Lake Havasu field office proposed resource management plan and final environmental impact statement

2006·82.8 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Lake Havasu Field Office

BLM LIBRARY
e Interior
DUi cou^ui^i^aiiu IVl3n3g6in6nt
Lake Havasu Field Office
Proposed Resource Management Plan
and Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume Chapters and 5
II - 3,
4,
t
Lake
Havasu
Field
Office
Abstract
The Lake Havasu Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (PRMP/FEIS) describes and analyzes five alternatives
for managing approximately 1.3 million acres ofpublic land in Northwestern Arizona
and Eastern California along the Colorado River and east to Alamo Lake and the
Harcuvar Mountains. Infomiation provided by the public, other agencies and
BLM
organizations, and personnel has been used to develop and analyze the alternatives
is this PRMP/FEIS. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and represents
continuation ofcurrent management. Alternative 2 emphasizes preservation of
undeveloped primitive landscapes and opportunities for non-motorized recreation.
Alternative 3 emphasizes recreation and resource development. Alternative 4 makes land
available for recreation and resource development with greater opportunities to
experience natural settings than in Alternative 2. Alternative 5, the agency Proposed
Plan, provides for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-
temi sustainability ofsensitive resources.
Major issues addressed in the PRMP/FEIS are identification of lands that would be made
available for disposal, management ofrecreation and public access, designation and
management ofSpecial Designations, management ofwilderness characteristics,
management ofwild bunos around Alamo Lake, and BLM’s role in the management of
Lake Havasu.
Front Cover Photo: Lake Havasu 2006
BLM
Photo by Diane Williams
BLM/AZ/PL-06/008
ll>
Contents
Volume
II
Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-1
Introduction 3-1
Air, Water, and Soil Resources 3-2
Geology 3-12
Biological Resources 3-13
Fire Management 3-39
Wild Burro Management 3-40
Cultural Resource Management 3-42
Paleontological Resources 3-48
Special Designations 3-50
Lake Havasu/Colorado River Regional Management Area 3-62
Visual Resource Management 3-62
Wilderness Characteristics 3-63
Environmental Justice 3-65
Hazardous Materials 3-66
Socioeconomics 3-67
Recreation Management 3-79
Rangeland Management/Grazing 3-85
Mineral Resources 3-89
Lands and Realty 3-92
Travel Management 3-96
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Impacts on Air Resources 4-7
Impacts on Water Resources 4-12
Impacts on Soil Resources 4-23
Impacts on Biological Resources 4-33
Impacts on Fire Management 4-61
Impacts on Cultural Resources 4-66
Impacts on Paleontological Resources 4-82
Impacts on Special Designations 4-84
Impacts on Visual Resources 4-98
Impacts on Wilderness Characteristics 4-105
Impacts on Wild Burros 4-112
Impacts on Environmental Justice 4-114
Impacts on Socioeconomic Resources 4-115
Impacts on Recreation Resources 4-128
Impacts on Rangeland Management/Grazing 4-138
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area September 2006
Proposed Resource Management Plan and TOC Vol 1-1
1
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Bureau of Land Management Contents
Impacts on Mineral Resources 4-141
Impacts on Lands and Realty Management 4-153
Impacts on Travel Management 4-156
Chapter 5 Consultation and Coordination 5-1
Outreach 5-1
Additional Collaboration - Related Plans 5-4
Collaborating Agencies and Organizations 5-5
Comment Analysis Process 5-9
List of Preparers 5-149
Tables
Table 3-1 Lake Havasu Boating Capacities for Lakeside Facilities 3-7
.
Table 3-2. Riparian/Wetland Habitats and PFC Classification 3-16
Table 3 3. Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Species 3-31
Table 3-4. Species of Concern, BLM Sensitive, and State-Designated
Species 3-32
Table 3-5. Cultural Site Age/Period 3-44
Table 3-6. Fossiliferous Sediments Found in the Planning Area 3-49
Table 3-7. Annual Flows below Alamo Dam 3-61
Table 3-8. Affected Area Population for Counties and Other Selected Areas 3-67
Table 3-9. Population of Selected American Indian Reservations 3-68
Table 3-10. Visitor Use of Concession Facilities Fiscal Year 2005 3-73
Table 3-11. Reported Mineral Material Production Fiscal Years 1999-2004 3-78
Table 3-12. Mining - Employment and Income - 2000 3-79
Table 3-13. Mining - Employment and Income - 1970 3-79
Table 3-14. 10-Year Average Grazing Use (Based on Billed Use) by
Allotment with Management Categories 3-87
Table 3-15. Livestock Grazing 3-88
Table 3-16. Reported Mineral Production, Fiscal Years 2001-2004 3-89
Table 3-17. Total Reported Production from the Mineral Districts 3-90
Table 3 18. Existing Right-of-Way Corridors within the LHFO Planning Area 3-93
Table 4-1 Specific Acreages for Each ACEC Alternative 4-32
.
Table 4-2. Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species
Potentially Affected by Grazing Allotments 4-35
Table 4-3. Disposal Acres Affecting Special Status Species and
Riparian Areas 4-38
Final Environmental Impact Statement
0
1
Bureau of Land Management Contents
Table 4-4. Mineral Material Disposal Acres Affecting Special Status
Species and Riparian Areas 4-40
Table 4-5. Miles of OHV Trails through WHAs, Riparian, and Desert
Tortoise Habitat 4-49
Table 4-6. Estimated WHA Allocated To Be Managed To Meet VRM
Class and Objectives 4-53
I II
Table 4-7. Private Lands within Special Designations 4-87
Table 4-8. Percentages of Special Designations That Potentially May
Be Impacted from Land Use Authorizations 4-88
Table 4-9. Percentage of ACEC Designation Affected by Utility
Corridors 4-89
Table 4-1 0. Percentage of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern in
Differing Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes 4-92
Table 4-1 1 . Percentage of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Acreage Overlapping Recreation Allocations 4-92
Table 4-12. Percentage of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within
Special Recreation Management Areas by Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum Class under Alternative 2 4-93
Table 4-1 3. Percentage of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within
Special Recreation Management Areas by Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum Class under Alternative 3 4-94
Table 4-14. Percentage of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern within
Special Recreation Management Areas by Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum Class under Alternatives 4 and 5 4-94
Table 4-15. Miles of Routes Impacting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern....4-95
Table 4-16. Estimated Percentage of Visual Resource Management
Class Disposed of by Alternatives 4-99
Table 4-17. Potential Utility Corridor Impacts to Visual Resources 4-100
Table 4-18. Existing Communication Sites by Potential Visual Resource
Management Class 4-100
Table 4-19. Percentage Change in VRM Class Allocation from No
Action 4-103
Table 4-20. Percentage of Lands Managed to Maintain Wilderness
Characteristics and Allocated as WHAs 4-109
Table 4-21 Percentage of Potential Area To Be Managed To Maintain
.
Wilderness Characteristics Covered by Visual Resource
Management Class Objectives 4-1
1
Table 4-22. Percentage of Wilderness Characteristics Protected by
Alternative 4-1
1
Table 4-23. Allocation of Cultural Sites by Alternative 4-1 30
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area September2006
Proposed Resource Management Plan and TOC Vol 11-3
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Bureau of Land Management Contents
Table 4-24. Percentage of ACECs also Identified for ROS Settings of
Rural Developed, Suburban, or Urban 4-137
Table 4-25. Comparison of Cultural Resources Protected by Alternative 4-141
Table 4-26. Comparison of Biological Resources Protected by Alternative 4-146
Table 4-27. Comparison of Special Designations Protected by Alternative 4-150
Table 4-28. Potential Number of Acres Where Use Authorization Would
Be Limited by Special Designations 4-156
Table 4-29. Impacts on Travel Management from Land Disposals 4-159
Table 5-1. Recipients of Tribal Consultation Letters 5-3
Maps
follows page
Map 3-1. Major Land Resource Areas 3-12
Map 3-2. Visual Resource Management Inventory - Scenic Quality 3-62
Map 3-3. Visual Resource Management Inventory - Visual Sensitivity 3-62
Map 3-4. Visual Resource Management Inventory - Distance Zones 3-64
Map 3-5. Wilderness Characteristics Assessment 3-64
Map 3-6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory 3-80
Map 3-7. Saleable Mineral Potential 3-90
Map 3-8. Locatable Mineral Potential 3-90
Map 3-9. Leasable Mineral Potential 3-90
Map 3-10. Proposed Future Transportation Through Outside Planning Efforts ....3-97
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area September 2006
Proposed Resource Management Plan and TOC Vol 11-4
Final Environmental Impact Statement
^
Vf, '
&; V .
• •
•;
•- /' aSS^»
.....
' * ' vv-: i;sT' 'i-r
',
'^ -.
".a.
m• 7
-.-‘K
/'
%&^<SfSSS/9HtW^' -‘V^;''; • ' 't •i’i- * '"-^SI . '-'-'
l2si^
r‘iK
->
*!• j' i j»r t. 4• . -4 *• . ' - •

Chapter 3
Affected Environment
Introduction
Chapter 3 describes the environmental components ofBureau ofLand
Management (BLM)-administered federal lands within the Lake Havasu Field
Office (LHFO) planning area that would potentially be affected by
implementation ofthe proposed PRMP/FEIS. These environmental components
include:
Air. Water, and Soil Lands Managed to Maintain
Resources Wilderness Characteristics
Geology Environmental Justice
Biological Resources Hazardous Materials
Fire Management Socioeconomics
Wild Burros Recreation Management
Cultural Resources Rangeland
Management/Grazing
Paleontological Resources
Mineral Resources
Special Designations
Lands and Realty
Lake Havasu/Colorado River
Regional Management Area Travel Management
Visual Resources
The purpose ofthe chapter is to serve as a baseline for identifying and evaluating
the impacts ofthe five alternatives. Descriptions and analysis ofthe impacts
themselves are presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) direct agencies to reduce excessive
paperwork by “incorporating by reference” relevant prior documents
(40 CFR 1500.4(j)). BLM Land Use Plans (LUPs), along with supplements or
documents tiered to those original LUPs, frequently present more detailed
information on the affected environment ofthe BLM-administered public lands
than can be presented in this PRMP/FEIS. Therefore, in an effort to reduce
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area September 2006
Proposed Resource Management Plan and 3-1
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Bureau of Land Management Affected Environment
paperwork, the affected environment sections ofthe LUPs, supplemental, or
tiered documents listed below are incorporated by reference.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Grazing Management
Program for the Lower Gila North EISArea (Phoenix District Office ofthe
Bureau ofLand Management 1982)
Lower Gila North Management Framework Plan (Phoenix District Office of
the Bureau ofLand Management 1983)
ApprovedAmendment to the Lower Gila North Management Framework
Plan and the Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan andDecision
Record {2005) as amended (Phoenix District Office ofthe Bureau ofLand
Management 2005)
Lower Gila South Resource Management Plan andFinal Environmental
Impact Statement (Phoenix District Office ofthe Bureau ofLand
Management 1988)
Yuma District Resource Management Plan, as amended (Yuma District
Office ofthe Bureau ofLand Management 1987)
Kingman Resource Area ProposedResource Management Plan andFinal
Environmental Impact Statement (Kingman Resource Area Office ofthe
Bureau ofLand Management 1995)
Planning Update, Amendment andEnvironmentalAssessment to the Lower
Gila North andSouth Management Plans (Phoenix District Office ofthe
Bureau ofLand Management 1994)
RangelandReform ’94, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Bureau of
Land Management and USDA Forest Service 1994)
Air, Water, and Soil Resources
Climate and Air Quality
The LHFO planning area experiences hot summers, mild winters, low rainfall,
high evaporation rates, and low humidity. According to the Arizona Climate
Summaries produced by the Western Regional Climate Center, Lake Havasu City
had an average maximum temperature for the month ofJuly of 1 12.3“Fahrenheit
(F) for the decade from March 1, 1991 to December 31, 2001. During the same
reporting period, the city had an average minimum temperature of43.6°F for the
month ofDecember and recorded an annual average of2.67 inches ofmoisture.
The area around Salome has slightly cooler temperatures and receives more
moisture. For the month ofJuly, from March 1987 through April 1998, this area
had an average maximum temperature of 105.3°F, with an average minimum
temperature 36°F for the month ofDecember and an annual precipitation of
6.31 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2004).
Lake Havasu Field Office Planning Area September 2006
Proposed Resource Management Plan and 3-2
Final Environmental Impact Statement