tipton Wilderness
11. Mount Nutt Wilderness
12. Warm Springs Wilderness
13. Wabayuma Peak Wilderness
14. Upper Burro Creek Wilderness
15. Aubrey Peak Wilderness
16. Arrastra Mountain Wilderness
17. Tres Alamos Wilderness
18. Rawhide Mountains Wilderness
19. Swansea Wilderness
20. Gibraltar Mountain Wilderness
21. East Cactus Plain Wilderness
22. Harcuvar Mountains Wilderness
23. Hassayampa River Canyon Wilderness
24. Hells Canyon Wilderness
25. Harquahala Mountains Wilderness
26. Hummingbird Springs Wilderness
27. Big Horn Mountains Wilderness
28. Eagletail Mountains Wilderness
29. New Water Mountains Wilderness
30. Trigo Mountain Wilderness
31. Muggins Mountain Wilderness
32. Signal Mountain Wilderness
33. Woolsey Peak Wilderness
34. North Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
35. South Maricopa Mountains Wilderness
36. Sierra Estrella Wilderness
37. Table Top Wilderness
38. Coyote Mountains Wilderness
39. Baboquivari Peak Wilderness https://www.blm.gov/az/wildarea-map.htm 1/2 1/17/2020 BLM AZ - Wilderness Areas Map
40. White Canyon Wilderness
41. Needle's Eye Wilderness
42. Aravaipa Canyon Wilderness
43. North Santa Teresa Wilderness
44. Fishhooks Wilderness
45. Redfield Canyon Wilderness
46. Dos Cabezas Mountains Wilderness
47. Peloncillo Mountains Wilderness
48. Cactus Plain Wilderness Study Area
49. Baker Canyon Wilderness Study Area
Map of Arizona National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, & National Historic Trails
https://www.blm.gov/az/wildarea-map.htm 2/2 1/17/2020 Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS] Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS] Final Linear Features
Final Polygon Features
Proposed Linear Features
Proposed Polygon Features
A specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species 0.2mi and that may require special management and protection.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Coconino County, County of Yavapai, Bureau of Land Management, Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, USGS, METI/NASA, EPA, USDA
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html 1/1 2020-01-036
1:26,336 0 0.225 0.45 0.9 mi U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team, [email protected] 0 0.35 0.7 1.4 km
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife January 17, 2020 Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should Wetlands Freshwater Emergent Wetland Lake be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Estuarine and Marine Deepwater Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland Other
Estuarine and Marine Wetland Freshwater Pond Riverine National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This page was produced by the NWI mapper 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of e ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci c (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-speci c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS o ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de ned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location Yavapai County, Arizona
Local o ce
Arizona Ecological Services Field O ce (602) 242-0210 (602) 242-2513
9828 North 31st Ave #c3 Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 1/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies_Main.html
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 2/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population, even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential e ects to species, additional site-speci c and project-speci c information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o ce and a species list which ful lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld o ce directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o cial species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries2 ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially a ected by activities in this location:
Birds NAME STATUS https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 3/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Reptiles NAME STATUS
Northern Mexican Gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7655
Critical habitats
Potential e ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2 .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 4/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Oct 15 to Jul 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Black Throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Breeds Mar 15 to Sep 5 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Black-chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9447 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 5/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens Breeds May 1 to Jul 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Common Black-hawk Buteogallus anthracinus Breeds Apr 1 to Sep 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Grace's Warbler Dendroica graciae Breeds May 20 to Jul 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Gray Vireo Vireo vicinior Breeds May 10 to Aug 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8680
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Phainopepla phainopepla nitens Breeds Mar 1 to Aug 20 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1372
Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Breeds Feb 15 to Jul 15 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9420
Red-faced Warbler Cardellina rubrifrons Breeds May 10 to Jul 15 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus Breeds elsewhere This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 6/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Rufous-winged Sparrow Aimophila carpalis Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 30 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9441
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con dence in the presence score. One can have higher con dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e ort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey E ort ( )
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 7/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey e ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ( ) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
probability of presence breeding season survey e ort no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.)
Black Throated Sparrow BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
Black-chinned Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Black-throated Gray Warbler BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 8/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Common Black- hawk BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities.)
Grace's Warbler BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
Gray Vireo BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Lewis's Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Phainopepla BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
Pinyon Jay BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 9/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
Red-faced Warbler BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA)
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Rufous-winged Sparrow BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Virginia's Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o shore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 10/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o shore energy development or longline shing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e orts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially a ected by o shore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also o ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 11/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e ort is the key component. If the survey e ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con rmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 12/13 1/17/2020 IPaC: Explore Location This location overlaps the following wetlands:
RIVERINE R4SBC
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi cation established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional di erences in polygon boundaries or classi cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber cid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de ne and describe wetlands in a di erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to de ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a ect such activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/VCP5FKA4ENCZ3JXMSQ3O6OMZFM/resources 13/13
APPENDIX J ENDANGERED FLORA & FAUNA REPORT
201 East Birch Street, Suite 1, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Phone: 480.967.1343 Fax: 480.966.9232 www.logansimpson.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Connie Jiron, Speedie & Associates, Inc. From: Lisa Young, Logan Simpson Date: February 21, 2020 Subject: Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center
INTRODUCTION Yavapai County plans to construct a new criminal justice center on a 15-acre Yavapai County-owned parcel at 1455 Sundog Ranch Road in the city of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona (see Attachment A). Logan Simpson was contracted by Speedie & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Yavapai County, to conduct due diligence biological and cultural resource investigations within the project area in support of their Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
Logan Simpson conducted a literature search, a biological survey of the project area to determine the potential presence of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in support of Yavapai County’s due diligence efforts. The methodology and findings of this Biological Site Assessment are presented below.
SURVEY METHODS A 100 percent survey of the project area was conducted by Logan Simpson biologist Lisa Young on February 13, 2020. Prior to the survey, maps of the project area were generated to ensure an accurate determination of the project area while in the field. Species lists were reviewed and a literature search was conducted to identify documented occurrences of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species in the project vicinity. The characteristics of the physical and natural environment were also identified based on a review of topographic maps and aerial photos of the project area, online resources, and geographic information system (GIS) data.
The project area was surveyed on foot to document existing conditions, characterize plant communities, document wildlife species, and identify any protected biological resources that may be present. Coverage of the mixed-used development project area was obtained by walking transects back and forth across the project area at approximately 100-foot intervals. Particular attention was paid to locating protected native plants and stick nests that would indicate use of the area by raptors or other nesting birds.
ECOLOGICAL SETTING The project area is a mostly level parcel located within the Madrean Lower Montane Woodlands Ecoregion (Griffith et. al. 2014), which has hills and low mountains, some deep canyons, mostly moderate- to high- gradient intermittent streams with some perennial rivers and streams, moderate summer temperatures, and cold winters (temperatures range from 23 to 88 degrees Fahrenheit). The Bradshaw Mountains are located approximately 5 miles to the west of the project area. The project area is located at approximately Logan Simpson Technical Memorandum Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 21, 2020 Page 2
5,200 feet above mean sea level. Photographs of the representative vegetation and topography in the project area are provided in Attachment B.
The project area is situated within the city of Prescott. Lands in the project vicinity are mostly developed, with the exception of the nearby Watson Woods Park, located approximately 1,000 feet west of the project area, which includes the intermittent Granite Creek and riparian vegetation. Prescott Lakes Parkway borders the eastern edge of the project area; Sundog Ranch Road and the City of Prescott Water Operations facility are located just north of the project area. There are industrial buildings and undeveloped parcels to the west and to the south is an electric utility substation and the Yavapai County Juvenile Detention Center.
The project area occurs within the Great Basin Conifer Woodland Biotic Community (Turner and Brown 1994), which is characterized by sparse rainfall with cold winter temperatures, rocky terrain with thin soils, and vegetation that ranges from open grassland to pinyon-juniper woodlands. There is a combination of native and non-native vegetation throughout the 15-acre project area; however, it is located in an urbanized area where most of the surrounding lands have been converted to residential, commercial, and municipal uses. The project area is primarily undeveloped with very few existing built features consisting of some culverts and a concrete drainage structure associated with Prescott Lakes Parkway. There are signs of previous surface disturbance (graded areas, dirt roadways, mounds of dirt/rock, and dump sites for vegetation and other debris) scattered throughout the entire parcel. The project area has a relatively dense cover of low-growing grasses and forbs including Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula), grama (Bouteloua spp.), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and various species of thistle (Cirsium sp.) and asters (Asteraceae spp.). The dominant tree species in the project area is Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila), though native Emory oak (Quercus emoryi), pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and California buckthorn (Frangula californica) also occur on the parcel. Shrubs including skunk bush (Rhus trilobata) and shrub live oak (Quercus turbinella) were also observed.
The only wildlife observed in the project area during the site visit on February 13, 2020, was the common raven (Corvus corax), though the remains of a small, cup-shaped (three-inch diameter) nest was observed near a culvert at the north end of the project area, and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) scat was observed at multiple locations in the project area.
SURVEY RESULTS
Threatened and Endangered Species The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) decision support system was accessed to obtain a species list for the project area on February 11, 2020 (see Attachment C). The habitat requirements and current distribution information for each of the species on the list were reviewed by a qualified biologist (Lisa Young, Logan Simpson) and it was determined that there is no suitable habitat present for any federally-listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species in the project area or in the project vicinity. Table 1 provides an evaluation for each of the species on the USFWS list. Logan Simpson Technical Memorandum Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 21, 2020 Page 3
Table 1. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Potentially Occurring in the Project Area
Species Name Statusa Habitat Requirements Suitable Habitat Present?
Birds
No suitable habitat present – there is no ponderosa pine/Gambel oak, The MSO is known to nest in high elevation Mexican spotted owl ESA LT mixed conifer, or canyons within ponderosa pine/Gambel oak and mixed (Strix occidentalis lucida) SGCN the project area. The project area is conifer and canyon lands. outside of designated critical habitat for this species.
Large blocks of riparian woodlands (cottonwood and willow galleries) below No suitable habitat present – there 6,500 feet. Recent surveys conducted in is no riparian woodland or encinal southeastern Arizona (south of the Gila Yellow-billed cuckoo upland habitat present within the ESA LT River) have also documented yellow-billed (Coccyzus americanus) project area. The project area is cuckoos breeding in “atypical” habitats outside of proposed critical habitat such as along ephemeral and intermittent for this species. drainages, and in encinal (oak-dominated) habitats in upland areas.
This flycatcher breeds principally in (at low elevations) dense willow, cottonwood, and tamarisk thickets and woodland along No suitable habitat present – there Southwestern willow streams and rivers, and (at high elevations) is no riparian habitat present within ESA LE flycatcher pure, streamside stands of Geyer willow. the project area. The project area is SGCN (Empidonax traillii extimus) Breeding success may be affected by outside of designated critical brown-headed cowbird egg-parasitism. habitat for this species. They are known to occur along the Verde River.
Reptiles
Occurs primarily in permanent marshes and No suitable habitat present – there Northern Mexican perennial streams at middle elevations in are no permanent marshes or garternsake central, south-central and southeastern perennial streams within the ESA LT (Thamnophis eques Arizona. Strongly associated with presence project area. The project area is megalops) of native prey including leopard frogs and outside of proposed critical habitat native fish. for this species.
Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) decision support system (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/), accessed February 11, 2020. a Status definitions: ESA=Endangered Species Act, LT=Listed Threatened, SGCN=Species of Greatest Conservation Need (as identified in the AGFD’s 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan)
Critical Habitat There are no critical habitats that have been designated or proposed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, as amended) in the project area.
Other Special Status Species The Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) On-line Environmental Review Tool was queried on February 11, 2020, to obtain a list of special status species that have been documented in the project vicinity (Attachment D). Table 2 lists the species that have been documented within 2 miles of the project Logan Simpson Technical Memorandum Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 21, 2020 Page 4
area by the AGFD and provides an evaluation for each of the special status species on the AGFD list. The habitat requirements and current distribution information for each of the species on the list were reviewed by a qualified biologist (Lisa Young, Logan Simpson) and it was determined that there is no suitable habitat present for any special status species in the project area or in the project vicinity.
Table 1. Special Status Species that have been documented within 2 Miles of the Project Area by AGFD
Species Name Statusa Habitat Requirements Analysis
Birds
No suitable habitat present – the The species nests at cliffs throughout the project area does not contain state, even at some distance from water. suitable nesting or foraging habitat American peregrine falcon Nesting sites in the area are known at for American peregrine falcons. SGCN (Falco peregrinus anatum) Mormon Pocket along the Verde River, in Peregrine falcons could fly over the Sycamore Canyon, on Granite Mountain, project area but construction and Thumb Butte. activities would have no impact on transient falcon.
No suitable habitat present – the project area does not contain Large trees or cliffs near water (reservoirs, suitable nesting or foraging habitat Bald eagle BGEPA rivers, and streams) with abundant prey. for bald eagles. Bald eagles could (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) SGCN Elevation varies. fly over the project area but construction activities would have no impact on transient eagles.
No suitable habitat present – the Nest on rock ledges, cliffs, or in large project area does not contain trees. In Arizona, found statewide in suitable nesting or foraging habitat Golden eagle BGEPA mountainous areas and are virtually for golden eagles. Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) SGCN vacant after breeding in some desert could fly over the project area but areas. Nests are built at elevations construction activities would have between 4,000 to 10,000 feet. no impact on transient eagles.
No suitable habitat present –the A winter visitor in Arizona, but have been project area does not contain known to breed in central Arizona in the permanent water sources to Verde Valley area and in Prescott near support wood ducks. However, this Watson Lake. Prefers wooded freshwater duck likely occurs near the project Wood duck SGCN habitats with an abundance of cover. In area at Watson Lake and Watson (Aix sponsa) Arizona, prefers permanent ponds, Woods Park along Granite Creek. marshes, and lakes and slower sections of Wood ducks may fly over the streams and rivers lined by large trees for project area but construction nesting. activities would have no impact on transient ducks.
Plants
Endemic to north central and eastern AZ No suitable habitat present – there 4,790-6,900 ft elevation. Open, exposed, are no pinyon-juniper woodlands or Arizona phlox — limestone-rocky slopes within pinyon- ponderosa pine-gambel oak (Phlox amabilis) juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine- communities within the project gambel oak communities. area. Logan Simpson Technical Memorandum Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 21, 2020 Page 5
Species Name Statusa Habitat Requirements Analysis
Restricted to mountains in Arizona in No suitable habitat present – there chaparral, pinyon-juniper woodland, and are no cliff faces, rock crevices, Sierra Ancha fleabane pine-oak forests. Occurs on granite cliff — ledges, boulders, vertical rock (Erigeron anchana) faces, rock crevices, or ledges, on faces, or canyons within the project boulders, and vertical rock faces, usually in area. canyons.
This species is known only from northern No suitable habitat present – there Rock fleabane and central Arizona. The habitat is canyon are no canyon walls or moist north- — (Erigeron saxatilis) walls with moist north-facing slopes facing slopes within the project between 4,400 and 7,000 feet. area.
Amphibians
Occurs in central Arizona in canyons and floodplains south of the Mogollon, but also No suitable habitat present – there Arizona toad SGCN found in East Clear Creek. Occurs in rocky are no rocky streams or canyons (Anaxyrus microscaphus) streams and canyons in the pine-oak belt, within the project area. and in lower deserts.
Mammals
Associated with coniferous forest, No suitable habitat present – there occurring in “islands” of mountain-top Mexican vole are no coniferous forest or SGCN forest habitat typically surrounded by (Microtus mexicanus) mountain forest habitats within the lower-elevation desert. Use grass for food project area. and cover. Source: AGFD On-line Environmental Review Tool, (https://azhgis2.esri.com/content/home), accessed February 19, 2020. a Status definitions: BGEPA=Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, SGCN=Species of Greatest Conservation Need (as identified in the AGFD’s 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan).
Migratory Birds Most bird species in the United States, with the exception of nonnative species such as the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. § 703, as amended), which prohibits injury or death to migratory birds and their active nests, eggs, and young.
On Dec. 22, 2017, the US Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Memorandum M-370501, which concluded that the MBTA does not prohibit the incidental taking of migratory birds. The DOI had previously interpreted the MBTA as prohibiting the unauthorized “incidental take” of migratory birds; incidental take generally refers to take that results from an otherwise legal activity, but is not the purpose of that activity. It should be noted that this is a relatively recent development, and that judicial review and/or legal challenges to the DOI’s new interpretation of the MBTA could result in future changes that may affect the legal consequences associated with incidental takings of MBTA-protected species. A coalition of environmental groups, as well as state attorney generals, have filed lawsuits to re-establish the DOI’s previous policies with regard to migratory bird protections; these lawsuits are currently pending and have not yet been settled. Given the current situation, we are advising caution to project proponents whose actions could result in the incidental taking of MBTA-protected species. It will be important to consider the potential timing of any planned activities and remain up-to-date on any further developments that may alter the DOI’s implementation of the MBTA. Logan Simpson Technical Memorandum Biological Site Assessment for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 21, 2020 Page 6
Protected species of migratory birds were detected during the biological survey and are expected to be present as year-round residents within the project area; additional species that were not detected during the survey may also move into the area to breed during the spring and summer. Vegetation clearing should be avoided during the breeding season, from March 1 through August 31, to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds. For activities that are planned during the breeding season, nest searches can be conducted to identify specific areas for avoidance while allowing ground-disturbing activities to proceed in other areas.
Protected Native Plants Some of Arizona’s plant species are protected under the Arizona Native Plant Law (Arizona Revised Statues, Chapter 7, Article 1:3-915A). However, no protected native plants were observed during the project survey that occurred on February 13, 2020.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Logan Simpson’s biological survey and literature review indicate that there is no suitable habitat for any federally-listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species in the project area or project vicinity; therefore, the proposed construction activities and development would have no effect on any federally- listed or proposed species. In addition, there is no critical habitat that has been designated or proposed for any federally-listed species in the project area or project vicinity.
The biological survey and literature review also indicates that there is no suitable habitat for any special status species identified by AGFD, though the special status birds (including American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, golden eagle, and wood duck) may fly over the project area. The project area does contain breeding habitats for other migratory bird species that could be affected by future development of the subject parcel.
The following recommendations are provided as a result of the biological survey and site assessment:
Vegetation disturbance should be avoided during the bird breeding season, from February 15 through August 31, to minimize potential impacts to nesting birds. If vegetation clearing would occur during the breeding season, nest searches should be conducted prior to the clearing activity to identify avoidance areas for active bird nests until the nestlings have fledged from the nests.
LITERATURE CITED Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Johnson, C.B., and Turner, D.S., 2014, Ecoregions of Arizona (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014-1141, with map, scale 1:1,325,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20141141
Turner, R. M. and D. E. Brown. 1994. “Great Basin Conifer Woodland.” In Biotic Communities of the Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by D. E. Brown, 181–221. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Attachment A Project Area Maps
Figure 1. State location
Figure 2. Project vicinity
Figure 3. Project area – topographic map
Figure 4. Project area – aerial map
Attachment B Project Area Photographs Project Area Photographs (February 13, 2020)
Photo 1. View to the north from the south end of the property.
Photo 2. View to northeast from south end of property looking towards Prescott Lakes Parkway
Photo 3. View of culverts with drainage onto the property. Culverts located under Prescott Lakes Parkway.
Photo 4. View of concrete drainage adjacent to Prescott Lakes Parkway on east end of property.
Photo 5. View to the west of the property showing piled vegetation debris.
Photo 6. View to the north end of the property taken from near the center of the property. Shows manmade dirt mounds on the property.
Photo 7. View of a drainage basin and culvert located at the west-central portion of the property.
Photo 8. View of dirt roadway and power line right-of-way at western end of property pointing northwest.
Photo 8. View of southeastern portion of property.
Attachment C US Fish and Wildlife Service Species List United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 9828 North 31st Ave #c3 Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 Phone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies_Main.html
In Reply Refer To: February 11, 2020 Consultation Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-SLI-0416 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 Project Name: Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center Project 195642
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing this list under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The list you have generated identifies threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, and designated and proposed critical habitat, that may occur within one or more delineated United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangles with which your project polygon intersects. Each quadrangle covers, at minimum, 49 square miles. In some cases, a species does not currently occur within a quadrangle but occurs nearby and could be affected by a project. Please refer to the species information links found at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Docs_Species.htm http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/MiscDocs/AZSpeciesReference.pdf .
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the habitats upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of Federal trust resources and to consult with us if their projects may affect federally listed species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, we recommend preparing a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment to determine whether the project may 02/11/2020 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 2 affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If the Federal action agency determines that listed species or critical habitat may be affected by a federally funded, permitted or authorized activity, the agency must consult with us pursuant to 50 CFR 402. Note that a "may affect" determination includes effects that may not be adverse and that may be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. You should request consultation with us even if only one individual or habitat segment may be affected. The effects analysis should include the entire action area, which often extends well outside the project boundary or "footprint.” For example, projects that involve streams and river systems should consider downstream effects. If the Federal action agency determines that the action may jeopardize a proposed species or adversely modify proposed critical habitat, the agency must enter into a section 7 conference. The agency may choose to confer with us on an action that may affect proposed species or critical habitat. Candidate species are those for which there is sufficient information to support a proposal for listing. Although candidate species have no legal protection under the Act, we recommend considering them in the planning process in the event they become proposed or listed prior to project completion. More information on the regulations (50 CFR 402) and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in our Endangered Species Consultation Handbook at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF.
We also advise you to consider species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when authorized by the Service. The Eagle Act prohibits anyone, without a permit, from taking (including disturbing) eagles, and their parts, nests, or eggs. Currently 1026 species of birds are protected by the MBTA, including species such as the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea). Protected western burrowing owls are often found in urban areas and may use their nest/burrows year-round; destruction of the burrow may result in the unpermitted take of the owl or their eggs.
If a bald eagle (or golden eagle) nest occurs in or near the proposed project area, you should evaluate your project to determine whether it is likely to disturb or harm eagles. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines provide recommendations to minimize potential project impacts to bald eagles: https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/ nationalbaldeaglenanagementguidelines.pdf https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/eagle-management.php.
The Division of Migratory Birds (505/248-7882) administers and issues permits under the MBTA and Eagle Act, while our office can provide guidance and Technical Assistance. For more information regarding the MBTA, BGEPA, and permitting processes, please visit the following: https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/incidental-take.php. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for communication tower projects (e.g. cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:
02/11/2020 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 3 https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to-birds/collisions/communication- towers.php.
Activities that involve streams (including intermittent streams) and/or wetlands are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). We recommend that you contact the Corps to determine their interest in proposed projects in these areas. For activities within a National Wildlife Refuge, we recommend that you contact refuge staff for specific information about refuge resources. If your action is on tribal land or has implications for off-reservation tribal interests, we encourage you to contact the tribe(s) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to discuss potential tribal concerns, and to invite any affected tribe and the BIA to participate in the section 7 consultation. In keeping with our tribal trust responsibility, we will notify tribes that may be affected by proposed actions when section 7 consultation is initiated.
We also recommend you seek additional information and coordinate your project with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Information on known species detections, special status species, and Arizona species of greatest conservation need, such as the western burrowing owl and the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) can be found by using their Online Environmental Review Tool, administered through the Heritage Data Management System and Project Evaluation Program https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/HeritageFund/.
For additional communications regarding this project, please refer to the consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. If we may be of further assistance, please contact our following offices for projects in these areas:
Northern Arizona: Flagstaff Office 928/556-2001 Central Arizona: Phoenix office 602/242-0210 Southern Arizona: Tucson Office 520/670-6144
Sincerely, /s/ Jeff Humphrey Field Supervisor
Attachment
Attachment(s):
▪ Official Species List
02/11/2020 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 1
Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 9828 North 31st Ave #c3 Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 (602) 242-0210
02/11/2020 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 2
Project Summary Consultation Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-SLI-0416
Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944
Project Name: Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center Project 195642
Project Type: LAND - ACQUISITION
Project Description: Due diligence investigation related to a 14 acre parcel in Prescott, AZ, Yavapai County.
Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www.google.com/maps/place/34.570939971007974N112.42689799039744W
Counties: Yavapai, AZ
02/11/2020 Event Code: 02EAAZ00-2020-E-00944 3
Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries1, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
Birds NAME STATUS Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8196 Species survey guidelines: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/129/office/22410.pdf
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened Population: Western U.S. DPS There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Reptiles NAME STATUS Northern Mexican Gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops Threatened There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7655
Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION.
Attachment D
Arizona Game and Fish Department On-line Environmental Review Tool Report
Arizona Environmental Online Review Tool Report
Arizona Game and Fish Department Mission To conserve Arizona's diverse wildlife resources and manage for safe, compatible outdoor recreation opportunities for current and future generations.
Project Name: Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center - Project 195642
User Project Number: Logan Simpson 195642
Project Description: Due diligence biological review
Project Type: Development Within Municipalities (Urban Growth), Public & Community Facilities (school, library, church) and associated infrastructure, Maintenance/expansion/rehabilitation of existing facilities
Contact Person: Lisa Young
Organization: Logan Simpson
On Behalf Of: OTHER
Project ID: HGIS-10496
Please review the entire report for project type and/or species recommendations for the location information entered. Please retain a copy for future reference.
Page 1 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Disclaimer:
1. This Environmental Review is based on the project study area that was entered. The report must be updated if the project study area, location, or the type of project changes. 2. This is a preliminary environmental screening tool. It is not a substitute for the potential knowledge gained by having a biologist conduct a field survey of the project area. This review is also not intended to replace environmental consultation (including federal consultation under the Endangered Species Act), land use permitting, or the Departments review of site-specific projects. 3. The Departments Heritage Data Management System (HDMS) data is not intended to include potential distribution of special status species. Arizona is large and diverse with plants, animals, and environmental conditions that are ever changing. Consequently, many areas may contain species that biologists do not know about or species previously noted in a particular area may no longer occur there. HDMS data contains information about species occurrences that have actually been reported to the Department. Not all of Arizona has been surveyed for special status species, and surveys that have been conducted have varied greatly in scope and intensity. Such surveys may reveal previously undocumented population of species of special concern. 4. HabiMap Arizona data, specifically Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) under our State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) and Species of Economic and Recreational Importance (SERI), represent potential species distribution models for the State of Arizona which are subject to ongoing change, modification and refinement. The status of a wildlife resource can change quickly, and the availability of new data will necessitate a refined assessment.
Locations Accuracy Disclaimer: Project locations are assumed to be both precise and accurate for the purposes of environmental review. The creator/owner of the Project Review Report is solely responsible for the project location and thus the correctness of the Project Review Report content.
Page 2 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Recommendations Disclaimer:
1. The Department is interested in the conservation of all fish and wildlife resources, including those species listed in this report and those that may have not been documented within the project vicinity as well as other game and nongame wildlife. 2. Recommendations have been made by the Department, under authority of Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 (Amusements and Sports), 17 (Game and Fish), and 28 (Transportation). 3. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources may be minimized or avoided by the recommendations generated from information submitted for your proposed project. These recommendations are preliminary in scope, designed to provide early considerations on all species of wildlife. 4. Making this information directly available does not substitute for the Department's review of project proposals, and should not decrease our opportunity to review and evaluate additional project information and/or new project proposals. 5. Further coordination with the Department requires the submittal of this Environmental Review Report with a cover letter and project plans or documentation that includes project narrative, acreage to be impacted, how construction or project activity(s) are to be accomplished, and project locality information (including site map). Once AGFD had received the information, please allow 30 days for completion of project reviews. Send requests to: Project Evaluation Program, Habitat Branch Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 Phone Number: (623) 236-7600 Fax Number: (623) 236-7366 Or [email protected] 6. Coordination may also be necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and/or Endangered Species Act (ESA). Site specific recommendations may be proposed during further NEPA/ESA analysis or through coordination with affected agencies
Page 3 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Page 4 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Page 5 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Page 6 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Page 7 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Special Status Species Documented within 2 Miles of Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Aix sponsa Wood Duck 1B Anaxyrus microscaphus Arizona Toad SC S 1B Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA S 1B Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern Willow Flycatcher LE 1A Erigeron anchana Sierra Ancha Fleabane SC S Erigeron saxatilis Rock Fleabane S Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SC S S 1A Haliaeetus leucocephalus (wintering Bald Eagle - Winter Population SC, SS 1A pop.) BGA Haliaeetus leucocephalus pop. 3 Bald Eagle - Sonoran Desert SC, SS 1A Population BGA Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SC, SS 1A BGA Microtus mexicanus Mexican Vole 1B Phlox amabilis Arizona Phlox S
Note: Status code definitions can be found at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/statusdefinitions/ .
No Special Areas Detected No special areas were detected within the project vicinity.
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within the Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Agosia chrysogaster Longfin Dace SC S 1B Aix sponsa Wood Duck 1B Anaxyrus microscaphus Arizona Toad SC S 1B Antilocapra americana americana American Pronghorn 1B Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BGA S 1B Aspidoscelis flagellicauda Gila Spotted Whiptail 1B Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 1B Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper Titmouse 1C Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk SC S 1B Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk 1C Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black Hawk 1C Catostomus clarkii Desert Sucker SC S S 1B Catostomus insignis Sonora Sucker SC S S 1B Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk 1B Coluber bilineatus Sonoran Whipsnake 1B Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat SC S S 1B Crotalus cerberus Arizona Black Rattlesnake 1B
Page 8 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Species of Greatest Conservation Need Predicted within the Project Vicinity based on Predicted Range Models Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison's Prairie Dog SC S 1B Empidonax wrightii Gray Flycatcher 1C Euderma maculatum Spotted Bat SC S S 1B Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Bonneted Bat SC S 1B Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SC S S 1A Gila robusta Roundtail Chub SC S S 1A Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SC, SS 1A BGA Heloderma suspectum Gila Monster 1A Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite 1B Incilius alvarius Sonoran Desert Toad 1B Kinosternon sonoriense sonoriense Desert Mud Turtle S 1B Lasiurus blossevillii Western Red Bat S 1B Leopardus pardalis Ocelot LE 1A Lithobates yavapaiensis Lowland Leopard Frog SC S S 1A Meda fulgida Spikedace LE 1A Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow 1B Microtus mexicanus Mexican Vole 1B Mustela nigripes Black-footed Ferret LE,XN 1A Myiarchus tyrannulus Brown-crested Flycatcher 1C Myotis occultus Arizona Myotis SC S 1B Myotis velifer Cave Myotis SC S 1B Myotis yumanensis Yuma Myotis SC 1B Oreoscoptes montanus Sage Thrasher 1C Panthera onca Jaguar LE 1A Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow 1B Rhinichthys osculus Speckled Dace SC S 1B Sciurus arizonensis Arizona Gray Squirrel 1B Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler 1B Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped Sapsucker 1C Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson's Sapsucker 1C Spizella atrogularis Black-chinned Sparrow 1C Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican Spotted Owl LT 1A Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark 1C Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat 1B Troglodytes pacificus Pacific Wren 1B Vireo vicinior Gray Vireo S 1C Vulpes macrotis Kit Fox No 1B Status Xyrauchen texanus Razorback Sucker LE 1A
Page 9 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Species of Economic and Recreation Importance Predicted within the Project Vicinity Scientific Name Common Name FWS USFS BLM NPL SGCN Antilocapra americana americana America Pronghorn 1B Callipepla gambelii Gambel's Quail Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer Patagioenas fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon 1C Pecari tajacu Javelina Puma concolor Mountain Lion Ursus americanus American Black Bear Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Project Type: Development Within Municipalities (Urban Growth), Public & Community Facilities (school, library, church) and associated infrastructure, Maintenance/expansion/rehabilitation of existing facilities
Project Type Recommendations: Consider impacts of outdoor lighting on wildlife and develop measures or alternatives that can be taken to increase human safety while minimizing potential impacts to wildlife. Conduct wildlife surveys to determine species within project area, and evaluate proposed activities based on species biology and natural history to determine if artificial lighting may disrupt behavior patterns or habitat use. Use only the minimum amount of light needed for safety. Narrow spectrum bulbs should be used as often as possible to lower the range of species affected by lighting. All lighting should be shielded, canted, or cut to ensure that light reaches only areas needing illumination.
Minimize potential introduction or spread of exotic invasive species. Invasive species can be plants, animals (exotic snails), and other organisms (e.g., microbes), which may cause alteration to ecological functions or compete with or prey upon native species and can cause social impacts (e.g., livestock forage reduction, increase wildfire risk). The terms noxious weed or invasive plants are often used interchangeably. Precautions should be taken to wash all equipment utilized in the project activities before leaving the site. Arizona has noxious weed regulations (Arizona Revised Statutes, Rules R3-4-244 and R3-4-245). See Arizona Department of Agriculture website for restricted plants, https://agriculture.az.gov/. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has information regarding pest and invasive plant control methods including: pesticide, herbicide, biological control agents, and mechanical control, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/water/quality/?cid=stelprdb1044769 The Department regulates the importation, purchasing, and transportation of wildlife and fish (Restricted Live Wildlife), please refer to the hunting regulations for further information https://www.azgfd.com/hunting/regulations.
Follow manufacturer's recommended application guidelines for all chemical treatments. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2, Environmental Contaminants Program has a reference document that serves as their regional pesticide recommendations for protecting wildlife and fisheries resources, titled "Recommended Protection Measures for Pesticide Applications in Region 2 of the USFWS", http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/ECReports/RPMPA_2007.pdf. The Department recommends that direct or indirect impacts to sensitive species and their forage base from the application of chemical pesticides or herbicides be considered carefully.
Based on the project type entered, coordination with State Historic Preservation Office may be required (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html).
Trenches should be covered or back-filled as soon as possible. Incorporate escape ramps in ditches or fencing along the perimeter to deter small mammals and herptefauna (snakes, lizards, tortoise) from entering ditches.
Page 10 of 11 Arizona Game and Fish Department project_report_yavapai_county_criminal_jus_34347_35455.pdf Project ID: HGIS-10496 Review Date: 2/11/2020 03:16:38 PM
Development plans should provide for open natural space for wildlife movement, while also minimizing the potential for wildlife-human interactions through design features. Please contact Project Evaluation Program for more information on living with urban wildlife at [email protected] or at https://www.azgfd.com/wildlife/planning/wildlifeguidelines/ and https://www.azgfd.com/Wildlife/LivingWith.
Project Location and/or Species Recommendations: HDMS records indicate that one or more Listed, Proposed, or Candidate species or Critical Habitat (Designated or Proposed) have been documented in the vicinity of your project. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) gives the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regulatory authority over all federally listed species. Please contact USFWS Ecological Services Offices at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/ or:
Phoenix Main Office Tucson Sub-Office Flagstaff Sub-Office 9828 North 31st Avenue #C3 201 N. Bonita Suite 141 SW Forest Science Complex Phoenix, AZ 85051-2517 Tucson, AZ 85745 2500 S. Pine Knoll Dr. Phone: 602-242-0210 Phone: 520-670-6144 Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Fax: 602-242-2513 Fax: 520-670-6155 Phone: 928-556-2157 Fax: 928-556-2121
Page 11 of 11
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
APPENDIX K CULTURAL RESOURCE (ARCHAEOLOGY REPORT)
A Cultural Resources Survey of 15 Acres for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center Near Sundog Ranch Road, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona
ASM Accession Number: 2020-0064
Prepared for: Speedie & Associates, Inc. 3331 E. Wood St. Phoenix AZ 85040
Prepared by: Marybeth Harte, M.A., RPA
Submitted by: Christopher P. Garraty, Ph.D, RPA
Logan Simpson 51 West Third Street, Suite 450 Tempe, AZ 85281
February 2020 Submittal 1
Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642a
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
1. REPORT TITLE 1a. Report Title: A Cultural Resources Survey of 15 Acres for the Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center near Sundog Ranch Road, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona 1b. Report Author(s): Marybeth Harte 1c. Date: February 14, 2020 1d. Report No.: 195642a
2. PROJECT REGISTRATION/PERMITS 2a. ASM Accession Number: 2020-0064 2b. AAA Permit Number: 2020-033bl 2c. ASLD Lease Application Number(s): N/A 2d. Other Permit Number(s): N/A
3. ORGANIZATION/CONSULTING FIRM 3a. Name: Logan Simpson 3b. Internal Project Number: 195642 3c. Internal Project Name: Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center 3d. Contact Name: Marybeth Harte 3e. Contact Address: 51 W. Third St., Suite 450, Tempe, AZ 85281 3f. Contact Phone: 480.967.1343 3g. Contact Email: [email protected]
4. SPONSOR/LEAD AGENCY 4a. Sponsor: Yavapai County 4b. Lead Agency: Yavapai County 4c. Agency Project Number(s): N/A 4d. Agency Project Name: Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center 4e. Funding Source(s): Yavapai County 4f. Other Involved Agencies: Arizona State Museum (ASM) 4g. Applicable Regulations: Arizona State Historic Preservation Act (ARS §41-861 et seq.) and the Arizona Antiquities Act (A.R.S. §15-1631 and §41-841 et seq.).
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 2 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
5. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Yavapai County plans to construct a new criminal justice center on a 15-acre parcel at 1455 Sundog Ranch Road in Prescott on Yavapai County-owned land in Yavapai County, Arizona. Logan Simpson was contracted by Speedie & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Yavapai County, to conduct cultural resource investigations within the project area in support of their Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
6. PROJECT AREA: The project area consists of an irregularly shaped, 15-acre block area that encompasses three Yavapai County-owned land parcels (105-06-003B, 105-04-011G, and 105-06-003H) and an adjacent wash located within the City of Prescott-owned Prescott Lakes Parkway right-of-way.
7. PROJECT LOCATION 7a. Address: 1455 Sundog Ranch Road 7b. Route: N/A 7c. Mileposts Limits: N/A 7d. Nearest City/Town: Prescott 7e. County: Yavapai 7f. Project Locator UTM: 369127 Easting 3856295 Northing 7g. NAD 83 7h. Zone: 12 7i. Baseline & Meridian: Gila and Salt River 7j. USGS Quadrangle(s): Prescott (1977) 7k. Legal Description(s): T14N, R2W, Sections 24 and 25
8. SURVEY AREA 8a. Total Acres: 15.4 8b. Survey Area. 1. Land 2. Total Acres 3. Total Acres 4. Justification for Areas Not Surveyed Jurisdiction Surveyed Not Surveyed Yavapai County 14.2 0 N/A City of Prescott 1.2 0 N/A
9. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXTS 9a. Landform: Flat alluvial fan in an area of rolling hills. 9b. Elevation: 5230 ft amsl 9c. Surrounding Topographic Features: Watson Peak is approximately 1.2 miles to the southeast, Glassford Hill is approximately 2.9 miles to the northeast, and the Granite Dells are approximately 2.5 miles north. 9d. Nearest Drainage: Granite Creek is approximately 0.5 miles northwest, and Watson Lake is approximately 1 mile north. 9e. Local Geology: The project area is situated in the Central Highlands/Transition Zone physiographic province, which is characterized by igneous, metamorphic, sedimentary, and volcanic deposits of Proterozoic and Paleozoic age that have been deformed by uplifting and erosion (Chronic 1983).
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 3 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
9f. Vegetation: Located in a transition zone between Interior Chaparral and Semidesert Grassland biotic communities, which are dominated by oak, mountain mahogany, pinyon, juniper, mesquite, acacia, and open, savannah-like grasslands (Brown et al. 2007; Pase and Brown 1994). 9g. Soils/Deposition: Balon gravelly sandy clay loam (NRCS n. d.). 9h. Buried Deposits: Possible based on soil development and depth, but not likely. 9i. Justification: Soils extend at least 2 feet below ground surface as evidenced by the depth of the water catchment feature in the middle of the project area. No cultural materials were observed on the surface, in the cut banks near the wash, or along the western edge of the project area. Additionally, no previously recorded sites are documented in the immediate area, and those nearby are primarily limited to surficial artifact scatters or late historic transportation-related features. No cultural materials were observed within the project area.
I0. BUILT ENVIRONMENT: The project area is bordered by Prescott Lakes Parkway to the east, the Yavapai County Juvenile Detention Center to the south, a transmission line substation to the south, and a City of Prescott water treatment plant to the north.
11. INVENTORY CLASS COMPLETED 11a. Class I Inventory: 11b. Researcher(s): 11c. Class II Survey: 11d Sampling Strategy: 11e. Class III Inventory:
12. BACKGROUND RESEARCH SOURCES 12a. AZSITE: 12b. ASM Archaeological Records Office: 12c. SHPO Inventories and/or SHPO Library: 12d. NRHP Database: 12e. ADOT Portal: 12f. GLO Maps: plat 03001, filed 11/7/1871 depicts an intersection of two roads near the project area’s southern boundary, and most of the project area falls within the Fort Whipple Military Reservation. 12g. Land- Managing Agency Files: N/A 12h. Tribal Cultural Resources Files: N/A 12i. Local Government Websites: N/A 12j. Other: Historic USGS topographic maps. The Prescott, AZ (1947) USGS 15’ Quadrangle map depicts a trail and a structure within the project area. The area is labeled as a disposal plant.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 4 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
13. BACKGROUND RESEARCH RESULTS
13a. Previous Projects within Study Area (Project Area and 1-Mile Buffer). 1. Project 2. Project Name 3. Author(s) 4. Year Reference Number 1985-82 ASM ASM Survey Madsen, J. H. 1985 1988-82.ASM Dewey to Willow Lake 69 kV Line Irwin, D. 1988 1989-115.ASM Survey for Proposed Landfill Euler, R. C. 1989 1993-272.ASM Citizens—Prescott Survey Gilpin, D. 1993 1995-305.ASM Prescott Trail ATSF Railroad ROW Spalding, N. E. and D. E. 1995 Weaver, Jr. 1995-351.ASM Watson Woods Preserve Ziem, M. 1995 1997-166.ASM 69-89 Connector Dickie, A. (editor) 1997 1998-56.ASM Cliff Rose Unit 7 Christenson, A. L. 1998 1998-560.ASM Watson and Willow Lake Survey Brown, G. B. and S. 2000 Courtright 2002-183.ASM APS 69/12kV Survey Lundin, D. R. 2002 2003-286.ASM Cloudstone Christenson, A. L. 2003 2003-1524.ASM SR89 Sundog Baker, J. L. 2004a 2004-599.ASM SR89 Sundog Baker, J. L. 2004b 2004-1860.ASM Rosser Connector Road LaFond, A. and J. L. 2002 Johnson 2006-229.ASM FANN/Prescott Survey Brown, S. K. and. E. 2005 Purcell 2006-418.ASM Lowes Prescott #2 Christenson, A. L. 2006 2007-727.ASM Creative Enterprises, Prescott Christenson, A. L. 2007 2008-310.ASM Willow Watson Data Recovery Neily, R. (editor) 2006 2008-398.ASM Prescott Lakes Parkway Justice Facility Ryan, K. A. and J. S. 2008 Bruder 2009-540.ASM Storm Ranch Connector Road Foster, M. S. 2007 2013-6.ASM Circle Trail-SR 69 and Prescott Lakes Moses, J., S. Luchetta 2013 and A. Christenson 2013-299.ASM Sundog Trunk Main Sewer Improvement Christenson, A. L. 2013 SHPO-2003-2574 ALLTEL Telecommunications Site Payette, J. 2003
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 5 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
13b. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Within Study Area . 1. Site Number/Name 2. Affiliation 3. Site Type 4. Eligibility 5. Associated Status Reference(s) US Route 89 Euro-American/Mid– Road Determined Baker 2004a; Brown Late Historic (A.D. eligible, Criterion D and Purcell 2005; 1800–1950) Christenson 2013 AZ N:3:32(ASM)/ The Euro-American/Mid– Railroad Determined Brown and Purcell Santa Fe, Prescott, and Late Historic (A.D. eligible, Criterion A 2005; Spalding and Phoenix Railway Line 1800–1950) Weaver 1995 AZ N:7:45(ASM) Unknown/Prehistoric Petroglyphs Unevaluated Unknown AZ N:7:46(ASM) Unknown/Prehistoric Petroglyphs Unevaluated Unknown AZ N:7:47(ASM) Unknown/Prehistoric Petroglyphs Unevaluated Unknown US Route 89A Euro-American/Late Road Determined Brown and Purcell Historic (A.D. 1900– eligible, Criterion D 2005 1950) AZ N:7:167(ASM) Euro-America/Historic Artifact scatter Recommended Ziem 1995 (A.D. 1500–1950) eligible, Criterion D AZ N:7:168(ASM)/ Prescott/A.D. 200– Artifact scatter Determined Baker 2004a; Ziem Watson West Bank Site 1500) eligible, Criterion D 1995 AZ N:7:169(ASM) Euro-American/Late Trash dump Recommended Ziem 1995 Historic (A.D. 1900– eligible, Criterion D 1950) AZ N:7:170(ASM) Euro-American/Late Road Recommended not Ziem 1995 Historic (A.D. 1900– eligible 1950) AZ N:7:311(ASM) Prescott/A.D. 200–1300 Artifact scatter Determined Brown and eligible, Criterion D Courtright 2000; Neily 2006 AZ N:7:340(ASM) Euro-American/Late Quarry Recommended not Christenson 2003 Historic (A.D. 1900– eligible 1950) AZ N:7:480(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:481(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:482(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:483(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:484(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:485(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:486(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:487(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ N:7:488(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ M:7:492(ASM) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown AZ T:4:131(ASM)/ Black Euro-American/Late Road Recommended Christenson 2006; Canyon Road Historic (A.D. 1900– eligible, Criteria A, Dickie 1997 1950) C, and D NA13407/ The Storm Prescott/A.D. 200–1500 Structure Unevaluated Unknown Site NA13526 Unknown/Prehistoric Petroglyphs Unevaluated Unknown NA13581/ Storm B Prescott/A.D. 200–1500 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Unknown NA13582/ Storm C Prescott/A.D. 200–1500 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Unknown NA15331/ Storm D Prescott/A.D. 200–1500 Artifact scatter Unevaluated Unknown NA28995/ Storm E Unknown/Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unevaluated Unknown with features NA28996/ Storm F Unknown/Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unevaluated Unknown
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 6 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
13c. Historic Buildings/Districts/Neighborhoods. 1. Property Name or Address 2. Year 3. Eligibility Status N/A N/A N/A
14. CULTURAL CONTEXTS 14a. Prehistoric Culture: Paleoindian. Archaic, Prescott 14b. Protohistoric Culture: Yavapai, Apache, Hualapai 14c. Indigenous Historic Culture: Yavapai, Apache, Hualapai 14d. Euro-American Culture: 1580–Present
15. FIELD SURVEY PERSONNEL 15a. Principal Investigator: Christopher Garraty, Ph.D., RPA 15b. Field Supervisor: Marybeth Harte, M.A., RPA 15c. Crew: Abraham Arnett, M.A., RPA 15d. Fieldwork Date(s): February 5, 2020
16. SURVEY METHODS 16a. Transect Intervals: 15 m apart 16b. Coverage (%): 100 16c. Site Recording Criteria: ASM 16d. Ground Surface Visibility: Ground surface visibility averaged 75 percent open with grasses and leaf litter partially obscuring the ground surface. 16e. Observed Disturbances: The native ground surface appears disturbed throughout the project area. The area is flat and sits lower than the surrounding hills, suggesting it has been leveled in the past. Aerial imagery from 2007, on file with Yavapai County (http://gis.yavapai.us/), shows a number of small structures, automobiles, and a junkyard within the current project area. These structures were removed between 2015 and 2017. A number of soil and vegetation push piles are present in the middle of the project area. A water catchment feature with a large corrugated metal drain has also been excavated in the middle of the project area. The drainage bordering Prescott Lakes Parkway has been modified and lined with concrete and cobbles. Bladed dirt roads and a transmission line cross the parcel. Modern trash was present throughout the area and included various construction materials (cement, asphalt, metal pipes, wooden boards, and posts), plastic bottles and wrappers, and glass bottles.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 7 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
17. FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 17a. No Cultural Resources Identified: 17b. Isolated Occurrences (IOs) Only: 17c. Number of IOs Recorded: 17d. Table of IOs. 1. IO 2. Description 3. Date 4. UTMs Number Range N/A N/A N/A N/A
18. COMMENTS: Logan Simpson completed a cultural resources survey of the project area and a literature review of the surrounding 1-mile study area. The project area and its surroundings are partially developed. Records indicate that 23 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the study area. One previous survey (Dickie 1997) intersects the current project area. No significant cultural resources were found within the current project area as a result of that survey. Thirty previously recorded cultural resources were located within the study area. These include historic roadways (US 89, US 89A, and Black Canyon Road), the Santa Fe, Prescott, and Phoenix Railway Line, historic and prehistoric artifact scatters, a prehistoric habitation, petroglyphs, and a historic quarry. Ten of the previously recorded sites have been issued site numbers by ASM in advance of project record curation and have no additional information available. No previously recorded sites are located within the project area. The present cultural resources survey of the project area did not locate any cultural resource sites, historic, in-use structures, or isolated occurrences. Based on these findings, the potential for subsurface cultural materials is low. The proposed project is unlikely to affect significant cultural resources, and no additional research or preservation is recommended.
SECTION 19. ATTACHMENTS 19a. Project Location Map: 19b. Land Jurisdiction Map: 19c. Background Research Map(s): 19d. GLO Map(s): 19e. References:
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 8 STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE SURVEY REPORT SUMMARY FORM
SECTION 20. CONSULTANT CERTIFICATION
I certify the information provided herein has been reviewed for content and accuracy and all work meets applicable agency standards.
______Signature
Principal Investigator ______Title
SECTION 21. DISCOVERY CLAUSE
In the event that previously unreported cultural resources are encountered during ground disturbing activities, all work must immediately cease within 30 meters (100 feet) until a qualified archaeologist has documented the discovery and evaluated its eligibility for the Arizona or National Register of Historic Places in consultation with Yavapai County, the SHPO, and Tribes, as appropriate. Work must not resume in this area without approval of Yavapai County.
If human remains are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, all work must immediately cease within 30 meters (100 feet) of the discovery and the area must be secured. The Arizona State Museum, Yavapai County, SHPO, and appropriate Tribes must be notified of the discovery. All discoveries will be treated in accordance with NAGPRA (Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013) or Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. § 41-844 and A.R.S. § 41-865), as appropriate, and work must not resume in this area without authorization from ASM and Yavapai County.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 9
Figure 1. Location of project area and land jurisdiction.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 10
Figure 2. Previously recorded sites and projects.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 11
Figure 3. General Land Office map, with project area overlain.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 12
Figure 4. Historic USGS topographical map, with project area overlain.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 13
REFERENCES
Baker, J. L. 2004a Willow Lake to Sundog: A Cultural Resource Survey of SR 89 North of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural Resource Report No. 02-599:6. EcoPlan Associates, Mesa. 2004b A Cultural Resource Survey of Temporary Construction Easements along SR 89, Addendum to Will Lake to Sundog: A Cultural Resource Survey of SR 89 North of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural Resource Report No. 02-599: 6a. EcoPlan Associates, Mesa.
Brown, G. B. and J. S. Courtright 2000 A Cultural Resources Survey for Watson and Willow Lakes, City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Technical Report No. 005015. Logan Simpson Design, Tempe.
Brown, S. K. and D. E. Purcell 2005 A Cultural Resources Inventory of an Existing Asphalt Hot Plant, Crushed Rock Stockpile, Haul Route, and Shopping Center, in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Four Corners Research Report Number 05-190. Flagstaff.
Brown, D.E., P. J. Unmack and T. C. Brennan 2007 Digitized Map of Biotic Communities for Plotting and Comparing Distributions of North American Animals. In The Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 610-616.
Christenson, A. L. 1998 Archaeological Survey of an Area of State Trust Land near Cliff Rose Subdivision, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Andrew L. Christenson Archaeological Consultant, Prescott. 2003 An Archaeological Survey of Cloudstone, City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Andrew L. Christenson Archaeological Consultant, Prescott. 2006 An Archaeological Survey of an Area of Arizona State Trust Land to be Leased by Lowe’s, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Biozone, Inc., Prescott. 2007 A Cultural Resource Assessment for a Development on Highway 69, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Andrew L. Christenson Archaeological Consultant, Prescott. 2013 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Sundog Trunk Main Sewer Improvement Project, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Biozone, Inc., Prescott.
Chronic, H. 1983 Roadside Geology of Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.
Dickie, A. (editor) 1997 Preliminary Biological and Archaeological Resource Survey of Proposed SR 69/US 89 Connector Route. Biozone, Inc., Prescott, Arizona.
Euler, R. C. 1989 Cultural Resource Inventory of State of Arizona Lands, T14N–R2W, NW1/4 Sec. 25, Yavapai County, Arizona. Robert C. Euler Archaeological Consultant, Prescott.
Foster, M. S. 2007 An Archaeological Survey of Approximately 23.83 Acres for the Strom Ranch Development Northeast of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 07-386. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix.
Gilpin, D. 1993 A Cultural Resource Survey of Approximately 1.75 Miles of Linear Right-of-Way for a Proposed Gas Line on State Land near Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Flagstaff.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 14
Irwin, D. 1988 Letter Report to Dr. Ken Kvamme. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe.
LaFond, A. and J. L. Johnson 2002 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Rosser Connector Road, City of Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report 01-521. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.
Lundin, D. R. 2002 An Archaeological Survey for the Arizona Public Service 3-Mile Powerline Right-of-Way Corridor on the Yavapai-Prescott Reservation, Yavapai County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report No. 02-374. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix.
Madsen, J. H. 1985 Letter Report No. 53-90803. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.
Moses, J., S. Luchetta, and A. L. Christenson 2013 A Class I and Class III Cultural Resources Assessment Survey of Approximately 4.7 Miles of the Proposed City of Prescott Circle Trail Located within Arizona State Land Department-Administered Lands in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Antigua Archaeology, LLC., Prescott.
National Resource Conservation Survey (NRCS) n.d. Web Soil Survey. Online at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed February 6, 2020.
Neily, R. B. (editor) 2006 The Willow Lake Site: Archaeological Investigations in Willow & Watson Lakes Park, Prescott, Arizona. LSD Technical Reports in Prehistory No.1. Logan Simpson Design Inc., Tempe.
Pase, C. and D. Brown. 1994 Interior Chaparral. In Biotic Communities of the Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico, edited by Brown, D. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Payette, J. 2003 Cultural Resources Report: AZ Prescott Highway 89 #2, Proposed Telecommunications Monopole, Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Environmental Resources Management, Phoenix.
Ryan, K. A. and J. S. Bruder 2008 A Cultural Resource Survey for a Proposed Justice Facility in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Project No. 08-146. EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa.
Spalding, N. E. and D. E. Weaver Jr. 1995 An Archaeological Survey of the Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Right-of-Way, from the Vicinity of the Sewage Disposal Ponds North of the Sun Dog Ranch Industrial Area to the Junction of the A.T.&S.F.Ry. and US 89A, in Prescott, Yavapai County, Arizona. Project No. PMDR-93-11-50. Plateau Mountain Desert Research, Flagstaff.
Ziem, M. 1995 An Archeological Survey of Watson Woods, A Nature Preserve in Granite Creek, City of Prescott, Prescott, Arizona. Central Arizona Land Trust, Prescott.
Yavapai County Criminal Justice Center February 2020 Cultural Resources Survey Report Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 195642 15
APPENDIX L PROJECT PERSONNEL CREDENTIALS
APPENDIX L: Project Personnel Credentials Project No. 200045EA Page 1
BENJAMIN LARSON – Environmental Geologist Mr. Larson has over five (5) years of experience in environmental research, site assessments, soil vapor analysis, groundwater monitoring, slope stability analysis, geotechnical engineering, asbestos inspections, lead inspections, and consulting fields on projects of all types and sizes. Benjamin has broad experience performing all the components of Environmental Due Diligence (Phase, I, II and III) for a vast degree of projects with responsibilities ranging from the supervision of subcontractors, project oversight, interpretation of data, drafting of technical reports and research. Mr. Larson performed the site visit, soil sampling and assisted in the preparation of the report for this project. Mr. Larson received his Bachelor degree in Geology from the University of Minnesota.
CONNIE F. JIRON –Project Manager Ms. Jiron has more than 26 years of experience as an environmental professional in environmental engineering and consulting. Her areas of expertise include management, interpretation, and presentation of data generated by small and large multi-task projects. Ms. Jiron has performed and managed several thousand commercial, industrial, and single- and multi-family environmental site assessments. She is responsible for performing all components of Environmental Due Diligence (Phase I and II ESAs), including the site reconnaissance, regulatory review, historical research, interviews, records review, and technical report preparation. She also has experience performing soil and groundwater sampling, supervision of subcontractors, interpretation of laboratory analytical results, oil-water separator profiling and management, asbestos and lead inspections, and oversight of abatement of remediation projects.
CLAY SPENCER R.G. – Northern Arizona Regional Branch Manager Mr. Spencer has over 33 years of experience in the field of geology and engineering, all of which has taken place at Speedie and Associates. Mr. Spencer’s project management duties include the technical design and content for geotechnical investigations and materials engineering; planning and organization of geological and geotechnical investigations; sampling and handling of material, both hazardous and non-hazardous for laboratory analysis; preparation and review of field and laboratory data and geological/geotechnical reports for projects in Northern Arizona. In addition, for over seven years of his experience, he has operated as the coordinator for all ADOT geotechnical on-call projects. Upon his transfer to the Flagstaff office in 2001, Mr. Spencer’s responsibilities were broadened to include all phases of construction materials testing, special structural inspection, Asbestos surveys and environmental assessments.
TIMOTHY J. RHEINSCHMIDT, R.G. – Environmental Division Manager Mr. Rheinschmidt is a registered geologist and certified remediation specialist in the state of Arizona with more than 30 years of experience performing hazardous and non-hazardous waste investigations, vadose zone characterization, regulatory compliance and permitting, and groundwater investigations. Mr. Rheinschmidt received his Bachelor degree in geology from San Jose State University, a Hazardous Waste Management Certificate from the University of California at Santa Barbara and has performed numerous Phase I, II and III investigations in both Arizona and California.