Full text of "Crossman Peak radar proposal : draft environmental statement"

See other formats

BLM LIBRARY

DRAFT

Environmental Statement

CROSSMAN PEAK
Radar Proposal

.//

%. -

^ ^

-«W

l:t-L.

#.*.

-..%•'

, rr-.-::.

696

.R25

C767

1979

■jw%'

MDIAU 01 lint MtNtCmOIT

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ■

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Bureau of Land Managstn^nt

Library

Denver Service Center

^^-

IN RtPLY .'EFER TO

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

ARIZONA STATE OFFICE

2400 VALLEY BANK CENTER

PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85073

A-5867

f ^ )

Enclosed for your review and comment is the draft environmental
statement for the Federal Aviation Administration's proposal to
construct an Air Route Surveillance Facility on Grossman Peak in
Mohave County, Arizona.

The statement is based on information from Bureau of Land Manage-
ment and other sources, including information supplied by and in
consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, and interested
private organizations and individuals. The purpose of the statement
is to disclose in advance the probable environmental impacts of the
proposed action and its alternatives and to assure that these
factors are considered along with economic, technical, and other
considerations in the decisionmaking process.

We would appreciate receiving your comments on the environmental
impacts of the proposed action. The comment period will run for
45 days after notice is printed in the Federal Register by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Comments received after the
45-day review period will be considered in the subsequent decision
process, even though they may be too late for inclusion in the
final environmental statement.

Your comments should be sent to:

Bureau of Land Management

Arizona State Director (911)

2400 Valley Bank Center ' .

Phoenix, Arizona 85073

>ts?>°

■^

Sincerely,

Bureau of Und W.-^ge-"^"
Library
Denver Service Ceni*

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

Prepared by

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

ARIZONA STATE OFFICE

PHOENIX, ARIZONA

^<^.

State Director, Arizona State Office

Bureau of Land Management

Library

Denvee Service Centef

GROSSMAN PEAK PROPOSED RADAR FACILITY

Draft (X) Final ( ) Environmental Statement

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

1. Type of Action : Administrative (X) Legislative ( )

2. Abstract : The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to construct
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) facilities either on Grossman
Peak, near Lake Havasu City in Mohave County, Arizona or at two
sites: (1) on Cherum Peak, near Chloride in Mohave County, Arizona
and (2) on Harquahala Peak, near Aguila in Yuma County, Arizona.
All proposed sites are on public land. Such facilities would
provide low-elevation (5,000-15,000 feet) air traffic coverage in
the lower Colorado River Basin, presently lacking such coverage,
and high-elevation (over 15,000 feet) air traffic coverage within a
100-mile radius of Kingman, Arizona. Such facilities would benefit
air safety and may benefit energy conservation and would increase
income to the local economy. The road(s) needed to provide access
to the summit (s) would improve access for recreation and mining.
Such a project, however, would conflict with land use plans, mining
rights, and Native American values and would adversely affect
wilderness values, visual resources, and bighorn sheep habitat. Of
the two construction alternatives, the two-site alternative would

be preferred for wildlife, cultural resources, wilderness values.
Native American values, and economic benefits to local communities
but would cost twice the amount of the Grossman Peak facility to
build and operate, would consume twice the electrical energy of the
Grossman Peak facility and increase vehicle fuel use from 250 to
1,500 gallons per month.

3. Alternatives considered :

a. No action

b. Two-site alternative (Cherum and Harquahala Peaks)

4. Comments have been requested from the following :
See attached list.

5. For further information contact :

Karl L. Kipping, ES Team Leader
Bureau of Land Management
Yuma District Office
Post Office Box 5680
Yuma, Arizona 85364
602-726-6300

6. Date draft statement made available to EPA and to the public :
September, 1979

FEDERAL AGENCIES

Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Mines

Bureau of Reclamation

Fish and Wildlife Service

Geological Survey

Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Energy

Western Area Power Administration

STATE AGENCIES

Department of Economic Planning and Development, State of Arizona
(Arizona State Clearinghouse)

Office of the Governor, State of California (California State
Clearinghouse)

LOCAL AGENCIES

Mohave County Board of Supervisors

Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission

Office of Mohave County Manager

Yuma County Board of Supervisors

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

Numerous organizations and individuals expressing interest in the
proposed action have been sent copies of this statement and have been
invited to comment.

MAP 1-1

IT60 STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
"1 ^ '''jpi BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

RADAR PROPOSAL

J ' GROSSMAN PEAK kauam phuposal

>- LOCATION OF PROPOSED AND
•^^. ALTERNATIVE RADAR SITES

MAP BASE: ARIZONA SATELITE IMAGE MAP
1972-1973 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

iii/iv

SUMMARY

SUMMARY
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has applied to the Bureau of Land Managennent
(BLM) for rights-of-way on public land in Arizona
for construction of an Air Route Surveillance
Radar (ARSR) facility on Grossman Peak near
Lake Havasu City in Mohave County. FAA also
submitted for consideration a two-site alterna-
tive involving Cherum Peak near Chloride in
Mohave County and Harquahala Peak near
Aguila in Yuma County (map 1-1).

The proposed radar facility would provide a
long-range radar system critically needed in this
area to reduce the risk of aircraft hazards, such
as mountainous terrain or collision with other
aircraft. The radar facility would serve all air-
space users in the lower Colorado River Basin as
well as the major air routes overflying this area of
increasing air traffic. This facility would provide
all of the most modern safety tools to minimize
the probability of catastrophic aircraft accidents.

BLM requested alternative sites to Crossman
Peak. FAA analyzed more than 45 sites to deter-
mine feasible locations for radar to satisfy air
traffic coverage requirements. In its analysis,
FAA used the following criteria: (1) radar cover-
age, (2) feasibility of construction and cost, and
(3) environmental impacts and possible mitigat-
ing actions.

Preliminary studies indicated that five moun-
tain peaks might serve as single-site alternatives
to Crossman Peak. FAA judged the projected
radar coverage on these sites to be less than ac-
ceptable. FAA then began considering multiple-
site alternatives, concluding that only Cherum
and Harquahala Peaks would provide equivalent
radar coverage.

The Crossman Peak site would require a
10.6-mile access road from Laka Havasu City to
the top of Crossman Peak, closely paralleled by a
three-phase single-pole 12 kV powerline. FAA
has also proposed an alternative access route up
the east slope of Crossman Peak, which would
avoid the west slope of the mountain facing Lake
Havasu City. FAA proposes notching the east
side of the peak to provide necessary space for
the facilities without disturbing the west face of
the peak.

Placing facilities at Cherum Peak would re-
quire constructing 2.8 miles of road and approx-
imately 9 miles of powerline. The peak would be
leveled to provide necessary space.

Placing facilities at Harquahala Peak would
require upgrading (building switchbacks and
possible relocation in places) an existing road
and constructing 15 to 20 miles of powerline to
the site. Since the top of the peak is relatively
flat, minimal grading would be required to allow
space for the tower, building, and generator.

SCOPING

To fulfill requirements of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and to
help determine significant issues related to the
proposed action, BLM engaged in a scoping pro-
cess involving several phases:

• Discussion with BLM resource specialists
and managers

• Field interviews

• Two public meetings in Lake Havasu City

• Five wilderness open houses

• Consideration of written comments

Participants in the public meetings identified
the following issues of concern: increased air
safety, need for radar facilities, complete presen-
tation of feasible alternatives, costs of radar
facilities and benefits in coverage, concern for
wildlife, concern for visual impacts of projects,
possible adverse impacts on radio and television
reception, impacts of access roads, impacts on
mining, impacts of construction and operation,
and impacts to Native American culture.

BLM resource specialists added five niore
areas of concern to comply with Federal, State,
and local requirements: (1) protection of cultural
resources, (2) protection of plant species pro-
posed for threatened or endangered status,
(3) conflict with BLM, Arizona, or county land use
planning, and (4) energy requirements of the pro-
posal or alternative. The analysis of environmen-

tal consequences focuses on the issues deter-
mined through scoping.

ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES

Grossman Peak and Two-Site Alternative

Radar facilities on Grossman Peak or on
Cherum and Harquahala Peaks would only slight-
ly impact some resources, including air quality,
soils, water quality, and livestock grazing. Cultur-
al resources are not likely to be significantly af-
fected except through an increase in information
gained through the survey required to accom-
pany documentation of any site. Security,
design, and construction of the facilities would
restrict access within the main beam of the radar
to prevent exposure to radiation. Such facilities
would not interfere with existing radio or televi-
sion reception.

Although facilities at all proposed sites
might economically benefit the local communi-
ties, many Lake Havasu City residents would feel
that the construction of a radar facility at Cross-
man Peak would impair the community's view of
the peak and encourage increased development
and use. Residents around Cherum and Har-
quahala Peak favor growth and development and
would feel benefited by construction of such
facilities.

Construction of access roads would have the
greatest impact on vegetation, disturbing 47 to
57 acres on Crossman Peak, 19 acres on Cherum
Peak, and undetermined acreage on Harquahala
Peak. No plants proposed for threatened or en-
dangered status are expected to be affected.

On all three peaks construction would dis-
turb wildlife habitat and displace many species.
Birds and reptiles would be displaced in areas
over which access roads would pass. More sig-
nificantly, facilities would disturb bighorn sheep
habitat at Crossman and Harquahala Peaks, elim-
inating or reducing the number of bighorn lambs.

The radar facilities would have high adverse
impacts on Native American religious values.
Crossman Peak has a high religious significance
to the Mohave Indians, and an installation there
would disfigure the mountain summit and block
access to it. Similarly, Cherum Peak has sacred
significance to the Huaiapais (Walapais), and
Harquahala Peak has sacred significance to the
Yavapais, although existing roads and distur-
bance would lessen the impact.

During construction, dust, marshaling yards,
and incompleted structures would impair visual
resources at all three sites. In the long term,
visual intrusions would include facilities, access
roads, and powerlines. A radar facility would
have a slight to moderate adverse impact on
views of Crossman Peak from Lake Havasu City,
a matter of concern to local residents.

Both alternatives would have adverse and
beneficial impacts on outdoor recreation. Site
construction would adversely affect scenery and
cause the retreat of small game. On Crossman
Peak, construction would reduce the opportunity
for solitude and primitive recreation and would
disrupt and diminish bighorn sheep hunting in
the surrounding game management unit.

If the access road remains open to the public,
access would be created for sightseeing, hunt-
ing, camping, picnicking, rock collecting, and
off-road vehicle use. Increased access, however,
could lead to increased poaching and harassing
of mule deer, collecting of desert tortoises as
pets, plant destruction and removal, vandalism
and destruction of archaeological artifacts, and
vandalism to historic and active mining sites.

Improved access could also reduce overall
mining costs and make some prospects viable
for the first time.

Radar facilities on Crossman Peak would be
highly visible from much of the Crossman Peak
wilderness study area and would require the con-
struction of a new access road into the center of
the area. The facility and road would impair the
suitability of the area for preservation as wilder-
ness.

A radar site on any of the peaks would set a
precedent for location of compatible communi-
cation facilities nearby. Continued development
would affect all land uses in proportion to the
degree of development. A facility on Crossman
Peak would conflict with BLM's management
framework plan (MFP) decisions concerning
visual resources, wildlife, recreation, and com-
munication sites. Such a facility on Harquahala
Peak would conflict with natural environmental
recreational values and intrude into bighorn
sheep habitat.

No-Action Alternative

The no-action alternative would result In
none of the adverse impacts of the construction
of radar facilities and access roads. On the other
hand, this alternative would require the continua-
tion of inefficient, antiquated and less safe air

traffic operations. Air traffic is expected to in-
crease by 50 percent over a 10-year period. The
use of nonradar air traffic control procedures
would continue to waste time and energy and
conflict with FAA's nnission of providing safety
to the flying public. The no-action alternative is
not acceptable to FAA.

MITIGATION

The following measures are proposed to
mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed ac-
tion or the two-site alternative.

• Water bars and culverts will be installed to
minimize erosion.

• In access road construction, the amount of
material cut will be balanced with that
used for fill. To avoid disposing of excess
material by sidecasting, such material will
be hauled to disposal sites agreed upon by
BLM and FAA.

• BLM will conduct an intensive field search
for proposed threatened or endangered
plants after final locations are staked and
develop necessary measures to protect
any located plants.

• One game water catchment or tank will be
constructed at Grossman Peak or Har-
quahala Peak.

• If necessary for site security, a small por-
tion of the Grossman Peak access road
near the summit will be closed to non-
official vehicles. BLM and FAA will select a
site as close as possible to the summit yet
level enough to construct a turnaround. At

the turnaround site, FAA will construct a
substantial gate across the road.

BLM will approve all final construction lo-
cations and specifications for facilities,
powerlines, and access routes.

FAA will fund an intensive cultural re-
source inventory of all areas to be disturb-
ed, and BLM will develop specific
measures to avoid or mitigate impacts to
archaeological sites.

To avoid the complete leveling of Gherum
Peak and reduce visual and vegetation im-
pacts, facilities will be placed at separate
elevations and blended into the terrain in-
sofar as technically feasible.

ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The environmental impact analysis of the al-
ternative proposals suggests that, if either of the
construction alternatives is accepted, the two-
site alternative would be preferred for wildlife,
cultural resources, wilderness values, Native
American values, and economic benefits to local
communities. On the other hand, construction
and operation of facilities would cost twice the
amount at Gherum and Harquahala Peaks as at
Grossman Peak, and operation of facilities at two
sites would consume twice the amount of elec-
trical energy as at one site. Access to the Gross-
man Peak site would consume 250 gallons of ve-
hicle fuel per month as opposed to the 1,500 gal-
lons required for access to Gherum and Harqua-
hala Peaks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

Page
No.

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES x

LIST OF MAPS xi

1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

PURPOSE 1-1

NEED 1-2

SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS 1-2

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 1-3

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 1-3

2. SCOPING

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR SCOPING 2-1

RESULTS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS 2-1

MANDATORY INCLUSIONS 2-2

WRITTEN COMMENTS 2-2

3. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE SELECTION 3-1

REASONS FOR REJECTING VARIOUS SITES 3-5

REASONS FOR SELECTING VARIOUS SITES 3-5

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR DETAILED STUDY 3-11

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE LEAD AGENCY . 3-15

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 3-15

COSTS OF RADAR FACILITIES AND BENEFITS IN COVERAGE 3-15

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

GENERAL DESCRIPTION 4-1

WILDLIFE 4-13

NATIVE AMERICANS 4-14

VISUAL RESOURCES 4-21

WILDERNESS 4-21

MINING 4-22

CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-27

STATE AND FEDERAL PROTECTED PLANTS 4-27

LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS 4-28

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

WILDLIFE 5-1

NATIVE AMERICANS 5-7

VISUAL RESOURCES 5-8

WILDERNESS 5-9

ACCESS ROADS 5-9

MINING 5-9

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION IMPACTS 5-21

RADIO AND TELEVISION RECEPTION AND COMPATIBILITY WITH

COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES 5-23

CULTURAL RESOURCES 5-23

STATE AND FEDERAL PROTECTED PLANTS 5-23

VIM

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
No.

LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, AND CONTROLS 5-24

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS 5-24

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 5-24

MITIGATING MEASURES 5-28

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 5-33

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 5-33

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5-33

6. PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

PREPARERS 6-1

REVIEWERS AND CONTRIBUTORS 6-4

APPENDICES

1. FIELD INTERVIEWS A-1

2. ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION HAZARDS A-2

GLOSSARY G-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY B-1

INDEX 1-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

No. Title No.

3-1 SITES STUDIED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION 3-8

3-2 SITE COSTS 3-25

3-3 COSTS OF COVERAGE FOR PROPOSED RADAR SITES 3-26

4-1 KEY AND STATE-PROTECTED PLANTS 4-2

5-1 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF IMPACTS 5-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

No. Title No.

1-1 ARSR-3 INSTALLATION, OKLAHOMA CITY 1-4

3-1 ECAC CHART - CROSSMAN PEAK 3-3

3-2 CROSSMAN PEAK PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3-19

5-1 NEW ACCESS ROAD IMPACTS ON VEGETATION 5-6

5-2 CROSSMAN PEAK - VIEW FROM LAKE HAVASU CITY 5-10

5-3 CROSSMAN PEAK - VIEW FROM ARIZONA HIGHWAY 95 5-10

5-4 CROSSMAN PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM

BACKCOUNTRY ROAD EAST OF PEAK 5-11

5-5 CHERUM PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM WINDY

POINT CAMPGROUND 5-11

5-6 CHERUM PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM CHLORIDE 5-12

5-7 CHERUM PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM

U.S. HIGHWAY 93 5-12

5-8 HARQUAHALA PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM REST

STOP ON U.S. HIGHWAY 60 5-13

5-9 CROSSMAN PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY - VIEW FROM EAST

SIDE LOOKING TOWARD LAKE HAVASU CITY 5-13

5-10 HARQUAHALA PEAK WITH RADAR FACILITY. HARQUAHALA

OBSERVATORY IN FOREGROUND 5-14

5-11 ESTIMATED FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION BY SITE

AND ALTERNATIVE 5-25

5-12 ESTIMATED MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION REQUIRED BY

SITE AND ALTERNATIVE 5-26

5-13 CHERUM PEAK DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS 5-29

5-14 CROSSMAN PEAK DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACT

FROM LAKE HAVASU CITY 5-31

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map No. Title No.

1-1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE RADAR SITES lii

3-1 SITES ANALYZED BY FAA 3-2

3-2 PRIMARY RADAR COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS (SIMPLIFIED) 3-4

3-3 CROSSMAN PEAK PROBABILITY OF DETECTION 3-6

3-4 THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR CROSSMAN PEAK 3-7

3-5 THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR PETE SMITH PEAK 3-12

3-6 THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR HARQUAHALA PEAK 3-13

3-7 THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR CHERUM PEAK 3-14

3-8 CROSSMAN PEAK SITE, ROAD, AND POWERLINE LOCATIONS 3-17

3-9 CHERUM PEAK SITE, ROAD, AND POWERLINE LOCATIONS 3-21

3-10 HARQUAHALA PEAK SITE, ROAD, AND POWERLINE LOCATIONS 3-23

4-1 CROSSMAN PEAK VEGETATION TYPES 4-7

4-2 CHERUM PEAK VEGETATION TYPES 4-9

4-3 HARQUAHALA PEAK VEGETATION TYPES 4-11
4-4 DISTRIBUTION OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP AND MULE

DEER ON CROSSMAN PEAK 4-15
4-5 DISTRIBUTION OF MULE DEER AND WILD HORSES ON CHERUM

PEAK 4-17
4-6 DISTRIBUTION OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP, MULE DEER, AND

GILBERT SKINK ON HARQUAHALA MOUNTAIN 4-19

4-7 WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNIT 5-7B, MOHAVE MOUNTAINS 4-23

4-8 WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNIT 2-95, HARQUAHALA MOUNTAINS 4-25

5-1 CROSSMAN PEAK VISUAL IMPACTS 5-15

5-2 CHERUM PEAK VISUAL IMPACTS 5-17

5-3 HARQUAHALA PEAK VISUAL IMPACTS 5-19

SECTION 1

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

SECTION 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION

In response to an urgent air safety need the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has filed
applications with the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM) for rights-of-way to accommodate
construction of Air Route Surveillance Radar
(ARSR) capability in western Arizona and eastern
California (map 1-1).

PURPOSE

The purpose of the proposed ARSR installa-
tion at Grossman Peak, Arizona, is to obtain air
traffic radar coverage within a 100-mile radius of
Kingman, Arizona. A long-range radar system is
critically needed in this area to reduce the in-
creasing risk of aircraft collision. The growth of
aviation transportation (air carrier, general avia-
tion, and military) has caused the area to be sur-
veyed a high-density airway route structure ser-
vicing the major cities of Phoenix, Las Vegas,
San Diego, Los Angeles and the local Colorado
River Basin communities.

Existing radar facilities at Mt. Laguna, Cali-
fornia; Mt. Humboldt, Arizona; and Angel's Peak,
Nevada, do not provide the safety level of radar
coverage required for the air traffic controllers at
the Los Angeles, California and Albuquerque,
New Mexico centers. Congress recognized this
need and funded the installation to complete a
radar network to provide for air safety in the re-
maining nonradar areas (area of coverage provid-
ed by Crossman Peak) of the National Airspace
System.

The proposed site would provide specifically
for positive radar identification of aircraft from
an altitude of 6,000 feet and above and would in-
sure added air safety by reducing the potential of
aircraft collision. To date, collision prevention
has been provided by air traffic controllers and
pilots through the use of aircraft position re-
ports, estimates over geographical or navigation-
al aid facilities, and outdated air traffic control
procedures.

As aircraft speeds and the volume of air traf-
fic increase, the possibility of aircraft collision
increases. Positive radar contact control and cur-
rent radar separation methods have proven the

only efficient and effective way of assuring air
safety. Real-time aircraft position information on
all aircraft in the airspace, identified in this pro-
posal, is mandatory if the level of air safety is to
be maintained or increased.

FAA over the years has developed added
safety measures to the basic radar system,
which further insures the safety of system users.
For example, the "Conflict Alert" feature alerts
controllers of impending aircraft collision.
Radar-tracked aircraft returns are evaluated by
the automated system, predicting possible air-
craft collision well in advance and enabling the
controller to take collision avoidance action. Air-
craft speed and cockpit visibility interfere with
the pilots' awareness of the closeness of other
aircraft. The controller is thus the only remaining
factor for collision intervention.

"Minimum Safe Altitude Warning" is another
automated radar/computer feature, which alerts
controllers to situations of radar tracked aircraft
below, or soon to be below, a predetermined min-
imum safe altitude in relation to the terrain. This
alert, visible to the controller on his radar dis-
play, similar to "Conflict Alert," is used to imme-
diately inform or warn the pilot of his hazardous
relation to the terrain typical in this geographical
area.

En route radar services are, of course, para-
mount to air safety, but other benefits will be re-
alized at five airports in Arizona— Grand Canyon,
Kingman, Lake Havasu, Page and Yuma— and
two airports in California— BIythe and Imperial.
In 1977, these airports collectively served
157,000 passengers and 358, 000 aircraft opera-
tions. FAA has forecast that these totals will
swell to 425,000 passengers and 539,000 opera-
tions in the 1980s. Without radar services, the air
safety level is not sufficient by any means, and
the aircraft collison risk is greatly increased in
this area and along the major routes between
metropolitan cities identified in this report.

A radar system at Crossman Peak would also
improve radar visibility of high-speed, low-
altitude military training missions. Today and for
the foreseeable future the military will continue
operations in the area at speeds in excess of 250
knots and at altitudes generally below 10,000

1-1

feet. These routes and time periods of use are
well publicized. The speed factor/rate of closure
often does not permit sufficient time for the pilot
to take evasive action. Radar services and con-
troller intervention again become of maximum
importance.

In summary, radar is the safest and most ex-
pedient method to separate aircraft. Without
radar systems and present/future system en-
hancements, the public, pilots, and controllers
are being denied safety tools to avoid cata-
strophic air collisions. "Conflict Alert" and
"Minimum Safe Altitude Warning" were devel-
oped to expand the protection of airway and air-
space users. Not to take advantage of this tech-
nology is inexcusable.

FAA's mission is to provide for and insure the
air safety of the National Airspace System.
Should FAA's proposal for the Grossman Peak
radar site or two-site alternative be denied, FAA's
mission in this area will be severely impacted
and the users of FAA services will be exposed to
the increasing risk of aircraft collision and the re-
sulting loss of life and property.

NEED

Air traffic in this area consists of a mix of air
carrier, military, and general aviation aircraft op-
erating at all altitudes. FAA forecasts a more
than 50 percent increase in the number of opera-
tions in the area by 1990. Low-level military train-
ing and general aviation flights below 18,000 feet
are forecast to increase to a point that "see and
be seen" (manual separation) flying is neither
practical nor safe. FAA plans provide for positive
radar control (aircraft in direct radar and radio
contact with ARTCC) of aircraft flying visual
flight rules between 12,500 and 18,000 feet.

The need for positive radar coverage was
identified in the mid-1960s, but difficulty in ob-
taining approval of the Grossman Peak site has
delayed the project until the late 1970s. During
the 1970s air traffic has increased greatly, and
aircraft operating characteristics and speed have
changed. The positive radar control and separa-
tion method has been proven the only efficient
and effective way of assuring safety for air
travelers. The acceptable solution for lack of
radar coverage in this vast, rugged desert area is
to provide a radar site (Grossman Peak) or a com-
plex of radar sites (Gherum and Harquahala
Peaks) that will provide real-time location infor-
mation on all aircraft in the airspace and provide
the aircraft separation mandatory for safety.

SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS

Reduce Traffic Delays and Fuel
Consumption

Where little or no radar coverage exists, air
traffic control requires manual separation proce-
dures. Such procedures reduce the number of
aircraft traveling through a portion of airspace
for a given time and may cause the rerouting or
holding of aircraft on the ground or in the air, de-
laying flights and generating air pollution. If air-
craft depart on time but, to avoid nonradar-
covered airspace, must travel longer routes than
would otherwise be necessary, the longer flights
consume more fuel.

Radar Assistance During
Emergencies

One of FAA's most important missions is
assisting pilots during emergencies. Such assis-
tance includes finding and directing lost aircraft,
search and rescue efforts for downed aircraft,
and diverting aircraft with inflight emergencies
to the nearest airports. Radar surveillance rapid-
ly identifies any aircraft in an emergency, saving
lives and property. Radar facilities at Grossman
Peak or at Gherum and Harquahala Peaks would
provide the radar coverage necessary for
emergencies.

Weather

Besides tracking aircraft through its search
area, radar also tracks severe storms. Air traffic
control provides weather advisory service to all
aircraft and directs pilots around or over adverse
weather conditions. The lack of radar coverage
would seriously hamper the weather advisory
capability of FAA in this desert area, which has
one of the highest incidences of thunderstorms
in the United States.

Aid to the United States
Customs Service

Radar facilities at Grossman Peak or at
Gherum and Harquahala Peaks would provide
low-altitude radar coverage that can be used to
reduce illegal alien or drug traffic. The Depart-
ment of Justice has expressed interest in the
use of radar to discourage this traffic along 150
miles of the southern border of the United
States.

1-2

Firefighting Support

With adequate radar coverage where it now
fails to exist, FAA traffic control could assist
BLM or the U.S. Forest Service firefighting air-
craft to and from fires, provide guidance through
low-visibility areas, and restrict the airspace
above the fire to only the aircraft supporting the
firefighting.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION

The ARSR-3 is the nnost recently developed
radar electronic system designed for detection
of aircraft. It is a fixed based, pulsed, dual-
channel system with a range of 200 nautical
miles (nm) and the ability to detect aircraft up to
an altitude of 60,000 feet. The electronic data ac-
quired by this system would be converted to a
visual display. Air traffic controllers would con-
tinuously monitor detected aircraft on the visual
display and direct safe movement using air-
ground radio communication with the pilot.

The proposed facility would consist of a
small complex of two buildings and an antenna
tower on a 2,500-square-yard site. One build-
ing— 9 by 35 feet— would house the emergency
power engine/generator plant. The other build-
ing— 30.5 by 47.5 feet— would house the elec-
tronic transmitter/receiver equipment. An open
steel tower, 35 feet square and 50 feet high,

would support a 57.5-foot diameter radome,
which would protect the rotating antenna. Ar-
ranged in a compact complex, the building and
tower would present a light commercial appear-
ance (see figure 1-1).

The normal operating mode of the ARSR-3
system is diversity operation (both radar chan-
nels operating simultaneously) with range gating
between two antenna beam patterns or channel
receivers, or both. Diversity operation improves
target detectability. Although the normal mode
of operation for the ARSR-3 is diversity, the
ARSR-3 meets all coverage requirements while
operating in the simplex mode (one radar chan-
nel in use). Nevertheless, in all of the ARSR-3
systems either radar channel may be operated as
the master or slave.

BLM ACTIONS

The BLM action under consideration in this
statement is granting the FAA rights-of-way for
the construction, maintenance, and operation of
ARSR facility(ies) and access thereto. Before the
decision to approve, disapprove, or defer grant-
ing the rights-of-way, BLM has prepared this en-
vironmental statement (ES) pursuant to Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA). If the resulting decision is to ap-
prove granting of the rights-of-way at Grossman
Peak or at Cherum and Harquahala Peaks, BLM
and FAA will negotiate final access road center-
lines and formally issue the rights-of-way grant.

1-3

:><*'-'

E
o

CO
DC
CO
QC
<

1-4

SECTION 2

SCOPING

SECTION 2
SCOPING

BACKGROUND AND NEED
FOR SCOPING

Final regulations innplementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA) Part 1500, pro-
vide for an early and open process to determine
the scope of issues to be addressed and to iden-
tify the significant issues related to a proposed
action. The regulations direct that this process
be termed "scoping" and that as soon as possi-
ble after the decision to prepare an environmen-
tal statement, the lead agency publish a notice
of intent in the Federal Register.

The regulations further direct that the lead
agency invite the participation of affected Feder-
al, State, and local agencies and interested per-
sons, including those opposing the action on en-
vironmental grounds.

The regulations are designed to determine in
depth the scope and the significant issues to be
analyzed in the environmental statement and to
identify and eliminate from detailed study insig-
nificant issues or those addressed in prior envi-
ronmental review.

Information developed through the scoping
process is then integrated with materials pro-
duced by the several resource specialists mak-
ing the environmental analysis. Scoping thus re-
duces the length of the environmental statement
and emphasizes real alternatives.

The scoping process involved several
phases:

• Internal discussions with BLM resource
specialists and managers;

• Field interviews with individuals, agency
representatives, Indian tribes and
representatives of interest groups in the
State and region;

• Two public meetings held in Lake Havasu
City, February 22, 1979;

• Five wilderness open house meetings
(Yuma, Lake Havasu City, Kingman, Tuc-
son, and Phoenix), May-June 1979; and

• Written comments received as a result of
news releases, direct mailings, and articles
about the proposal and scoping meetings.

RESULTS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS

To summarize material developed by the
several work groups, BLM placed each impact or
issue in a category of similar or like items.

BLM has given major areas of public interest
and concern identified through this scoping pro-
cess primary consideration during the develop-
ment of this draft environmental statement. BLM
(1979) has published the results of these meet-
ings in a brochure (Scoping Meetings for the
Crossman Peak Environmental Statement).

The work groups identified 13 impacts or
areas of concern, four of which are addressed
either in Section 1, Purpose of and Need for the
Action (Items 1 and 2) or Section 3, Alternatives
Including the Proposed Action (Items 3 and 4).

1. Positive impact of increased air safety,

2. Concern that the facility(ies) might not be
necessary,

3. Concern that all feasible alternatives
have not been presented, and

4. Costs of radar facilities and benefits in
coverage.

The following impacts or areas of concern
were also identified through the scoping pro-
cess.

5. Concern for wildlife, particularly bighorn
sheep (Wildlife),

6. Concern for impacts on Native American
culture (Native Americans),

7. Concern for visual impacts of facility(ies)
and ancillary construction (Visual
Resources),

8. Impacts to wilderness (Wilderness),

9. Adverse impacts of access road(s) and
new use(s) (Access Roads),

10. Beneficial impacts of access road(s) and
new use(s) (Access Roads),

11. Concern that the radar facility will impact
or be impacted by mining (Mining),

2-1

12. Impacts of construction and operation
(Construction and Operation Impacts),
and

13. Possible adverse effects on radio and
television reception. (Radio and Televi-
sion Reception and Compatibility with
Communication Facilities).

MANDATORY INCLUSIONS

BLM resource specialists added four more
areas of concern to comply with Federal, State
and local requirements:

14. Protection of archaeological and histori-
cal resources (Cultural Resources),

15. Protection of threatened or endangered
plant species (State and Federal Pro-
tected Plants),

16. Conflict with land use planning by either
BLM, the State of Arizona, or the coun-
ties where the three sites are located
(Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls),
and

17. Energy requirements.

Items 9, 10, 12, 13, and 17 are discussed only
In Section 5, Environmental Consequences. The
remaining items are discussed in Sections 4, Af-
fected Environment, and 5.

WRITTEN COMMENTS

At the time of this printing BLM had received
24 written comments on the Crossman Peak or
two-site alternative radar proposals and a peti-
tion with 44 signatures. Several of the comments
were detailed and specific; others were simply
statements for or against development at Cross-
man, Cherum, or Harquahala Peaks. Each com-
ment has been included in the environmental
statement record and has been fully considered
in the preparation of this statement.

Most of the comments either endorsed or op-
posed the FAA proposals on the basis of impacts
to specific resources. Endorsements were based
on perceived safety, economics, increased ac-
cess benefits, and the precedent that the radar
installation might set for other public communi-
cations uses. Opposition comments were based
on perceived adverse impacts to wildlife, aes-
thetics, wilderness, and recreation. Collectively,
the written comments largely parallel the issues
and concerns identified at the two scoping
meetings held at Lake Havasu City.

2-2

SECTION 3

ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

SECTION 3
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

ALTERNATIVE SELECTION

From 1968 to 1978, the FAA analyzed more
than 45 sites to determine feasible locations for
a radar to satisfy air traffic coverage require-
ments. Thirty-one of these sites are included in
this study (map 3-1). The remainder of the sites
were eliminated from this analysis because they
would not provide coverage provided by the pro-
posed action (Grossman Peak). Therefore, they
cannot be considered alternatives to the pro-
posed action. If this coverage is needed, it will
be in addition to the Grossman or Gherum/Har-
quahala coverage. Primary coverage was based
on Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Gontrol Genter
(ARTGG) requirements and Albuquerque/Los
Angeles ARTGG hand off requirements. Analysis
was based upon the following criteria:

A. Radar Goverage Requirements of Primary
Goncern (Area and Altitude):

1. Site elevation vs. adjacent mountain ter-
rain.

2. Line-of-site (horizon profile and
distance).

3. Radar coverage probability.

B. Economic Feasibility:

1. Gonstruction Gost:

a. Access road length and terrain.

b. Gommercial power construction
cost.

c. Water and sewer system initial cost.

d. Site preparation cost.

e. Radar facility construction cost.

2. Operation Gost:

a. Nearest town or community.

b. Housing availability vs. government
furnished.

0. Travel time and distance from hous-
ing to site.

d. Access vehicles required (four-
wheel, over snow).

e. Recurring access road maintenance
costs.

f. Emergency housing at site (if re-
quired).

g. Gommercial power cost.

h. Water and sewer system recurring
cost.

G. Environmental Impacts:

1. BLM land use planning.

2. Public opinion.

3. Visual impacts.

4. Air and water pollution.

The considerations for site selection are (1)
radar coverage, (2) feasibility of construction and
cost, and (3) environmental impacts and possible
mitigating actions.

Radar detection of aircraft for any given site
can be predicted by conducting map studies or
by using computer automated analysis systems.
The Department of Defense Electromagnetic
Gompatibility Analysis Genter (EGAG) analyzed
the effects of topography on the aircraft detec-
tion capability of the radar. The coordinates and
evaluation of the site location, the topographic
data for the desired area around the site, and the
aircraft altitude were used to generate topo-
graphic profiles along radials extending outward
and spaced at equa-angular increments about
the site. The profile was then used to determine
the distance at which aircraft approaching the
site at a given altitude will be detected. Map
overlays showing line-of-sight contours and area
outlines showing detection distance for aircraft
at specified altitudes were used to determine a
site's capability to satisfy primary coverage re-
quirements. Figure 3-1 is an example of an EGAG
map overlay for Grossman Peak. The irregular
range and altitude lines are caused by adjacent
mountains, which limit the detection range of
the radar.

A simplified version of the primary radar cov-
erage requirements by ARTGCs are shown on
map 3-2, which illustrates the area of desired
radar coverage and the minimum altitudes above
mean sea level (MSL) at which aircraft detection
is required. It is assumed that aircraft at higher
altitudes will be detected if the minimum re-
quirements are met.

3-1

MAP 3- 1

SOURCE FA A

3-2

TMoci iKauiaiiiOH ovm

iMtwiT conromni ^tojfc

ItON

nut iMHtiricjinoiK < n

S^M.N PI

(wr iKt i«i looooooii nt

f«(tcriviiT

(LCVHIIOM CHLCUiateD H

IB tecoNo

■ Tiwot. iNoicHUMO iiNf e

r iioHT ->

• IHCR ■t«01.I( '

•

TMMT «LTITUOCi> 1000

00 tooo

I DFO II niM II Id

ECAC CHART

SOURCE: FAA

3-3

MAP 3-2

O
Gila Bend

LEGEND

5000' MSL- Minr*"™ altitude
coverage required

*'fJt/r;r-

PRIMARY RADAR COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
(SIMPLIFIED)

souncC' FAA

3-4

Map 3-3 shows the location of Grossman
Peak and the probability of detection as deter-
mined by the distance from the proposed radar
site. Experience has shown that theoretical cov-
erage from a radar site can vary from the actual
coverage (as determined by flight check) of an
existing site. To increase accuracy in predicting
coverage, the probability of detection has to be
considered.

Example: The first arc is 60 nautical miles
(nm) from Grossman Peak and detection proba-
bility from to 60 nm is considered to be 99 per-
cent. The second arc is 120 nm from Grossman
Peak and detection probability from 60 to 120 nm
is 75 percent. Beyond 120 nm to the maximum
detection range of the radar (200 nm), aircraft de-
tection probability varies from 18 to 75 percent.
As the range increases the probability of detec-
tion decreases.

Map 3-4 is a composite of the previous maps
with the addition of aircraft altitude and range
detection lines showing the extent of coverage
expected in the primary coverage area. This in-
formation was taken from EGAG map overlays for
Grossman Peak (see figure 3-1). As shown,
Grossman Peak is expected to detect aircraft at
the minimum specified altitudes above sea level
for the majority of the area.

REASONS FOR REJECTING
VARIOUS SITES

Using map studies, computerized aircraft de-
tection map overlays, and aerial reconnaissance,
FAA rejected 26 sites. Table 3-1 lists the sites
studied and reasons for rejection.

REASONS FOR SELECTING
VARIOUS SITES

Preliminary studies indicated that five sites
could possibly serve as single-site alternatives
to Grossman Peak. Preliminary map studies by
FAA indicated further study was justified, and
BLM planning (as of 1978) indicated the sites
were not projected as potential wilderness areas.
The alternatives are listed below in alphabetical
order:

Gherum Peak
Harquahala Peak
Mt. Potosi
Perkins Mountain
Pete Smith Peak

6,978' MSL
5,681' MSL
8,512' MSL
5,456' MSL
5,192' MSL

Field personnel collected the following data:

1. Skyline panoramic photography.

2. Electronic interference source recogni-
tion.

3. Site photography (still).

4. Givil engineering and construction data.

5. Road access to site.

6. Topographic data.

7. Three-phase commercial power availabil-
ity survey data.

8. Geographic coordinates.

9. Site orientation.

10. Site elevation.

11. Effective antenna height.

12. Preparation of skyline elevation angles.

13. Gommercial telephone facilities for data
transmission to Los Angeles and Albu-
querque Genters.

The projected radar coverage of these five
sites in the area of primary concern was signifi-
cantly less than that projected for Grossman
Peak. FAA judged none of these sites acceptable
as single-site alternatives to Grossman Peak.

BLM's objection to the use of Grossman Peak
resulted in an authorization to seek alternative
radar coverage with a combination of two or
more facilities.

FAA analyzed sites using the following
criteria:

1. Must have no known restrictions to radar
(environmentally acceptable).

2. Must provide no less primary radar cover-
age than Grossman Peak.

3. Must provide complementary radar cover-
age to existing adjacent radar facilities,
but must not be located close to existing
facilities.

4. Must be feasible to construct, including
access.

5. Must be located within the primary area,
but separated as far as possible.

On the basis of the previous criteria FAA in-
vestigated two regions within the primary area,
one south of Grossman Peak in the Harcuvarand
Harquahala Mountains and the other north of
Grossman Peak in the Gerbat Mountains. FAA

3-5

MAP 3-3

GROSSMAN PEAK PROBABILITY OF DETECTION

(BASED ON DISTANCE FROM RADAR)

SOURCE ■ FA*

3-6

MAP 3-4

O
Gila B«nd

LEGEND

Ar«a not covered at
mlnifnum required
altitude

THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR CROSSMAN PEAK

SOURCE- F**

3-7

TABLE 3-1
SITES STUDIED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION

SITE

MSL

REASONS FOR REJECTION

iie Maria

3,134' Sheer cliffs and expensive powerline costs. Loss of
radar coverage, site too low in respect to nearby
mountains .

-Black Butte

4,504' Expensive site, lengthy access road and extensive

powerline work. Too far southwest of primary area.
Loss of radar coverage in Prescott and Gila Bend
areas .

Black Mountain 4,421'

Shielded by Mt. Nutt to the north and Hualapai
Mountains to the east. Poor radar coverage.

Black Peak

Cherum Peak

1,665' Loss of radar coverage to the east, north, and south.
Site elevation low in comparison to nearby mountains.

6,978' Under Airway Victor 216 radar shielded to north by
Mt. Tipton, south by Hualapai Peak. Good coverage
when paired with Harquahala Peak. Good construction
site and power availability. Access road good to
top of the mountain; only 2.8 miles of new road re-
quired. High construction costs expected.

*Clipper Mountain 4,604'

Cunningham Mountain 3,316'

Groom Peak

Too far west. Under Airways Victor V12-442 and
V-538 and intersection of same. Expensive powerline
construction. Poor radar coverage.

Too steep to build road and site. Too close to
existing communication facilities. Loss of radar
coverage to the north and over Prescott area.

4,608' Shielded by Hualapai Mountains. Expensive road and
power costs. Long distance from town of 10,000.
Difficult to hold personnel. Poor radar coverage.

*Harcuvar Mountain 5,125'

*Harquahala Peak 5,681'

'^Hualapai Peak 8,420'

McCoy Peak

2,835'

Lower than Harquahala Peak; radar shielded to the
south and east of center of coverage area. Expen-
sive road and powerline costs.

Excellent radar coverage to south and east of center
of needed coverage area. Approximately 20 percent
of coverage over Mexico. Loss of radar coverage to
the north. Existing road impassable (requires re-
alignment in middle third; upper third is only a jeep
trail). Expensive powerline. Low cost for site
preparation.

Extremely craggy. Extensive blasting necessary for
site and road. Inside of county park. Expensive
construction; elevation too high. Difficult to get
permit due to park designation and environmental
impact. Will not provide the low altitude radar
coverage required.

Poor coverage, large amount of coverage over Mexico
where not needed (approximately 35 percent) .

3-8

TABLE 3-1 (Cont.)
SITES STUDIED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION

SITE

MSL

REASONS FOR REJECTION

Midland Mountain

*Mt. Potosi

Music Mountain

*^Mt. Nutt Peak

Old Woman Mountain

*Perkins Mountain

*Pine Mountain

*Potosi Ridge

Rice 1

Rice 2

Signal Peak.

*Pete Smith Peak

Tipton Mountain

2,870'
8,512'

6,677'

5,216'
5,326'
5,456'

7,225'
8,240'

2,636'
2,677'
4,877'

5,192'
7,180'

Poor access, sheer cliffs. High construction and
power costs. Poor radar coverage.

Too close to other radar (Las Vegas) , north of
center of required coverage. Too high, 14.2 miles of
expensive road construction, new powerlines (9-tniles
overhead and 14,000-feet underground line). Special
snow access equipment required. High construction
costs anticipated.

Under V-208 Airway, too close to intersection of six
airways (Peach Springs), screened in all quadrants.
Expensive road and powerline construction. Poor
radar coverage.

Expensive access road work,
south and west.

Loss of coverage to the

Expensive road and powerline construction. Too far
west of primary coverage area. Poor coverage.

Expensive road and powerline construction. Bighorn
sheep lambing area. Too far north. Poor coverage
to the east and southeast because of Cerbat and
Hualapai Mountains.

Expensive and long access roads. Long and costly
powerline access over private land. Elevation too
high, poor coverage at low altitudes.

Expensive road and powerline construction. Too close
to Las Vegas long-range radar site. Existing communi-
cation facilities on ridge. Difficult winter access.
High construction costs anticipated.

Sheer cliffs, expensive construction. Poor radar
coverage.

Sheer cliffs (very difficult access) and poor radar
coverage.

Approximately 35 percent of radar coverage over
Mexico. Rugged. In Kofa National Wildlife Refuge.
Proposed wilderness area. Environmental problems.

Existing access road and single-phase powerline.
Modernization of road almost as expensive as con-
structing new road. Loss of coverage in the Colorado
River Basin, Palm Springs and Twenty-Nine Palms.
Shielded by Harquahala Mountains.

No existing roads. Peak too craggy, extensive
blasting and excavation for site. Access road would
require blasting and scarring of mountain. Excessive
visual impact. High cost site.

3-9

TABLE 3-1 (Cont.)
SITES STUDIED AND REASONS FOR REJECTION

SITE

MSL

REASONS FOR REJECTION

Turtle Mountain 4,313'

*Wabayuma Peak 7,500'

West Riverside 2,667'

Whipple Mountain 4,130'

Wilson Mountain 5,445'

Oatman Peak 1,732'

Poor coverage due to screening terrain; poor access.
Long access road and powerline construction required.

Steep, craggy terrain. Expensive site construction.
Reputed Indian relics at Peak Stone Fort. Raytheon
report indicates potential wilderness study area.

Sheer cliffs, poor access, too low. Poor coverage.

No existing access roads. Expensive site, road, and
powerline construction. Loss of coverage to west
(Grossman Peak) and southwest (Harcuvar Mountains).

Poor coverage to south. Ninety miles north of center
of coverage requirements. Expensive construction for
access road, powerline, and site.

Approximately 35 percent coverage over Mexico. Loss
of coverage to north and northeast because of
shielding by Gila Bend Mountains, northwest by Kofa
Mountains. No coverage at 5,000 feet MSL in primary
area. Military radar now existing at Oatman is not
compatible with FAA equipment. FAA radar cannot be
within 5 nm of this military radar.

FAA field engineers studied the following peaks in 1970: Grossman, Hualapai,
Wabayuma, Pine, and Mt. Nutt.

As part of a site selection study in 1976, FAA and Raytheon personnel visited
the following peaks: Wabayuma, Black Mountain, and Clipper Mountain.

NOTE: "Sites visited by FAA field engineers. Engineering data contained in
FAA report "Air Route Surveillance Radar Site Survey Report, Lake
Havasu, Arizona Multiple Sites" dated February, 1979.

Source :

FAA

3-10

considered east-west combinations, but moun-
tain ranges preclude adequate coverage. Map
studies indicated thiat all five sites meeting FAA
criteria are on public land administered by BLM.

In the region soutti of Grossman Peak, Har-
cuvar, Pete Smith and Harquahala Peaks were
considered as potential sites, being unlikely
sites for wilderness area study. Further field in-
vestigation provided the following conclusions.

Harcuvar Peak — This site would require ex-
tremely expensive road construction (no existing
road to site) and lengthy utility lines. Pete Smith
Peak would reduce radar coverage to the east,
and the Harquahala Mountains would extensive-
ly block coverage to the south.

Pete Smith Peak - Communication facilities
already exist on this peak, but these facilities are
incompatible with FAA long-range radar (omni
type antenna), requiring FAA to locate approx-
imately 5,000-feet west along the ridge at a lower
elevation than Pete Smith Peak. The existing
communication site is served by a graded access
road. Existing power for the communication
sites consist of single-phase service. New three-
phase electrical service would have to be
brought in from the town of Aguila, approximate-
ly 12 miles away. Loss of aircraft detection would
be expected south of the primary area because
of the Harquahala Mountains. Coverage in the
6,500- and 5,000-foot elevation of the primary cov-
erage requirements would also be reduced. (See
map 3-5, Pete Smith Peak coverage.)

Harquahala Peak - This site is predicted to
provide the best radar coverage of the alternative
sites investigated. Map 3-6 shows the primary
area with Harquahala Peak coverage to existing
FAA radar at Mt. Laguna in southern California
and Mt. Humboldt near Phoenix. An existing road
to Harquahala Peak would have to be upgraded,
which would involve adding switchbacks at
steep places and even relocation to maintain
grade. No communication facilities are located
on or near Harquahala Peak, and therefore no in-
terference problems are anticipated. A new
powerline paralleling the access road would be
required.

North of Crossman Peak, FAA considered
Cherum, Tipton, Perkins and Potosi Peaks, all on
BLM land and none in potential wilderness
areas.

Mt. Potosi - This site, when paired with Har-
quahala Peak, provides adequate radar coverage.
The site's elevation, however, is higher than
desired and is only 21 nm from Angel's Peak
ARSR to the north. TV stations on the ridge
would require that the radar site be located ap-

proximately 1 mile to the north. Approximately 11
miles of the existing road would need to be re-
aligned and rebuilt to provide all-weather access.
One mile of new road would also be needed. The
existing access road is too narrow and steep
(grades up to 30 percent) for access during
winter, requiring the use of helicopters. Since
FAA radar data are required 24 hours a day, main-
tenance access is required all year. The existing
powerlines provide only single-phase power.
Nine miles of new lines would have to be added
to provide the three-phase power required. Road
and powerline construction costs make this a
high cost site.

Perkins Mountain - Radar coverage from this
site would not be adequate because the Cerbat
Mountains to the east would block radar trans-
mission. When Perkins Mountain is paired with
Harquahala Peak, coverage would improve but
would still not meet requirements.

Cherum Peak - This site would provide ex-
cellent radar coverage at the altitudes required.
Paired with coverage from Harquahala Peak,
Cherum Peak's radar coverage would not only
complement that from Angel's Peak and Mt.
Laguna radar sites but would also exceed that
expected from the proposed Crossman Peak
site. Coverage in the areas of primary concern in
the north is slightly better than Crossman Peak.
The radar site location would be tight, requiring a
nonstandard arrangement of equipment
buildings, tower, and power plant. An existing
BLM public road to the top of Cherum Peak lies
within 2.8 miles of the proposed site. New road
construction would require some blasting. Com-
mercial electrical three-phase power would prob-
ably be extended from Chloride, Arizona, 9 miles
along existing jeep trails to the site. Commercial
telephone service would be provided by micro-
wave to Kingman, Arizona. Neither BLM nor the
public has objected to the Cherum Peak loca-
tion.

This site, paired with Pete Smith Peak, would
provide required radar data in the northern half of
the area of primary concern, but the Harquahala
Mountains would compromise coverage in the
south (see map 3-7).

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
FOR DETAILED STUDY

On the basis of the site-selection process de-
scribed above, FAA concluded that only two al-
ternatives would satisfy their air traffic coverage
requirements: (1) Crossman Peak alone, or (2) a
two-site combination of Cherum and Harquahala

3-11

MAP 3-5

THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR PETE SMITH PEAK

SOURCE' FAA

3-12

MAP 3-6

O
Gila Band

Ares not covered at
mininium required
altitude

^^^/co-

THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR HARQUAHALA PEAK

SOURCEi rAA

3-13

MAP 3-7

Gilo Bend

Area not covered at
minimum required
altitude

^'^^/Co

THEORETICAL RADAR COVERAGE FOR CHERUM PEAK

SOURCE : FA*

3-14

Peaks. As required by NEPA and the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations, a no-action
alternative was also analyzed. Facilities (radome,
tower, building, and generator) would be the
same at each site constructed.

Grossman Peak (Applicant's Proposed
Action)

The Grossman Peak site would require a
10.6-mile access road from Lake Havasu City to
the top of Crossman Peak, closely paralleled by a
three-phase single-pole 12 kV powerline. f^ap 3-8
shows the proposed site and road locations. The
applicant has proposed notching the east side of
the peak to provide necessary space for the
facilities without disturbing the west face of the
peak (see figure 3-2).

Two-Site Alternative (Cherum and
Harquahala Peaks)

Cherum Peak would require construction of
2.8 miles of road (see map 3-9) and approximately
9 miles of powerline. The peak would be leveled
to provide necessary space.

Harquahala Peak would require upgrading an
existing road and constructing 15 to 20 miles of
powerline to the site (see map 3-10). Since the
top of the peak is relatively flat, minimal grading
would be required to allow space for the tower,
building and generator.

REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES
NOT WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
OF THE LEAD AGENCY

Following the extensive potential site inven-
tory described earlier in this section, no
reasonable alternative sites were identified on
lands under jurisdiction of agencies other than
BLM.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, no radar
facilities would be installed at Crossman,
Cherum or Harquahala Peaks, no power trans-
mission lines would be built, and no roads would
be constructed or improved to provide access to
the sites. Aircraft navigation below 15,000 feet
MSL would continue on a "see and be seen"
basis. BLfvl would continue to manage these
public lands according to existing land use plans
and policies. (See section 4, LAND USE PLANS,
POLICIES, AND CONTROLS.)

COSTS OF RADAR
FACILITIES AND BENEFITS
IN COVERAGE

The area of concern as shown by map 3-2
covers approximately 31,300 square nautical
miles. (A nautical mile [nm] is equal to 6,076.116
feet.) Of this total, approximately 20,542 square
nm's have radar coverage to the desired eleva-
tions. An additional 10,758 square nm's of pri-
mary coverage are desired. Minimum primary
coverage is based on altitude use patterns pre-
ferred by aircraft pilots.

The additional primary coverage would pro-
vide a number of benefits: increasing air safety,
locating and evaluating the intensity of local
storms, and tracking identified aircraft that may
be engaged in illegal activities. If additional radar
coverage results in more direct plane routing fuel
will be saved. The extent to which aircraft would
change their flight patterns if the new facilities
are built, however, is not known.

The secondary coverage provides an addi-
tional safety factor. Atmospheric conditions that
might limit radar coverage in a certain locale can
be covered by a second unit that also covers this
area. Both units are unlikely to be blocked out si-
multaneously. Secondary coverage can also
compensate for failure of equipment, such as the
radar unit, repeater, telephone lines, or the
microwave.

Both the primary and secondary benefits are
extremely difficult to quantify, even though they
are easily recognized. This analysis will thus be
based on the cost effectiveness of the coverage.

Costs by site are displayed in table 3-2. They
have been broken down by design and equip-
ment, construction, and operation and mainte-
nance. Design and equipment consist of engi-
neering, major electronics equipment contracts,
testing, and training. Construction costs include
site preparation and installation costs. Operation
and maintenance costs involve the annual costs
required to maintain and operate the facilities.

Design, equipment and construction costs
also include the installation of automation equip-
ment at either Los Angeles or the Albuquerque
Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) or
both, depending upon the alternative selected.

Costs of coverage for the proposed radar
sites are shown in table 3-3. The Crossman Peak
site with preferred access route would provide
the most economical primary coverage of the de-
sired area at $120 per square nm per year. The
Crossman Peak site with alternative access

3-15

route would provide only slightly more expensive double the cost of coverage per square nm, con-
coverage at $127 per square nnn per year. sidering both primary and secondary coverage.

^. ^ . . I * ti, A^ _ The cost of primary coverage would be exactly

Obtammg coverage equal to the Grossman double f' j' « ^

Peak site would require the use of both the

Cherum and Harquahala sites. The cost of two Secondary coverage, though not nearly as im-

sites plus the cost of an additional radar unit at a portant as primary, does add an additional safety

higher expense— $4,493,000— would more than factor to installed facilities.

3-16

MAP 3-8

r SASE DuHi JEO FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
&R!ZOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

GROSSMAN PEAK

I I I I I

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

-i- Proposed Site

._^ ,■ — Proposed Access Road

Alternative Access Road

—J — "J — Proposed Power line

3-17/18

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

fc-^

•^

VrT^

^=F

-A

r//>/7

^•ii

r/^

rrrr^'''

^^■;

,^'

N .

,\ff

0^'

2^1

rrr^

■.^.'

;-^

r/'

/''

L-

rSiSiw;

(3)

® [^

fff'

ly.

'y'J

'>V>

V>V

" ^^^ 'y-y^.

'^yy'^

v^^

" '""'^

V>^-^

XxVr

-^^^

"y^

^^>

1 —

-'>

10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 190 160 170 1*0 ItO 800 210 2X0 280 240 250 260 2T0 260 2»0 300 310 320 330 340

LEGEND

SO'RADAR TOWER WITH 5 7. 5 'd (A. R ADOME

(D 30'-bV," X 47- SVi" RADAR BUILDING

(1) HEAT EXCHANGER

aUARD RAILS

(D 6'CHAIH LINK FENCE

iji) ENCLOSED STAIRWAY

i) CUT SLOPE Ca* to 1)

(D FILL SLOPE (1.5 to 1 )

3-2.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN

source: faa

3-19/20

MAP 3 -

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

CHERUM PEAK

r-i I I

MILC SCALE

MAP BASE DERn/f -f OM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
i ARIZONA DE:>ftRT;.',ENT OF TRANSPORTATION

LEGEND

i. Proposed Site

Proposed Access Road

-J — T — Proposed Power line

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

3-21/22

'A,h9 BASE DER
ARIZONA D

EL 2360 ;

ilVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
lEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

HARQUAHALA PEAK

1
1 1 1

MME SCAl£

LEGEND

i Proposed Site

Proposed Access Road

-T — T — Proposed Power! ine

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

3-23/24

TABLE 3-2
SITE COSTS

TOTAL COST ANNUAL COSTS 1/
SITE COST (DETAIL) ($1,000) ($1,000)

Crossman Peak with Preferred Access
(West Slope)

Design and Equipment 3,384.1

Construction 3,856.1

& M (capitalized) -' 3,753.1

Total 10,993.3 1,291.3

Crossman Peak with Alternative Access
(East Slope)

Design and Equipment 3,447.1

Construction 4,311.3

& M (capitalized) -' 3,839.9

Total 11,598.3 1,362.3

Cherum Plus Harquahala

Design and Equipment 8,339.8

Construction 5^112.3

& M (capitalized) 1' 7,911.5

Total 22,023.6 2,586.9

Ij Capital costs were spread over 20-year expected life using 10 percent
interest factor .117460 .

1^1 Capitalization factor for 20 years: 8.513,564.

Source: BLM Team

3-25

en 2 c

4-1 is 0) o

O 0) CO dj

LJ M }-i C/^

H d >

m cr o >i

3 CO O

0}
4-i

4-1

•H

-H CO
CO P-i

c o

0)
M-l

4-1 hJ

H 5-1

bO
ct3
!-i

d
o
o

OJ
CO

CO
C
O

•H
4J
•H

i-4
CO

P-i

TJ) CO 4J

3 4:^

cr &c

CO -H

^-^ CO

o
I

<-{

00
in

•H

(1)

4-»

S-i

)-l

!-i

M-i

4-1

J-i

1— i

P-i

4-1

•H

Cfl

•H

!-i

ix;

S-i

(-1

•

CJ-

5-1

•H

5-1

4=:

4-1

•

•H

14-1

4-1

-a

,-{

1— 1

5-1

(50 T3

•H

5-1

4-1

CO
CU

4-1

•H

S-i

M-I

4::

5-1

4-1

5-1

4-J

rH
CO

4-1

5-1

4-1

ex
CO

OJ)

5-1

•H

j::

•H

4-1

>^ ^

5-1

4-1

5-1

•H

M-(

•H

•

•H

5-1

y-i

4-1

•iH

4-J

5-1

•r4

•H

4-1

5-1

14-1

5-1

•H

-0

•H

5-1

hJ P-i en CO <!

.h|cnj|co| ^rl

S
CO

OJ
H

5-1

d
o

3-26

SECTION 4

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

SECTION 4
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Grossman Peak, Cherum Peak and Har-
quahala Peak areas all have climates typical of
the desert Southwest, including extremely hot
summers, mild winters, and low biseasonal pre-
cipitation occurring primarily during winter and
summer. Higher elevations generally receive
greater precipitation (in the winter in the form of
snow) and are cooler than lower elevations. Air
quality at all three sites is good except when oc-
casional high winds cause dust and sand
storms.

All three sites lie within the Basin and Range
physiographic province on fault block mountains
of precambrian granites, gneisses, and schists.
The soils of Grossman Peak belong to the Gellar-
House Mountain-Rock Outcrop Association.
Soils of Harquahala Peak belong to the Gherioni-
Gachado-Rock Outcrop Association. Soils of
Gherum Peak belong to the Barkerville-Gaddis-
Rock Outcrop Association.

The vegetation on these peaks differs consid-
erably from the creosote bush bursage of the
broad, flat intermountain valleys of the Sonora
and rylohave Deserts. Three vegetation types
dominate Grossman Peak: the Sonoran desert
scrub-Arizona Upland (palo verde-saguaro),
Mohave desert-scrub (Joshua tree woodland),
and the juniper-pinyon woodland (Lowe and
Brown, 1973). Gherum Peak is occupied by a
mosaic of dense pinyon pine interspersed with
scattered stands of chaparral. Vegetation on Har-
quahala Peak is predominantly interior chaparral.
Table 4-1 details key plants and environmental in-
formation for these vegetation types. Maps 4-1,
4-2, and 4-3 show the locations of these vegeta-
tion types.

BLM permits livestock grazing at all three
sites. At Grossman Peak BLM has issued one
grazing permit— for Grossman Peak allotment
during periods of excess ephemeral forage pro-
duction. Gherum Peak is divided into three graz-
ing allotments: Gerbat-Quail Springs-Turkey
Track, Ganyon Ranch, and Mineral Park, where

most of the area is managed under three-pasture
rest rotation or the Santa Rita grazing system
(Martin, 1973). Harquahala Peak is part of the
Aguila grazing allotment, which is grazed year-
long. The permittee, however, has voluntarily
rested the allotment's higher elevations from
grazing for the past 2 or 3 years.

The three study sites provide a variety of op-
portunities for outdoor recreation, including
sightseeing, hunting, camping, rock collecting,
and primitive recreation. Grossman Peak offers a
diversity of plant life, including a spectacular dis-
play of wild flowers in the spring and a varied
game population. Gherum Peak offers accessi-
bility to recreationists, panoramic views at upper
elevations, and mining remains of sightseeing
interest. Harquahala Peak offers good hunting
opportunities because of high deer and quail
populations and moderate-to-good cotton-tail
and dove populations. It also offers oppor-
tunities for historic sightseeing (Harquahala Ob-
servatory) and for rock collecting (malachite,
azurite, and an unusual form of chrysacolla). A
technical report on recreation within the study
areas is on file in the BLM Yuma District Office.

Residents of populated places around the
three sites vary considerably in their attitudes
toward development. The residents of Lake
Havasu Gity (estimated 1980 population: 16,237),
for which Grossman Peak forms a scenic back-
drop, are independent and politically conserva-
tive. They appreciate the aesthetic qualities of
their community, and, though Lake Havasu Gity
lacks employment opportunities, they are wary
of changes that might generate rapid industrial
or residential development and thus detract from
the aesthetic qualities they value.

On the other hand, the residents of Ghloride
(1978 population: 151), an historic mining town at
the base of Gherum Peak, would welcome any
project that would stimulate the economy and
development of their community. Similarly,
residents of Aguila, an unincorporated town near
Harquahala Peak (estimated 1979 population:
700), indicate a strong interest in economic de-
velopment and growth.

4-1

4-J

«^

4-1

1-1

•H

•

c
1

S-i

>->

r~~

O-

t-i

•H

■H

•^

.— 1

>-■

■I"!

-u

•H

•f~)

■U

•H

■H

U-J

-t-J

•

•H

•

•H

■H

■-I

i-H

•a

•H

•o

U-)

■H

j::

4-1

•a

cfl

•rH

i-H

•H

i-H

D-Xl

>-■

4-1

r~-

■H

1:1.

C3^

•

4-1

>~,

•H

•o

■H

1-1

4-1

l+H

».

4-1

•H

•o

cfl

■H

•H

4-1

•V

•H

4-1

»«

•H

4-1

•H

■H

IX x:

•H

4-1

CT^

1-1

4-1

•

-H

*•

C4-1

•H

4-1

■H

■■— '

4-1

•H

•

.-1

•H

•a

4-1

■1-1

4-1

14H

■H

4-1

S-i

1-1

4-1

•H

1-1

.-{

r-H

■H

4-1

00 T3

I-)

4-1

•H

4-1

1-1

•H

.-1

•H

4-1

■H

CM
T3

+c . E

■H

4-1

.-H

•H

4-1

1-1

-Q

1-1

■-I

4-1

1-1

■H

1-1

4-1

■H

1-1

•H

CD-

•H

4-1

-X . e

•X cn

■H

4-1

•H

■rH

4-1

•H

■r-l

i-i

•4-1

■H

1-1

M-(

i-i

I-H

■H

1-1

: 01

_ c

■H

•H

■M

-a

■H

•M

4-1

■H

-H

1-1

p«

cyj

•H

4-1

1-1

•H

.-(

1-1

•0

■H

C/J

•H

en CO

4-1

3 rH

■U f-H

■H

CO X

■T— )

1-1

•H

4-1

00 d

•H

i-i

1-1

-rH

4-1

U-i

4-1

QJ X

•H

00 /<i

4-1

I-H

0) 3

1-)

CJ>

32 pq

d CO

CO d

rH -rH

tx^

4-1

>. d

1-1

■H

.^^

3 >.

4-1

4-1 1-4

d vi

QJ CO

CJ PL, CJ 2 pa pL, n:

CO b-i
OJ

pi. rH
>.

H 4-)

o
d
o

to IH
4-1 -rl

01 >

00 d

OJ w
>

•rH

4-J

•H

-0 .-H

P-^

d -rl

PI-

■H

Cl,

•H

•

•H

C/2

4-t

Pl-

4-1

•u •

4-J

i-i cn

00 rH

4-1

d px

4-1

•H

• •

■H

•H

i-t

IJ rH

•t

•H

QJ CO

•H

1-1

•H

-a

•H

4-1

•H

4-1

00 00

4-1

•H d

4-1

X -H

•H

•1

O-

*•

0) CO

<!■

•rl

•H

X MH

U 1

4-1

•H

Prf

•

cn cn

Cl,

01 CO

4-1

•rH

4-1

•

•H

■H QJ

-a

4-1

•H

4-1

a, X

3 4-1

■V

ffi

00 13

I-I

•H

<-<

00 MH

•-)

0) 01

PI, QJ

i+H

-^J-

1-1

>, u~i

r-i «

rH <r

•H

0) 1

4-1

iH ^

•H

00 -

•-i

•H

••

d -H

4-1

CO 4-1

rH CO

•o >

-u

-H

3 W

4-2

a
<u

-t-J

r~i

>-,

4-1

<y\

•H

■— 1

•H

00^

14-4

C/1

•>

-d

(fl

■H

4-1

•H

P>~,

•H

•O

tfl

14H

14-1

•H

4-1

•H

cfl

4-1

•

■a

4-4

4-1

■H

CLI

•H

>-i

a. -o

4-1

•H

cfl

■H

>-l

tfl

tlO

4-1

•H

•

•H

i^j

4-)

•fH

•

tfl

•H

4-1

tfl

til

•r-i

•

•H

4-1

tjO

■H

tfl

4-1

tfl

>-l

•H

tfl

1^1

t4-l

)-l

U-l

4-1

tfl

1-1

•iH

•H

tfl

4-1

tfl

•H

r-i

■H

o
(J

-i« , 3

* cn

tfl

-K C

tfl

•K '11

■K O

■H

tfl

■H

4-1

1-1

tfl

4-1

■H

•H

tfl

•H

tfl

•H

U-)

tfl

4-)

•H

tfl

•H

cfl

tfl

•H

cfl

4-1

■H

4-1

>-l

1-1

tfl

U-,

tfl

■K

■H

•H

tfl

t4-l

•K C

■H

tfl

•H

4-1

1:4-

■K 6

1-1

tfl

•K

tfl

■H

4-1

■r4

•rl

•H

tfl

1-1

tfl

4-1

tfl

1-1

4-1

1-1

7—i

■H

1-1

tfl

•H

tfl

1-1

tfl

: 0)

tfl

0£

tfl

■H

•H

■H

tfl

■H

4-1

•H

tfl

•a

4-1

1-1

tfl

01 X

4-1

■H

tfl

•H

•-I

cfl

cn a

!-i

4-1

S-1

•H

f-t

4-1

tfl >^

■r(

4-1

-^^

> X

tfl

3 -0

4-1

1-1

to ^

00 XI

■rl

tfl

as cu

1-1

tfl

cn H

P-,

S pa

0-1

tfl
cn U-i

o. 1

>> to

H
C
0)

e
c
o
1-1

00 c

O) w

P!J

w
>

PLl

4-1

-a

•H

1-1

••

■

4-1

•H

r-t

•H

• •

««

«.

M-l
1

rH
rH

•H
4J

tfl

4-1

•H

1-1

•s

•H

• •

1-1

■r-l

•H

4-1

tfl

• to

tfl

rH >

•H OJ

tfl

cn w

•

•H

•

4-1

■H

•H

I4-I

tfl

t4-l

••

1-1

#•

4-1

00 <r

•H

1-1

■H

•H

■H

tfl

■ •

C/2

PtJ

,-i

•H

4-1

tfl

4-1

•H

r-i

C/2

■H

■ra
tu

4-1

0)
•M
O

<li

C3
O
N

•H
tH

4-3

,-— V

.-H

-1

H 4-1

<u >

-o

4-1

•*

>-i

tfl

1-1

4-1

e4H

4-1

r-l

1-1

,-^

4-1

•H

eu m

>-l

U-l

4-1 •H

4-1

•rH

1-1

•H

1-1

C rt

cfl

1-1

4-1

en .-V

^--^

Q. ^^

4-1

O OJ

4-1

>% 1

•H

eJl

•H

a. o.

1-1

c x:

•H

1-1

D. o

1-1

•H -U

4-1

O ,H

4-1

r-t

•H

O- U

4-1

•H

•

C G

(fl

■H

-a

•H

•^^

X oo T3

•H

•

H d

4-1

tX dJ

"en

4-1

•H

o j::

4-1

1-1

4-1

4-J

4-1

• 03

■-J

4-1

^-1

•H

01 <4-l

•H

« c

•H

T3 1

4-1

03 4-1

•H

4-1

(yi

4-1

1-1

ij en

v—^

p. M

•H

4-1

■rH

1-1

oo 03

•H

eil

>^ tJ

4-1

•rH

U OJ

•H

4-1

4-1 TO

4-1

-a

1-1

OJ --^

1-1

•H

4-1

1-1

4-1

1-1

4-1

•

(fl X

■rH

4-1

•rH

c ^

■H (U

•H

•H ,H

>-,

1-1

4-1

i-H

4-1 X)

.-1

•H

^ 3

4-1

■H

•

4-1

■

c m

4-1

1-1 d

■H r-l

■-)

^-1

4-1

03 O

^ -a

■H

•H

-H

1-1

3 >.

•H

u O

4-1

-a

OO d

4-1

1-1

■H O

•H

0) 03

•H

3 3

oo -o

4-1

en o

-a

4-1

C/i

00 03
X

00 e

1-1

•rH

■U

t-H

4-1

•rH

•r-)

1-1

•H

4-1

•H

1-1

•H

4-1

•H

4-1

-a

■-1

CL,

•H

CI.

4-1

u-l

4-J

M-l

•vD

1-1

••

u e

•H

«s

•H

•H
O

e/5

■

P-

4-1

•

•H

4-1

00 T3

•H

1-1

•K 3

■K d

, d

-a

•K

1-1

r—\

■!< X

-o

4-1

•H

V-i

4-1

enl

•H

■H

ool

•H

l-i

S-i

'" u

4-1

•H

4-1

•H

S-1

1-1

>-i

(_)

en
3

1-1

4-1

r-^

•H

1-1

4-1

•H

■4J

1-1

-a

1-1

*-)

-1

•

4-1

•H

e_J

00 14-1

•H

O
00

•H

4-1

4-J

•H

••

CNI

•H

4-1

• ■

c<i

1-1

•H

4-1

.-{

c/^

•->

OJ
4-1

4-1
CO

4-4

p-l

^^ —

<J-

--I

•

> •

■a

■r^

,--N

cn m

■H -H

•I—)

•

•H

-o -o

>-i

d .H

»»

CO -r-l

•H

4-1

•H

■r-l

>, T3

a. P-.

-1

4-J d

■u

■M CO

(fl

•

d X)

4-1

OJ QJ

■o X

■H

4-t

(fl

•H

tn u

•H

a. XI

Q) Q)

M-l

(fl

•H 4-1

O CO

^—y

Q) 3

l-l

S-i

l-l

U-l

-o

cn V4

4-1

•a

■H

X >«

r-\

l-l

4-1

•H QJ

O. X .H

CO CO

i^ CO

H 4-1

QJ >

00 d

QJ W

l-l
O

■1-^
CO

■H

■K -X rH

■K

-H

•rH

■K

t-H

•H

l-l

Cfi

•K

•H

l-l

•rH

•H

4-1

l-l

•H

l-<

M-l

4-1

•H

• -H

4-1

iH 4-1

l-l

■H

•H

CO d

tlj

-H

> 3

•H

l-l

3
^ X

to 4-1

o o

Q) tO

to en

QJ to

■H X QJ O -H
C/0 CO Q CL, Crt

to en -H o
QJ tfl to to

rH CO 4-1 tj

OO Q) T3

1-1 > d

CO to

QJ QJ

a
to to

3
O

P3 « pq S

1-1

■H

4-)

t4H

•H

■ •

00 CTi

•H

■H

4-1

■H

•

4-1

•H

4-1

•H

'4H

• •

)-l

C/J

4-)

C/l

•H

CI.

4-1

■H

•

•H

r-^

4-1

ex .J

•H

-a

■H

•«

4-1

r-f

•H

■H

<4-l

•H

4-1

•H

eL4

t/J

l-l

4-1

■H

4-1

•H

4-1

•H

•

■U

•H

•

^— N

•H

■H

4-1

•H

CTN

et-4

•H

f-H

■H

i«

i-H

•H

■X a

• CO

•H

D. -a

l-l

4-1

ex -H

l-l

14-1

■H

l/l 00

, o

l-l

•H

t/1

U-i

■H

•H

■H

l-l

■H

tn CO

tn 4-1

to QJ

•H

IH rH

P-

00 rH

4-1

l-l

to OO

CO OO

c/DQt/iP-icQOOpa

■H

4-1

■H

•^-t

•H

4-J O

V-i

OJ CNI

QJ 1

•H

'4H Csl

^_J

l-l

o ••

in d

- o

^X -H

4-1

1 4J

O to

(-J

O 4H

00 -H

t/l

« ex

tn -H

.. QJ

•

d IH

■H

•

o ex

•H

4H rH

to to

> 3

QJ d

•H

t-H

rH d

w <;

tn
tu
•H
o

p.
w

4-1

nj
C
o

•H
U
<

4-5

OJ XI

3 rt

o 4=;

-O 0)

C 0)

CO x:

§ C

o u

1-1 o

« £

4-1

■^ &o

■rH

^ XI

fi.

tfl

M T3

M C

n) nj

•H

nl !-i

x; cu

U 0)

a)
en 'A
<D
eu .-I

>^ C8
H 4-1

d 0)

o e

■H c

4-1 O

cd M

4-1 -H
QJ >

00 d
>

4J r^ 4-1
d 0^ to

M-4

•H

t-{

4-1

.-H

>•

D. ^C

•-

i-H

4-1

u-l

•H

4-1

•H

4-1

•H

j::

4-1

■rH

•H

J-i

•H

4-1

-0

•

^^s

4-1

•H

r-^

4-1

C3\

•H

4-1

•*

•H

1-J

O
T3

QJ
■H

a. rH

•H

>-l

■H

-o

■

>^ MH

•H

4-1

•H

4-1

■H

«>

-o

1-1

•H

•rl

•o

)-l

■H

4-)

>-l

d
d
to

HrH

01
Oj 00| 1-1

4-1

■H

4-1

•H

1-1

■H

00^

1-1

,-\

o o

4-1

l-l

t-i

1-*

T-K

■rH

X o

00 T3

•H

4-1

Q) X

1-1

4-1

00 ji:

V-i

•a

-a

00 XI

■H

T3 tn

•H

•r(

>-l

QJ -H

ty]

ec;

P-,

|J^

[i,

a: til

*rn

•H

00 X

4-1

•H

U-l

1-1

D. O

o
o

i-l

••

■H

4-1

•H

-»

rsi

•H

4-1

• •

1-1

•H

4-1

\-i

•rH

ptj

4-1

tn
tu

•H
CJ

4-6

MAP 4-1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

GROSSMAN PEAK

VEGETATION TYPES

MIIE SCALE

LEGEND

WEST SLOPE

'-••'••••'il Joshua Tree Woodland
Y/////A Desert Transition Zone

Palo Verde- Saguaro

[iHH^ Blackbrush

EAST SLOPE
Joshua Tree Woodland

iV.AP BASE Df.R(Vr;..f rruiM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA OE-A.-rn NT OF TRANSPORTATION

^}^ffl^l-;^ffl] joshuaTree-PaloVerde-Ocotillo

4-7/8
SOURCE: BLM TEAM

MAP 4-2

MAP BASE DERIVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

CHERUM PEAK

VEGETATION TYPES

:3=

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

^mF-A Pine-OaK Woodland

:^^»i■■^.'':i^ Oak- Ceanothus-Chaparral

4-9/10

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

MAP 4- 3

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

HARQUAHALA PEAK

VEGETATION TYPES

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

?. ^ * <? #

:^:*P BASE DERSVEO i-K-^S GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEFAnt;?- iiM OF TRANSPORTATION

4 > 4 Shrub Live Oak- Chaparral
Palo Verde- Saguaro

4-11/12
SOURCE: BLM TEAM

BLM has prepared a socioeconomic report on
the areas near these three sites. This report is ac-
cessible to the public at the BLM Yuma District
Office.

WILDLIFE

Habitat Types and Related Wildlife

Vegetation types correlate closely with
wildlife habitat types on the three potential sites.
Desert wildlife have adapted to the extreme heat
and drought of summer by restricting daytime
activities and consuming foods that provide
water as well as nutrition. Animals restricted to a
specific habitat type are likely to be more sensi-
tive to disturbances than animals found in sever-
al habitat types.

Habitat types of the proposed access and
facility areas of Grossman Peak are associated
with upper alluvial fans, foothills, and higher
mountains. Upper alluvial fans and foothills sup-
port little-leaf palo verde, saguaro, century plant,
nolina, cholla, ocotillo, brittlebush, mesquite,
and some canotia. At higher elevations, Joshua
tree, shrub live oak, pinyon pine, buckwheat,
blackbrush, and canotia occur in dense stands.

Habitat types of the proposed access and
facility areas at Cherum Peak are interior chapar-
ral and pinyon woodland. Beneath the pinyon
pine overstory is shrub live oak, desert buck-
brush, serviceberry, silk tassle, manzanita, and
beargrass.

The lower slopes of Harquahala Peak are
similar to the lower slopes of Grossman Peak in
having palo verde-saguaro vegetation. On the up-
per slopes lies the interior chaparral type with
such dominant plants as shrub live oak, desert
buckbrush, beargrass, silk tassel, buckwheat,
and perennial grasses.

Mammals

Desert bighorn sheep inhabit isolated rough
canyon and mountain terrain in the Southwest. In
each isolated population, seasonal movements
are restricted to small areas, requiring the availa-
bility of water year round. The Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AG&FD) has provided game
water catchments in various locations through-
out the State. Since the construction of Arizona
Highway 95 and Lake Havasu Gity (early 1960s)
bighorn population on and near Grossman Peak
have declined. The population on Grossman
Peak has been estimated to be 30 (Beaudry,
1979), and on Harquahala Mountain approximate-
ly 45 (Weaver, 1979).

Bighorn sheep give birth to lambs from Janu-
ary through April each year. Lambing grounds
have been identified on Grossman Peak and near
Harquahala Peak on rough, rock pinnacles and
shelves (maps 4-4 and 4-5). The AG&FD con-
siders these areas essential to bighorn reproduc-
tion. The AG&FD has listed desert bighorn sheep
in Group III (status in jeopardy of being endan-
gered in the foreseeable future) in Arizona. BLM
policy is to treat State-listed species similarly to
Federally-listed threatened and endangered
species, to the extent consistent with laws gov-
erning use of BLM-administered lands (BLM
Manual 6840).

Mule deer occur at all three study sites (maps
4-4, 4-5, and 4-6). The mule deer's seasonal
movements to surrounding areas are not
restricted, since its food, water, and cover re-
quirements vary. Mule deer heavily browse areas
of interior chaparral (shrub live oak, silk tassel,
buckbrush, and serviceberry), which grows in
patches on steep terrain on Grossman Peak and
in thick stands on Gherum and Harquahala
Peaks.

Both wild horses and wild burros are known
to occur at the study sites. Wild horses have
been observed northeast of the Gherum Peak
site, being a part of a small population known to
survive in the Gerbat Mountains (map 4-6).
Shrubs, grasses, and annual plants of the interior
chaparral vegetation type provide food for these
horses. Wild burros have been observed at lower
elevations on Grossman and Harquahala Peaks.

Predator species at the three study sites in-
clude the mountain lion on higher mountain
slopes and upper wash drainages, coyote, bob-
cat and gray fox in all of the habitat types, and
badger and ringtail cat on lower slopes and
washes.

Gommonly observed small mammals include
black-tailed jackrabbit on low slopes and
washes, desert cottontail near washes at low ele-
vations and on slopes at higher elevations, and
antelope ground squirrel at all elevations. Pocket
mice, deer mice, woodrat, and rock squirrel are
present but seldom seen.

Birds

Birds observed at all three sites are those
common at southwest desert washes and moun-
tain slopes. Vegetation on low-elevation slopes
in washes provide habitat for Gambel's quail,
mourning dove, verdin, phainopepla, thrashers,
mockingbird, warblers, cactus and canyon wren,
Gila woodpecker, black-throated sparrow, and
roadrunner. Mountain slope vegetation supports

4-13

bird species such as scrub jay, towhees,
Gambel's quail, mourning dove, flycatchers, and
Bewick's wren.

The red-tailed hawk is commonly seen near
the study areas. American kestral, golden eagle,
prairie falcon, and turkey vulture are less often
seen species.

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Many reptiles inhabit the dry washes and
rocky slopes of the three sites. Those most com-
monly observed are side-blotched lizard, zebra-
tailed lizard, desert iguana, desert spiny lizard,
western whiptail, desert horned lizard, western
diamondback rattlesnake, Mohave rattlesnake,
gopher snake, and western patch-nosed snake.
Less commonly seen are the Gilbert skink (map
4-6), Gila monster, and desert tortoise, all pro-
tected by Arizona law.

A few amphibians are associated with water
in Falls Spring Wash and Burro Canyon Wash.
The red-spotted toad, canyon tree frog, and
leopard frog are common species seen in stand-
ing or running water.

THREATENED OR ENDANGERED
ANIMAL SPECIES

The U.S. Department of the Interior's list of
threatened or endangered species includes one
bird species that might occur in the study areas:
the American peregrine falcon, which roosts in
canyons and near steep slopes during migration
in fall and spring. In addition, the desert tortoise,
now being considered for threatened status in
Arizona, may be found at the base of the moun-
tains east of Grossman Peak and north and south
of Harquahala Peak — locations of possible ac-
cess routes to the radar sites.

The AG&FD's Group II list (in danger of being
eliminated from Arizona) includes two species
(Gilbert skink and American peregrine falcon)
that may occur in the areas under study. The
Gilbert skink is found in interior chaparral
vegetation on Harquahala Peak.

The AG&FD's Group III list (status in Arizona
may be in jeopardy in the foreseeable future) in-
cludes the desert bighorn sheep (occurring on
Grossman and Harquahala Peaks), and desert
tortoise and Gila monster, both occurring on low
slopes in rocky terrain).

UNIQUE HABITAT AND NATURAL
AREAS

The AG&FD has designated Grossman and
Harquahala Peaks as desert bighorn sheep

habitat. The closeness of lambing and ram-
staging areas makes these areas unique habitat.

Harquahala Peak possesses valuable crucial
habitat for Gilbert skink, a recent addition to the
State Group II list. Since numbers of this species
are decreasing due to habitat destruction, areas
of distribution should be identified and popula-
tions maintained in these areas.

NATIVE AMERICANS

GROSSMAN PEAK

At least two Native American groups residing
on reservations would be affected by implemen-
tation of the Grossman Peak alternative: the
Chemehuevi, whose reservation is directly
across the Colorado River west of Lake Havasu
City, and the Mohave, who reside on the Fort
Mohave Reservation, in Needles, California, and
on the Colorado River Indian Reservation,
headquartered at Parker, Arizona.

Grossman Peak, known as Akoke-humi by the
Mohave Indians, is important in traditional and
contemporary Mohave religion. In fact, Kroeber
(1972) reported that it has a significance similar
to that of Mt. Ararat (where Noah's ark came to
rest after the flood) in the Judeo-Christian tradi-
tions. According to legend, Mastambo, one of
the three offspring of a union of the sun and the
earth, created the Colorado River and its im-
mediate surroundings. Mastambo also carried
the first Mohaves from the Colorado River delta
north to their homelands (the area occupied by
the Fort Mohave Reservation).

According to Kroeber (1972), Mastambo
"started to go upstream through the water. When
it became too deep, he raised his arms. Soon the
water came up to his chin, and finally his nose;
so he snorted and blew it away. He came north to
the mountain Akoke-humi . . . Mastambo went up
on the mountain . . . Now of the whole top of the
mountain only a little island remained and there
was not much room for the people . . . Then
Mastambo took four steps in the four directions
and therev/ith made the land extend further."

Field interviews disclosed that Grossman
Peak has significance in contemporary Mohave
religion as well. In discussions with a BLM social
scientist (see Appendix 1), two Mohave leaders,
one a tribal council member and resident of the
Colorado River Indian Reservation, reported that
Grossman Peak is important in Mohave funereal
beliefs and practices. Neither individual vol-
unteered any detailed information, for the
Mohave are reluctant to talk with outsiders about

4-14

MAP 4-4

F L 'A T

rftP BASE PERI v^ EG --^uu Gf^NERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPAR1 ?,i;..;T OF TRANSPORTATION

(/////777y////////y/A/M^^^^

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

DISTRIBUTION OF DESERT BIGHORN
SHEEP AND MULE DEER ON
GROSSMAN PEAK

MIIE SCALE

LEGEND

Mule deer year long use area

vljlvlj] Mule deer fawning grounds

Bighorn sheep yearlong use area
Bighorn sheep lambing ground

4-15/16

^'^m

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

MAP 4-5

MAP BASE DERIVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPAR1 wiENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

DISTRIBUTION OF MULE DEER AND
WILD HORSES ON CHERUM PEAK

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

Mule deer yearlong use area
Wild horse use area

4-17/18

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

I^AP 4-6

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

DISTRIBUTION OF DESERT BIGHORN
SHEEP, MULE DEER AND GILBERT
SKINK ON HARQUAHALA MOUNTAIN

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

/;;>%/ Mule deer yearlong use area

Bighorn sheep yearlong use area
Bighorn sheep lambing grounds

■^iv'.ii^'-i Gilbert skink crucial habitat

MAP BASE DEHfVEO F ^OM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
' ARIZONA DEPARi^gNT OF TRANSPORTATION

4-19/20

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

such matters. That both independently men-
tioned Grossman Peak in the same way,
however, is significant.

Although the Chemehuevi occupy a reserva-
tion west of the Colorado River, Roth (1976) con-
tends that they used and occupied land north of
the Bill Williams River in Arizona. They hunted,
gathered plants and herbs, and used trails for
trade.

Discussions with contemporary Chemehuevi
tribal representatives disclosed that the Cheme-
huevi used Crossman Peak, and evidence of Che-
mehuevi campsites and hunting and trading can
be found on the mountain. Although Crossman
Peak is apparently less significant to the Cheme-
huevi than to the Mohave, it is nevertheless a
distinctive site in Chemehuevi sacred tradition.

Crossman Peak abuts land traditionally used
by the Hualapai (Walapai) and the western Yava-
pai. These groups were and are aware of its exis-
tence and may well have attributed to it sacred or
special status.

Other tribes also recognize the peak. In field
discussions, a Hopi Reservation resident
reported that he knew of the peak and said that
"it's considered to be sacred."

TWO-SITE ALTERNATIVE

Cherum Peak, part of the Cerbat Range, is in
the western area of territory traditionally used by
the Hualapai Indians. Their occupation of the
area was recognized by the Indian Land Claims
Commission in 1962. The peak derives its name
from a Hualapai headman, or chief, identified as
Chrm, Sherum, or Cherum (Kniffen, 1935).

Harquahala Peak derived its name from the
Yavapai words "hake" (water) and "hela" (flows).
It is located on lands recognized by the Indian
Land Claims Commission to have belonged to
the Western Yavapai people. The name of Har-
quahala Peak is commonly attributed to the
Mohave Indians. Since the Mohave people were
not frequently in the Harquahala area and since
the Yavapai and Mohave language is derived
from a "Yuman" base, the Yavapai source is
probably logical.

VISUAL RESOURCES

The visual resource of the alternative sites
has been evaluated using the BLM Visual
Resource Management (VRM) system. The VRM
system provides an objective method for making
visual resource classification determinations.

However, the system favors undeveloped land.
The system is detailed in BLM Manual 6300,
available at any BLM office.

The three peaks are typical of desert moun-
tains in the Southwest. They each have steep,
rugged contours, low desert vegetation, and
medium color contrasts. Crossman Peak ap-
pears to be the steepest and has the least
ground cover.

The peaks are relatively free of cultural
modifications. None exist on the summit of
Crossman Peak, but mining produces a low
visual contrast to the natural landscape at lower
elevations. The abandoned Harquahala Obser-
vatory creates a low visual contrast on Har-
quahala Peak. An open-pit copper mine below
Cherum Peak highly contrasts to the area's
natural landscape.

The following VRM classifications for the
peaks were based on their scenic quality, visual
sensitivity level, and distance from typical view-
points. In Class II areas, changes in any of the
basic elements (form, line, color, and texture)
should not be evident. In Class III areas, changes
in basic elements may be evident but should re-
main subordinate. Evaluation procedures, sup-
porting information, and analysis for the
classifications are available in BLMs Yuma Dis-
trict Office.

VRM Class II

VRM Class III

Crossman Peak
Cherum Peak Northeast
Harquahala Peak

Cherum Peak Southwest

WILDERNESS

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (FLPMA) requires BLM to review all public
lands to determine areas with wilderness
characteristics as described in the Wilderness
Act of 1964 and to recommend these areas to
Congress as suitable or nonsuitable for preserva-
tion as wilderness. Congress and the President
make final wilderness designations.

BLM's wilderness inventory involves several
phases. After an inventory of all roadless lands
of 5,000 acres or more, areas identified as having
wilderness characteristics are designated as
Proposed Wilderness Study Areas (PWSAs). Wil-
derness Study Areas (WSAs) are designated by
the BLM State Director after public meetings and
a comment period. Each WSA is then evaluated
to identify areas to be recommended to Con-
gress.

4-21

Two WSAs have been identified as a result of
a special project inventory completed in con-
junction with) this environmental statement.
These areas are shown on maps 4-7 and 4-8 and
are decribed as follows:

Grossman Peak WSA: 37,600 acres in the
Mohave Mountains, 3 miles northeast of Lake
Havasu City, Arizona.

Primitive values near Grossman Peak are
high. This area consists of a largely roadless
natural landscape, and the higher elevations
have no roads. Diverse terrain increases oppor-
tunities for solitude and enhances scenic quali-
ty. The mountain rises steeply 4,400 feet from
the valley floor, creating an intense feeling of
remoteness and solitude on the peak. Several
water sources support wildlife including deer,
burros, and bighorn sheep.

Harquahala Peak WSA: 64,790 acres in the
Harquahala Mountains, south of U.S. Highway 60
and 11 miles east of Salome, Arizona.

The Harquahala Mountains possess several
attributes that enhance the opportunity for soli-
tude and for primitive and unconfined recreation.
The Harquahalas are relatively removed from
populated centers and remain free of visual and
audio pollution. The unit's large size, rugged and
varied terrain, and complex topography enhance
wilderness values. Rising nearly 4,300 feet above
the Harquahala and Hassayampa Plains, Har-
quahala Peak (elevation 5,681 feet) is the highest
point in southwestern Arizona. In addition, the
unit supports a variety of geological, vegetation,
and zoological forms.

Supporting documentation and procedures
for the BLM wilderness inventory and the special
project inventories for the Grossman Peak and
Harquahala Peak proposed wilderness study
areas are on file in the BLM Yuma District Office.

MINING

GROSSMAN PEAK

The Grossman Peak area has been identified
as having potential for tungsten and gold devel-
opments. Veins are typically narrow and spor-
adic (Yuma District Office URA-MFP). In light of
current increases in commodity prices, however,
prospects could become economically viable.
Mining claims are known to exist in the area, but
not all have been recorded with BLM. All mining
claims on public lands located before October
21, 1976 must be recorded by October 22, 1979. A

right-of-way issued to FAA would be subject to
pre-existing rights, which include mining claims.

TWO-SITE ALTERNATIVE

Cherum Peak

No known mineral discoveries exist on the
proposed Gherum Peak site, but two mining dis-
tricts with substantial production records lie
nearby. The Mineral Park district lies 1.5 miles to
the southwest, and the Ghloride district lies 1.5
miles to the northwest. The Mineral Park area
has produced precious and base metals. Duval
Gorporation's Mineral Park Gopper Mine is locat-
ed in this district. The Ghloride district has
historically produced base and precious metals.
A small mill near Ghloride could provide impetus
to small-mine production (Miller, 1979).

The Gherum Peak site and access route is
probably encumbered by mining claims, and the
issuance of rights-of-way would be subject to
pre-existing rights. FAA would thus have to
negotiate with the claimants.

Harquahala Peak

Sporadic mineral exploration and mining oc-
curs in a number of small mines in the lower
elevations of the Harquahala Mountains. These
mines have historically produced gold, tungsten,
and base metals.

No mining has occurred on Harquahala Peak
for several years. Two shafts and two adits lie
near the summit, but the workings are small and
show little or no production. The material ex-
tracted from the workings included iron and
copper-stained quartz occurring along a shear.

At least one claimant has recently engaged in
mineral exploration and assessment near the
abandoned observatory at the summit. Twelve
lode claims presently cover the peak, including
the area proposed for the radar facility. A right-of-
way would be subject to these prior existing
rights.

The claimant plans to build an improved ac-
cess road to the summit on the north slope, but
construction has been delayed pending litigation
in the Federal District Gourt concerning impair-
ment of wilderness values.

Should the mining claims conflict with the
radar facility, then appropriate administrative ac-
tion may be initiated. Depending on how the
claims are developed, the mineral development
might or might not conflict with a radar facility.

4-22

JAP BASE DERIVED -ROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

BASE DERIVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

WILDERNESS INVENTORY UNIT 2-95
HARQUAHALA MOUNTAINS

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

INITIAL INVENTORY
UNIT BOUNDARY

WILDERNESS STUDY
AREA BOUNDARY

4-25/26

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

CULTURAL RESOURCES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The higher elevations of mountains of
western Arizona characteristically have few ar-
chaeological resources. Field exannination of the
three summits has revealed no archaeological
sites. Aboriginal bighorn sheep hunting blinds
may exist on the upper slopes, but none have
been identified to date.

A few temporary hunting base camps are
known to exist near the base of each peak, usual-
ly associated with a natural spring or tank.
Physical remains at these sites usually consist
of (1) the campsite proper, which contains some
artifacts (mortar holes, metates, stone tools or
flakes, living areas, and pottery sherds) and (2)
some type of rock art on nearby outcrops.

Site-specific information for archaeological
sites along or near the proposed access roads to
the three peaks cannot be obtained until the
location of the proposed roads has been deter-
mined.

HISTORICAL RESOURCES

Each of the three areas contain numerous
mining remains, consisting primarily of shallow
mine shafts, adits, and prospecting areas.
Associated with these mining areas are burro or
jeep trails used to transport ores to mills or
smelters remote from the mountains.

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES

Only one site associated with these peaks is
currently listed on the National Register of
Historic Places: the Harquahala Observatory
building near the top of Harquahala Peak. This
structure was built by the Smithsonian Institute
in 1920 for photographic studies of the sun. The
building has deteriorated after many years of
abandonment, but the Phoenix District BLM
plans to stabilize the remaining structure.

No other sites on these peaks are currently
considered worthy of being nominated or deter-
mined eligible for the Register.

STATE AND FEDERAL
PROTECTED PLANTS

STATE-PROTECTED SPECIES

The Arizona Native Plant Law (Arizona Re-
vised Statutes, chapter 7, section 3-901) does not

prevent the clearing of land for roads or other
rights-of-way where protected native plants are
not to be transported from the land or offered for
sale. The law as amended in 1978 by the State
Legislature, Senate Bill 1209, provides that the
Arizona Commission of Agriculture and Horticul-
ture be given at least 30 days notice before con-
struction to allow the Commission an opportuni-
ty to inspect the area and, if necessary, salvage
State-protected plants. Table 4-1 lists protected
native plants occurring within the areas under
study. These plants include the following genera
within the cactus family: Opuntia, Mammillaria,
Carnegiea, Echinocereus, and Ferocactus. Other
protected plants occurring include ocotillo,
little-leaf palo verde, parry nolina, Joshua tree,
blue yucca, and beargrass.

FEDERAL THREATENED OR
ENDANGERED SPECIES (PROPOSED
LIST)

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires
that Federal agencies ensure that actions they
authorize, fund, or implement do not jeopardize
threatened and endangered species or destroy or
modify the critical habitat of those species.

Limited on-site observation and research of
appropriate literature did not reveal the presence
of any proposed threatened or endangered
species proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Federal Register of July 1, 1975 and
June 16, 1976).

Although the following three varieties were
not encountered in the field survey, on the strict
basis of distribution, one or more of these
species may be discovered within the proposed
sites and access routes.

1. Foxtail cactus, Coryphantha vivipara var.
alversonii. This variety occurs on dry, stony
slopes at elevations between 2,000 and 5,000
feet, mostly in the Joshua tree woodland and
creosote bush scrub vegetation. It might exist in
the Mohave Mountains at Crossman Peak.

2. No common name, Coryphantha vivipara var.
desertii. This variety occurs on dry, stony slopes
between 1,500 and 6,000 feet and mostly in the
Joshua tree woodland. This species might exist
in the Cerbat Mountains near Cherum Peak.

3. No common name, Coryphantha vivipara var.
rosea. This variety occupies dry slopes at eleva-
tions between 4,000 and 6,000 feet in the pmyon-
juniper woodland habitat. This species might ex-
ist in the Cerbat Mountains near Cherum Peak.

4-27

LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES,
AND CONTROLS

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Grossman Peak

The Management Framework Plan (MFP) for
the Havasu Planning Unit, Yuma District,
designates the Mohave Mountains as part of an
area called Havasu Recreation Lands. The area
contains a number of "back-country" natural
values, is relatively undeveloped, and provides
open space near the expanding Lake Havasu City
urban area. These lands also provide habitat for
desert bighorn sheep.

The MFP decisions included two com-
munication sites in the Mohave Mountains, one
on a peak with existing communication facilities
north of Lake Havasu City, and the other
southeast of the city at the base of the moun-
tains.

Crossman Peak management decisions as
presented in the 1975 MFP were (1) manage as a
scenic buffer zone and preserve the open space
as a scenic backdrop for Lake Havasu City, and
(2) discourage uses incompatible with mainte-
nance and enhancement of wildlife habitat and
low-intensity recreation use. A recommendation
to convert a primitive road on the west side of
Crossman Peak to a hiking trail was rejected as
potentially conflicting with wildlife.

This MFP was reviewed and approved by As-
sistant Secretary of the Interior Jack Horton in
May, 1975.

Cherum Peak

BLM completed a grazing environmental
statement for the Cerbat Mountains-Black Moun-
tains area in 1978, and will be using the ES as
basis for management (BLM, 1978). The need for
communication sites in the Cerbat Mountains
had been recognized, but locations north and
south of Cherum Peak have been recommended.
Confining several facilities to one location would
cause less overall disturbance and would allow

sharing provisions for power and access. Eight
sections of adjoining land north of Cherum Peak
are recommended for natural scenic area desig-
nation. Two recreational sites and improved ac-
cess are planned. Cherum Peak has been desig-
nated a primary mineral management area. It is
also deer, small-game, and nongame habitat in
need of reliable water development.

Harquahala Peak

A management opportunities plan for the Vul-
ture Planning Unit, which includes Harquahala
Peak, has been developed by BLM, Phoenix Dis-
trict. Resource data are now being collected,
which will be the basis for an MFP. The existing
plan does not address communication facilities,
but the Bureau of Reclamation and BLM have re-
cently considered a communication site on Har-
quahala Peak. BLM designated Harquahala Peak
as a natural environmental-recreational area in
the existing plan.

Mohave County, Arizona

The Mohave County Zoning and Planning
Commission is preparing a county-wide general
plan, expected to be completed in summer 1979.
The Commission's intent is to plan for consoli-
dating checkerboard land ownership in the coun-
ty and to hold large parcels in single ownership
until the need for division arises. Existing county
plans identify Crossman Peak and most of
Cherum Peak under recreation-residential desig-
nation. Such zoning requires 40 acres per
residence and stipulates that suitable areas
should be zoned as wilderness or natural areas.
Crossman Peak was considered as wilderness
under county standards.

Yuma County, Arizona

The Yuma County Planning Department has
developed zoning, building, and subdivision
codes in population centers in the county (Yuma,
Quartzsite and Parker). The remaining areas of
the county are zoned for agriculture or recrea-
tion, depending on topography. The county plan-
ning commission does not regulate uses on Fed-
eral lands.

4-28

SECTION 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

SECTION 5

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Section 5 analyzes the environmental conse-
quences of the Grossman Peak and two-site al-
ternatives on resources (1) identified as areas of
concern during the scoping process or (2) whose
discussion in an environmental statement is le-
gally required. To provide an overview, table 5-1
summarizes and compares impacts of the pro-
posed action and its alternative. It includes
issues and resources discussed in the narrative
as well as resources that are not expected to be
significantly impacted.

WILDLIFE

Construction of radar facilities and access
roads would disturb wildlife by creating noise
and altering wildlife habitat. Highly sensitive
species would withdraw to areas less suitable
for survival (less desirable food, water, and
shelter). Vegetation clearing would destroy
nests and animal dens, and construction equip-
ment and vehicles on established access roads
could run over animals. Fire hazards might also
increase.

Mammals

Desert bighorn sheep depend on specific
suitable lambing grounds in undisturbed high
mountain rock pinnacles and shelves (maps 4-4
and 4-5). Lambing grounds are surrounded by
ram-staging areas of less sheer but isolated
mountain terrain. In the judgment of the Arizona
Game and Fish Department (AG&FD) and BLM
wildlife biologists and specialists, construction
of radar facilities at either Grossman or Har-
quahala Peaks would seriously affect sheep pop-
ulations by eliminating or reducing the number
of lambs. (An AG&FD-constructed game water
catchment would not be usable if a radar facility
were built on Grossman Peak.) The human activ-
ity at Lake Havasu Gity already restricts sheep
habitat to the top of the Mohave Mountains. The
placement of this facility in such crucial habitat
would force these animals to areas where repro-
duction would not be successful, forcing popula-
tions to decline. AG&FD stated in a letter dated

June 12, 1979, that construction of radar facili-
ties on Grossman Peak might be the "last straw"
leading to elimination of the Grossman Peak
herd (Weaver, 1979).

A radar facility in the Harquahala Mountain
ram-staging area might impact adjacent lambing
grounds to the west. Such a facility would alter
sheep movement in the area and might block ac-
cess to food and water.

Gonstruction and maintenance of a radar fa-
cility might alter the free movement of mule deer
at any of the three sites. Mule deer, however, are
more adaptable than bighorn sheep and have a
wider range (maps 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6). Impacts to
mule deer may be more serious along access
roads. Reduced food and shelter and increased
noise could force the deer to move. Site con-
struction and operation could reduce animal ac-
cess to developed water sites. New access roads
would increase harassment and poaching and fa-
cilitate mule deer hunting near these sites.

Predator species such as coyote, bobcat,
mountain lion, gray fox, badger and ringtail cat
are more adaptable to disturbances. These are
wide-ranging species, but populations would be
displaced once construction and operation of
the facilities begin.

Small mammals such as black-tailed jackrab-
bit, desert cottontail, antelope ground squirrel,
pocket mice, and woodrats might be killed or
their dens and burrows destroyed. Survivors
would relocate, increasing stress on adjacent
populations.

Gonstruction of a communication site or ac-
cess road would not seriously impact wild
horses. Horses currently live near the top of
Gherum Peak, but their home range is large
enough to allow for relocation east and north of
the facility site. These horses tolerate mining
and occasional recreationists and might adapt to
the operation of a radar facility.

Wild burros are more adaptable than wild
horses and are likely to be less affected by con-
struction. An access road to the summit of
Grossman Peak might, however, provide burros
easier access to upper portions of the mountain.

5-1

TABLE 5-1
SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF IMPACTS*

ALL SITES

CROSSMAN PEAK

2-SITE ALTERNATIVE

CLIMATE

No impacts.

AIR QUALITY

Low adverse impact during con-
struction .

TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY

Road and site construction would
slightly change landforms.

SOILS

Construction would slightly in-
crease soil erosion and compaction.

WATER QUALITY

A slight adverse impact would re-
sult from increased sediment yield.
Degree of impact would depend upon
good engineering procedures.

Construction of radar tower and
ancillary facilities would perma-
nently disturb 1.0 acre of vege-
tation at each site. If excava-
ted material from site leveling
is deposited on mountain slope,
vegetation destruction would
greatly increase (see figure 5-1).

VEGETATION

If excavated road material is not
endhauled, access road construction
would permanently disturb A7.0
acres of vegetation on the east
slope or 57.4 acres on the west
slope.

Access road construction would
permanently disturb 19.0 acres of
vegetation on Cherum Peak.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Crossman Peak allotment is an
ephemeral allotment and construc-
tion would have a minimal impact
on forage, affecting less than
1 AUM per year.

Vegetation removal at Cherum Peak
would not involve usable forage.
At Harquahala Peak, forage loss
would amount to less than 1 AUM
per year. Development of adequate
access on Harquahala Peak could
facilitate the movement of live-
stock, the maintenance of stock
watering facilities, and the use
of horses in the livestock opera-
tion. (Horses would be trucked
up the mountain and then ridden
down. )

5-2

TABLE 5-1 (CONT.)

ALL SITES

GROSSMAN PEAK

2-SITE ALTERNATIVE

Construction would create noise
and dust and disturb wildlife
habitats, destroy nests, dens
and burrows, kill animals, and
displace many species, increasing
the stress on adjacent popula-
tions.

Erosion of soil down slopes
would lower water quality. Con-
struction and human activities
would reduce habitability of
water for reptiles and might de-
stroy crucial habitat for desert
tortoise and Gilbert skink.

WILDLIFE

Birds and reptiles would be dis-
placed from washes through which
access roads would pass.

Facility would eliminate or reduce
the number of bighorn iambs and
make unusable a game water catch-
ment .

Cherum Peak - Birds and reptiles
would be displaced from slopes
over which access road would pass.

Harquahala Peak - Facilities would
eliminate or reduce the number of
bighorn lambs, impact adjacent
lambing grounds, and block bighorn
movement and access to water.

Powerlines, poles, and buildings
might provide new perching sites
for birds.

Federal threatened or endangered
species would not be impacted at
any site.

NATIVE AMERICANS

Radar site would disfigure and
block access to a place of high
religious significance to the
Mohave Indians. Increased use
of peak would disturb and destroy
artifacts important to Chemehuevi
cultural history.

Cherum Peak - Radar site would ad-
versely impact Hualapai Indians,
in whose culture Cherum PeaK uas
special status. Presence of
mining in area, however, would
make impact less serious than what
would occur on Crossman Peak.

Harquahala Peak - Radar site would
adversely impact Yavapai Indians,
for whom peak has sacred signifi-
cance .

Survey required to accompany
acceptance of any site would
increase the amount of cultural
resource information for the
area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

SOCIAL ATTITUDES

Many residents of Lake Havasu City
would feel adversely impacted by
construction of a radar facility
on Crossman Peak.

Residents around Cherum and Har-
quahala Peaks favor growth and
development and would feel bene-
fited by construction of radar
facilities .

5-3

TABLE 5-1 (CONT.)

ALL SITES

GROSSMAN PEAK

2-SITE ALTERNATIVE

During construction, dust, mar-
shaling yards, and incompleted
structures would Impair visual
resources. In the long term,
visual intrusions would include
the radar facilities, access
roads, and powerlines.

VISUAL RESOURCES

Facility would have moderate to
high adverse impact on views of
Grossman Peak from Lake Havasu
City and Arizona Highway 95. Land-
form modification and structures
would be highly visible from back-
country roads east of Grossman
Peak.

Gherum Peak - View of Cherum Peak
from Windy Point campground and
Ghloride would be disturbed.
Access road and powerlines would
have low visual impacts.

Harquahala Peak - Radar site would
have moderately adverse impact on
view of peak from U.S. Highway 60,
which can be mitigated by careful
facility location and painting of
structures to blend into scenery.

Site construction would adversely
affect scenery and cause the
retreat of small-game and deer
populations. Adaptable small
game might return at the end of
construction.

RECREATION

Construction would reduce the
opportunity for solitude and primi-
tive recreation and might disrupt
or eliminate bighorn sheep hunting
in the surrounding game management
unit.

Harquahala Peak - A manned instal-
lation on the peak might prevent
vandalism to the solar observatory.
If access road is open to public,
sightseers would have access to
the observatory.

If access road is open to public,
access would be created for sight-
seeing, hunting, camping, pic-
nicking, rock collecting, and
ORV use.

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION IMPACTS

Construction and installation would
require A8 workers, 24 of which
would be hired locally. The remain-
ing 24 workers would bring an
additional 44 dependents into the
area.

Construction and electronics instal-
lation costs would bring $2,300,500
into the local economy.

Maintenance and operation of the
facility would require 7 workers,
who would bring an additional 22
dependents into the Lake Havasu
City area.

Construction and installation would
require 78 workers, 48 at Harquahala
Peak and 30 at Cherum Peak. Fifteen
workers at Harquahala ^eak and 9 at
Cherum Peak would come from outside
the area and bring 35 dependents
into the area.

Construction and electronics instal-
lation costs would bring $3,737,700
into the local economy.

Maintenance and operation of the
facilities at both sites would
require 14 workers, who would bring
an additional 44 dependents into
the area.

5-4

ALL SITES

TABLE 5 1 (CONT.)
GROSSMAN PEAK

2-SITE ALTERNATIVE

MINING

Improved access could reduce over-
all mining costs and make some
prospects viable for the first
time.

Conflict between mining rights
and radar facilities might have
to be resolved by administrative
or civil court action.

LAND USE PLANS AND POLICY

A radar site would set precedent Facility would conflict with MFP

for location of compatible com- decisions concerning visual re-

munication facilities nearby. sources, wildlife, recreation.

Continued development would and communication sites. It would

affect all land uses in proper- also conflict with Mohave County

tion to the degree of development, recreation-residential designation

of site.

Cherum Peak - Cherum Peak is not
among BLM-identif led communication
sites. Clearing land during con-
struction would conflict with
managing the area as crucial deer
habitat .

Project would conflict with Mohave
County recreation-residential
designation of site.

Harquahala Peak - Facility would
conflict with natural environ-
mental recreational values and
possible wilderness designation
and would intrude into crucial
Dignorn sneep habitat. It also
might conflict with recreation
and game values, and with the
solar observatory historic site.

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION HAZARDS

Security, design, and construction
of the ARSR-3 would prevent human
access within 200 feet of the main
beam of the radar. Therefore,
excessive exposure would not be a
problem (FAA Academy, 1978). (See
Appendix 2.)

* The no-action alternative would result in no improvement in air traffic safety. Delayed air traffic
and increased spacing of flights required under this alternative would continue to increase fuel
consumption over more direct flights.

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

5-5

(J)
(1)

^ CO u-^ lPi

00 CM

O O

o
.—1

• • • •

♦

• •

•

• •

•

Ln 00 r-- Lo

00 00

r-~

CTN O

M Csl

i-l CM

-H

4-1

o •
CO en

•—t

<-{

OJ u

•

•.*.•

rC CO

•.•.'

O
H

4J XI

•.•••
'.%•

•H

■U

► • .

O 4-1

,\\

•H

T3 5

>-i

CO en

I-l M-l

3 C
•H O
4J -H

4-1

CU
•H

. •'.

• •
• • •

• •

'■_

• • •

■

the exis
the addit

;

• • «

• •

■

3
CO

:•:•:

•:•:•
•••.•

^ 1-1

CO O

CO -H
CO CO

^ o

CO
0)
P-i

3
CO

•.V

'■

ff^

•

•.•/
•.•••

»-•-•

[

CO O

3 -H
cr 0)
1-1 1-1
CO

ffi OJ

C/)

1-1

C -H

4-1

-H

O 3

•H

XI 0)
CU 1-1

•H 4-1

•H
4-1

3 x:

4-1

cr 00

OJ -rH

/'^

v^ e

eu ^

X CJ

•H

C/5

4-' JH

o ^

■U

4-1

cfl o

c»

CT3 tH

XI XI

4-1

U r-l

r-i OJ

Cfi

-^ -H

3 X)

;-)

O CO

•H

3 1-1

^~^

x» a.

<-\

CO 3

1-1

1-1 0)

T3 1-1

1-1

C OJ

13 CO

to o

CO >

c o.

CU o

.-1 1-1 d

<-i

CO CO

3 -w

-O t;J O

T3 O

rH ^

O 3 -H

O ,-1

T) CJ

CO <D

(y:

O GO -U

O CO

O 1

13 CO -H

3 Ph

o en

rC CO

3 r-

P-i

W CO

3: 3

00 ^

s i

OJ 1 C

OJ OJ

iz ?^

oj o; m 4=

i-l

OJ 0)

^ -u

O XI

fl^

V-i 13 >-i Cfl

1-1 1-1

CO O

X -H

H )-i H 3

H H

O C

■K

4-1 3

03 1-1

1 CO

.-H O

Cfl > 4-1 JD

CO to

3 OJ

<: 3

3 1-1 ^

3 3

o o

.-1 «

x: o cu o

x: ^

>. 1

en r-i en oj

M cn

c ^

o rt 0) -H

o o

•H CO

••

C/l

>-) (ij Q pq

*-) >-)

CcJ

P-i o

•K

OJ ^,

o
pi,

1-1 ^
3 h!

ffi

60 2

•H O

f^ ^

5-6

Birds

Bird populations are greatest in the dry wash
canyons of the Mohave and Harquahala Moun-
tains and in the pinyon-interior chaparral slopes
of the Cerbat Mountains. Most access road con-
struction would be confined to these dry wash
canyons for the Grossman and Harquahala Peak
facilities. On Cherum Peak, however, access
roads would be constructed on well vegetated
slopes. Construction noise would disturb birds,
and rennoval of trees would interfere with their
nesting and foraging and destroy their escape
cover. Most birds would leave the sites once dis-
turbed and would experience habitat distur-
bance upon return. If these displaced birds are to
survive, they would have to find other dry washes
or chaparral slopes with food, water, cover, and
space, which might affect the survival of birds
already present. Powerlines, poles, and build-
ings, however, might provide new perching sites.

Reptiles and Amphibians

Access road construction and powerline in-
stallation might significantly disturb reptiles in
dry wash canyons. Vehicular traffic would crush
lizards, snakes, and tortoises and collapse bur-
rows. Construction would remove escape cover
vegetation. In addition, the increased human
contact of construction and improved access
would increase collecting of animals for pets.
Such activities would seriously impede reptile
reproduction, retarding the replacement of lost
animals.

Depending on location, access road con-
struction could indirectly affect amphibians. Ero-
sion of soil downslope into flows and pools
would lower the water quality. Turbid water, silta-
tion, and wastes from human and construction
activities would reduce habitability in these
flows and pools.

Crucial habitat for desert tortoise and Gilbert
skink (map 4-6) may be destroyed. These State-
protected species have specific food and habitat
requirements that limit their distribution. Tor-
toise or skink habitat subjected to noise, plant
removal, or surface disturbance may no longer
be viable. The severity of impacts would depend
on specific site locations and could be reduced
through judicious site planning.

Indirect Effects and Their Significance

Human activity at any one of the study sites
would displace most wildlife species, although it
would not permanently disturb adaptable spe-
cies. New access to previously isolated areas

would increase uncontrolled human activities,
such as poaching and plant destruction or
removal.

Increased soil erosion might occur once the
road and facility site are completed, undermining
nesting trees and filling burrows.

Vegetation would benefit from the splashing
and pooling of water along roads, improving
cover for small mammals such as pocket mice
and kangaroo rats and increasing food for seed-
eating birds such as sparrows.

Federal Threatened or Endangered
Animal Species

Neither the proposed action nor its alter-
native would impact wildlife species on the
Federal threatened and endangered species list.
A formal letter of consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is not required unless the pres-
ence of and potential impact to listed species
are confirmed.

Impacts on Unique Habitat and Natural
Areas

Placing a communication facility within a
desert bighorn sheep ram-staging area as on
Grossman or Harquahala Peak would seriously
interfere with ram movements. Such a facility
would also cause ewes to st6p using the steep
slopes for lamb bearing. Moreover, altering the
thick interior chaparral cover on Harquahala
Peak would seriously decrease the shelter and
food sources of the Gilbert skink. These unique
habitat impacts would reduce both desert big-
horn sheep and Gilbert skink populations.

NATIVE AMERICANS

Implementing the proposed action on the
Grossman Peak site would significantly impact
the neighboring Native American communities.

Constructing the installation on a mountain
having a special sacred status in the Mohave
religion would adversely impact the Mohave peo-
ple. The Mohave recognize and accept the BLM
administrative responsibilities for management
and protection of Grossman Peak and approve of
present BLM management policies.

The installation would disfigure Grossman
Peak and could restrict access to it, probably
causing the Fort Mohave and Colorado River In-
dian Tribes Tribal Councils to consider invoking
restraints consistent with S.J. Resolution 102

5-7

(American Indian Religious Freedom) passed on
April 3, 1978. According to a newspaper report,
the Director of the Colorado River Indian Tribal
Museum feels that this resolution "should pro-
tect the area." {Lake Havasu City Herald, March
7, 1979.)

Construction of the facility on Crossman
Peak would also adversely impact other tribal
groups. The Chemehuevi feel that the peak con-
tains artifacts important to their cultural history.
Since developments on Crossman Peak would
lead to increased use, Chemehuevi concerns
about destruction and vandalism of these ar-
tifact sites would intensify.

Other Indian tribal groups might also be ad-
versely impacted. According to Cultural Systems
Research (1978), in Arizona a number of moun-
tains are connected in a sacred network. Similar
connections are possible among all mountains;
significance is not limited to the mountains
themselves but attaches also to the materials in
them — petroglyph sites, plants, and animals.
The presence of sacred beings and sources of
residual supernatural powers such as sacred
rocks and caves is something real — a point
which Native Americans stress — whether spe-
cific locations are known or not. Thus Native
Americans are highly sensitive about any type of
impact whatsoever when mountains or promi-
nent hills are involved.

Since Crossman Peak is recognized as a
prominent element in the traditions of a number
of Indian tribes, and since, according to the Colo-
rado River Indian Tribal Museum director, it is in
an area that many "Indians believe Spirit Moun-
tain — the specific place of origin — is situated"
(Lake Havasu City Herald, March 7, 1979), the ad-
verse impacts of construction would not be lim-
ited to the Mohave and Chemehuevi.

Two-Site Alternative

Cherum Peak has a special status in the cul-
tural tradition of the Hualapai people, and con-
struction of a radar installation on the peak
would adversely impact the Hualapais. Cherum
Peak, however, has been the site of extensive
mining since the 1870s, and the adverse impacts
of additional construction on the peak would
less severely affect the Native American commu-
nity than would construction on Crossman Peak.

Harquahala Peak has traditional and sacred
significance for the Yavapai Indians, being spe-
cifically identified in the materials developed for
the Indian Land Claims Commission as an area of
traditional use by the Yavapai. (Indian Land
Claims Commission, Docket 22-E, March 3, 1965.)

Construction of the radar facility would ad-
versely impact the Yavapais. Yet, since a dilapi-
dated observatory structure already exists on the
Peak, the impact would be less severe than if the
peak were undisturbed and pristine.

VISUAL RESOURCES

The proposed action and alternative would
have short- and long-term impacts on visual re-
sources. During construction, dust, marshaling
yards, heavy working equipment, and structures
in various stages of completion would adversely
impact visual resources. In the long-term the
radar facility, road, and powerline would visually
intrude on the natural landscape. Distance would
directly influence impacts. For example, a 107-
foot-tall radar tower and radome viewed from a
distance of 3 miles would appear about 13 feet
tall. Viewed from 15 miles, however, these struc-
tures would appear as a dot on the horizon.

Time and vegetation regrowth would also
somewhat mitigate construction impacts.

Crossman Peak

The proposed radar facility would have mod-
erate to high visual impacts to views of Cross-
man Peak from Lake Havasu City and Arizona
Highway 95 due primarily to the sensitivity of the
visual zone. Residents of Lake Havasu City have
expressed concern that a radar site would im-
pact the community's view. Travelers along a
20-to 30-mile stretch of Arizona Highway 95
would also see the project. In addition, landform
modification and introduction of highly visible
structures would adversely impact the natural
landscape of the area as viewed from back-
country roads east of Crossman Peak. (See
figures 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4.)

The project would only slightly impact views
from Interstate Highway 40 because of its dis-
tance (13 miles) from the highway (see map 5-1).

The proposed road up the west side of Cross-
man Peak would be visible from a smaller area
than an approach from the east. Low impacts are
expected because of topographic screening. On-
ly one short segment of road transversing a sad-
dle would be apparent from Lake Havasu City.
Burying the powerline at this point would avoid
skylining power poles.

Two-Site Alternative

A radar facility on Cherum Peak would ad-
versely affect views of the peak from Windy
Point campground because of the closeness of

5-8

the campground to the peak. Views from
Chloride would be moderately impacted, and low
impacts are anticipated to views from U.S.
Highway 93 because of distance from the peak.
(See figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7, and map 5-2.)

The road and powerline on Cherum Peak
would have a low visual impact because the pro-
posed road would be an extension of an existing
road. Moreover, the pinyon-juniper vegetation on
the mountain tends to screen road cuts more
than the vegetation at lower elevations.

A radar facility on Harquahala Peak would
moderately impact views of the mountain from
U.S. Highway 60 (figure 5-8). The highway passes
within 5 miles of the peak, and the facility would
be visible along a 40-mile stretch of the road.
Such a facility would only slightly impair views
of the peak from Salome and 1-10 because of the
distance from viewpoints (map 5-3).

The improvement of the existing road up Har-
quahala Peak might have adverse visual impacts,
but these cannot be projected until the needed
modifications are determined.

WILDERNESS

A BLM solicitor's opinion of September 8,
1978, concerning the BLM wilderness review,
stated that If a proposed action is determined to
impair an area's suitability for preservation as
wilderness, then the action cannot proceed until
the area is formally studied for wilderness poten-
tial and Congress has acted on the President's
recommendation. BLM is therefore required to
prohibit all actions having long-term impact or
low rehabilitation potential until the wilderness
study is complete.

Due to the steep slopes on Crossman Peak a
radar facility would be highly visible from much
of the proposed wilderness study area and would
require the construction of a new access road in-
to the center of the area (figure 5-9). The facility
and road would impair the suitability of the area
for preservation as wilderness.

A radar facility on Harquahala Peak would not
necessarily impair the area's suitability for pres-
ervation as wilderness. The summit of Harqua-
hala Peak is large enough to allow the careful
placement of structures to screen them from
most of the proposed wilderness study area (see
figure 5-10). Painting structures to blend into the
surrounding terrain would make facilities consid-
erably less visible.

Public involvement following the intensive
wilderness inventory identified the existing road
up the south face of the Harquahala Peak as hav-
ing been regularly maintained and used by a min-
ing claimant. It thus meets the wilderness inven-
tory's definition of a road and cannot be included
in the proposed wilderness study area. This road,
however, would have to be widened and relo-
cated in some portions to meet FAA standards
for construction and operation of a radar site.

If the mining claimant wins the case pending
in Federal District Court (see section 4, Mining)
he plans to construct a new access road up the
north slope. The new road might be suitable for
FAA's purposes, but FAA would have to nego-
tiate arrangements with the mining claimant.
(See sections 4 and 5, Mining.)

A radar facility on Harquahala Peak would not
have nearly the adverse impacts on wilderness
values as the development of mining claims,
which could significantly impair wilderness
suitability.

Rerouting and changing the existing road up
Harquahala Peak might adversely impact wilder-
ness values, but the extent of impacts cannot be
projected until the necessary road changes have
been determined.

ACCESS ROADS

The opening of access roads to the public
would have extensive beneficial and adverse im-
pacts on resources, particularly on outdoor rec-
reation. An opened access road would increase
recreation use of the area involved, facilitating
hunting, camping, hiking, picnicking, rock col-
lecting, sightseeing, and off-road vehicle use. On
the other hand, improved access could lead to in-
creased poaching and harassment of mule deer,
collecting of desert tortoises as pets, plant de-
struction and removal, vandalism and destruc-
tion of archaeological artifacts, and vandalism to
historic and active mining sites.

Improved access would also benefit mining
by reducing overall mining costs and making
some prospects viable for the first time.

MINING

Mining and ancillary activities could affect
the operation of a radar site in that pre-existing
rights govern. If land uses conflict, appropriate

5-9

Figure 5-2. Grossman Peak View from Lake Havasu City.

Figure 5-3. Grossman Peak View from Arizona Highway 95.

5-10

Figure 5-4. Grossman Peak with Radar Facility

View from bacl^country road east of peak.

Figure 5-5.

Cherum Peak with Radar Facility
View from Windy Point campground.

5-11

Figure 5-6.

Cherum Peak with Radar Facility
View from Chloride.

Figure 5-7.

Cherum Peak with Radar Facility
View from U. S. Highway 93.

5-12

Figure 5-8. Harquahala Peak with Radar Facility

View from rest stop on U. S. Highway 60.

Figure 5-9. Grossman Peal< with Radar Facility

View from east side looking toward Lake Havasu City.

5-13

"^^^,

Figure 5-10. Harquahala Peak with Radar Facility

Harquahala Observatory in foreground.

5-14

MAP 5-1

MAP BASE DERIVE); (ROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPARTSi'jKMT OF TRANSPORTATION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

GROSSMAN PEAK

VISUAL IMPACTS

MILE SCALE

LEGEND

High

High Moderate

Moderate

Low Moderate

Low

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

5-15/16

MAP 5-2

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

CHERUM PEAK

VISUAL IMPACTS

)

I I I I I i:

Mitt SCALE

MAP BASE DERIVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

LEGEND

High

High Moderate

Moderate

Low Moderate

Low

5-17/18

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

MAP 5-3

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

HARQUAHALA PEAK

VISUAL IMPACTS

MIIE SCAIE

LEGEND

High

High-Moderate
Moderate
Low-Moderate

-O Low

3i> aASE DERIVED FROM GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP
'flZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

5-19/20

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

administrative action would have to be initiated.
Detailed land status information is available at
the BLM Arizona State Office in Phoenix.

CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION IMPACTS

The proposed radar facilities would have both
temporary (construction) and short-term (opera-
tion and maintenance) economic impacts. No
significant long-term impacts (beyond the life of
the project) would occur. The total cost of install-
ing a radar unit would not impact the local area
because a large part of the costs have been for
research and investigation, and others such as
radar unit costs would be spent in areas outside
the region. Construction and installation costs,
exclusive of air route traffic control centers
(ARTCCs), however, are expected to impact the
local area. These costs can be divided into labor,
miscellaneous supplies, contract costs, and, in
some cases, land acquisition costs. Contract
costs would also include labor, materials, equip-
ment, and profits. Labor costs are estimated at
40 percent of contract costs.

Operation and maintenance costs, including
wages and local purchases, would continue as
annual expenditures as long as the radar site is
in use. The area impacted would include com-
munities relatively close to the proposed sites.
Communities closest to the site, however, would
not necessarily experience the greatest impact.
Lack of facilities and services in smaller com-
munities might direct purchases to larger com-
munities within commuting distance. For exam-
ple, specialized materials might be purchased
from the Phoenix area.

The following communities might be im-
pacted by construction. Lake Havasu City (es-
timated 1980 population: 16,237) is located 12
road miles from Grossman Peak by the preferred
access route and 58 road miles by the alternative
access route. Chloride (population: 151) lies at
the base of Cherum Peak, and Kingman (popula-
tion: 15,000) lies 40 miles from Cherum Peak.
Harquahala Peak is approximately 45 road miles
from Wickenburg (population: 8,000) and 21
miles from both Gladden (population: 30) and
Aguila (population: 700).

The national, regional, and local distribution
of impacts is difficult to assess because con-
tracts are let on a low-bid basis and can be
awarded to firms anywhere. Assumptions were
applied consistently to all sites to analyze dif-
ferences.

The construction period would last from 6 to
18 months, depending on contract specifica-
tions and the size of firms bidding. This analysis
assumes a 12-month construction period.

Grossman Peak

Total construction costs for the Grossman
Peak facility with preferred access would
amount to $7,240,200, including costs for (1) ad-
ditional facilities at the Albuquerque ARTCC —
$96,400; (2) design, electronic equipment, flight
inspection, and training — $3,302,700; and
(3) construction site preparation and electronics
installation — $3,841,100.

A major portion of the costs of construction
and electronics installation at Grossman Peak —
$3,841,100 — would impact the local economy.
Of this total, $1,800,500 would pay for materials
and equipment costs, and $1,923,700 would con-
sist of income. About 43 percent of the materials
and equipment costs would be purchased within
the area, which might include metropolitan
Phoenix. Of the total income, $1,530,300 (exclud-
ing overhead support and certain profits) is ex-
pected to be spent in communities within com-
muting distance of Grossman Peak.

Assuming an average annual income of about
$28,000 and a total wage income of $1,367,900
(including wages, fringe benefits, subsistence,
and overtime) an average of 48 people would be
employed in the impact area. Half of these
employees are expected to be hired locally or to
be available through local contracts. Assuming
an average family size of 3.2, the remaining 24
workers, less Federal employees, would bring an
additional 44 persons to the Lake Havasu City
area.

The addition of 24 workers and families to a
community of approximately 16,200 would only
slightly impact the housing market. During con-
struction increased income and employment
would bolster the local economy and reduce un-
employment for a short time. The service indus-
try is not expected to expand significantly.

The Grossman Peak facility with alternative
access would cost $7,758,400, about $500,000
more than with the preferred access. Costs
would involve the following items: (1) additional
facilities at the Albuquerque ARTCC — $96,400,
(2) design, electronic equipment, flight inspec-
tion, and training — $3,365,700, and (3) construc-
tion site preparation and electronics installation
— $4,296,300.

Of the total construction and installation
costs expected to impact the local economy,

5-21

$2,147,000 are income related, and $2,010,300 are
for machinery, materials, and supplies. Land ac-
quisition would involve $11,000.

An estimated 40 percent of materials would
be purchased locally and $1,725,800 of the total
income would be spent locally. Of the total labor
costs, those not attributed to the local area
would involve overhead, support services, and
certain profits.

Assuming an average annual wage of about
$28,000, and a wage income of $1,533,800, the
total income could be translated into employ-
ment for approximately 48 workers, 24 of which
would be hired locally. The other 24, exclusive of
Federal workers, are expected to move into the
impact area, bringing an additional 44 depen-
dents.

Two-Site Alternative

The two-site alternative (Cherum and Harqua-
hala Peaks) would involve the installation of two
separate radar units to provide the desired cover-
age. Total cost of both units would amount to
$14,112,100. The expansion at both Albuquerque
and Los Angeles ARTCCs would cost $193,200.
Design, electronic equipment, flight inspection,
and training costs would total $8,176,800, nearly
2.5 times greater than the costs for the Cross-
man Peak facility. A significant portion of this in-
crease would result from the escalation of costs
between the time of the original purchase of the
unit and the current purchase price of equipment
necessary for a second site. Construction and
electronic installation costs would amount to
$5,742,100, including material and equipment
costs amounting to $2,630,000, income amount-
ing to $2,874,500, and land acquisition costs
amounting to $5,500. An estimated 48 percent of
the materials and machinery costs would accrue
in the local area.

Approximately $2,478,400 in income would
impact the local area, 63 percent from construc-
tion at Harquahala Peak and 37 percent from con-
struction at Cherum Peak. As with the Crossman
Peak preferred and alternative access routes,
overhead and nonlocal profit and support ser-
vices are excluded.

Employment was calculated by assuming an
average annual wage of about $27,000 with a
wage-related income of $2,104,200, which in-
cludes wages, fringe benefits, subsistence, and
overtime. (The average annual wage would be
$1,000 lower than for the Crossman Peak be-
cause of a different employment mix involved.)
On this basis, an average of 78 employees would

be required to work on the two sites, 48 at Har-
quahala Peak and 30 at Cherum Peak. Of the 78
employees needed, an estimated 33 of the 48
employees at Harquahala Peak would come from
the local area as would 21 of the 30 employees at
Cherum Peak. Thus, 15 employees at Harquahala
Peak and 9 at Cherum Peak would come from
outside the area. Assuming a family size of 3.2,
these workers, excluding Federal employees,
would bring an additional 35 dependents into the
area, 24 in the area of Harquahala Peak and 11 in
the area of Cherum Peak.

The total of 39 people brought into the Har-
quahala area could potentially be distributed
among Gladden, Aguila, and Wickenburg. Hous-
ing is not expected to present a serious problem,
especially if construction workers are distrib-
uted among these communities. The economic
impacts, however, would be proportionately
greater in this area because communities are
smaller. Services employment is not expected to
significantly increase. Construction would in-
crease personal income and possibly reduce the
area's unemployment.

The Cherum Peak site would bring an addi-
tional 20 people into the area, which, if distrib-
uted between Chloride and Kingman, would little
impact the housing market. Some economic
benefits would occur, but they would be slight
relative to the size of the community. Little or no
increased employment is expected at support
service centers.

Income and employment have been analyzed
on the basis of averages. The actual levels of
people and income may vary over the construc-
tion period, depending upon the size of the con-
struction company and work scheduling. Even
though the influx of people may be considerably
greater than shown, these communities are of
sufficient size to briefly accommodate these
changes without undergoing significant disrup-
tions.

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Annual operation and maintenance costs
could impact the local economy as long as the
sites are in operation. Generally, the costs which
impact local economy are wages and materials
expenditures, including site staffing, environ-
mental maintenance at the site, and mainte-
nance of access roads. Telephone and power
costs are not expected to influence local income
or employment, except to the extent that a por-
tion of such charges would be used for local
maintenance.

5-22

Each site would require seven employees,
plus incidental employment for environmental
maintenance. Assuming a family size of 3.2,
operation and maintenance would bring a total of
22 peopie to the local area. Site environment
maintenance is expected to be performed by
contract, since it would involve only about
$10,000 worth of services annually.

Site staffing and maintenance expenditures
would total $239,960 for each site per year. The
two-site alternative (Cherum and Harquahala
Peaks) would cost twice the amount necessary
to operate the Grossman Peak site. The Cross-
man Peak preferred access route would require
$4,200 annually in maintenance costs, whereas
the alternative route would require $11,330. Ac-
cess route maintenance for the two-site alterna-
tive would require $6,200.

None of these impacts, however, would be
significant to local economies of the communi-
ties involved.

RADIO AND TELEVISION RECEP-
TION AND COMPATIBILITY WITH
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES

FAA has reported that radar facilities on any
of the three peaks would not interfere with exist-
ing television and radio reception (Shelstad,
1979). Such radar facilities, however, could inter-
fere with transmission and reception involving
nearby television and radio facilities installed
after the installation of the radar facilities.

If any additional communication facilities are
constructed near the radar sites, they could not
interfere with the ARSR-3 facility. FAA would
thus approve only the applicants whose facilities
would be electronically compatible with the
radar.

al field inventories and subsequent data analysis
would further increase cultural resource informa-
tion. Additional field inventories may further con-
firm that few archaeological sites exist at higher
elevations in the mountains of western Arizona.

Few archaeological sites are known to occur
within the project areas, and none are known or
expected to be discovered at the proposed radar
sites. The few known archaeological sites are lo-
cated safely away from proposed access roads.
No direct or indirect adverse consequences to
archaeological sites are expected. Since por-
tions of the access roads to each of the three
proposed radar sites have not been staked on the
ground, additional archaeological sites might be
discovered along these road segments during
the site-specific inventory. Some sites might be
adversely impacted, but the potential is consid-
ered low.

No direct impacts to historic mining sites are
expected from either radar site or access road
construction. No historic remains have yet been
identified within the areas of proposed construc-
tion.

A new or improved road might permit greater
public access to otherwise relatively inacces-
sible areas. Improved access to the mountain
peaks could lead to some secondary impacts
(particularly vandalism) to historic and stil! active
mining sites. Until final location of proposed ac-
cess roads is confirmed on the ground, potential
secondary impacts would be difficult to evalu-
ate.

The National Register site on Harquahala
Peak would not be affected by construction. The
observatory site is well protected with a cyclone
fence and locked gate. The presence of a
manned radar station nearby might benefit the
site by deterring vandalism.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

STATE AND FEDERAL
PROTECTED PLANTS

The proposed radar site project has the po-
tential for both beneficial and adverse conse-
quences to cultural resources at or near the proj-
ect area(s), but a lack of known sites suggests
few adverse or beneficial impacts would result.

Field investigations for this proposed project
have produced some cultural resource informa-
tion for the study areas. A few previously unre-
corded archaeological sites and numerous min-
ing-related historic sites are now known. If the
proposed project is approved, required addition-

State Protected Species

Some State-protected native plants would be
destroyed within the proposed radar facility
sites, including the following genera within the
cactus family: Opuntia, Mammillaria, Carnegiea,
Echinocereus, and Ferocactus. Other protected
plants that might be impacted include ocotillo,
little-leaf palo verde, parry nolina, Joshua tree,
blue yucca and beargrass. State-protected plants
are listed in table 4-1 by vegetation type. Vegeta-
tion types are depicted on map 4-1.

5-23

Federal Threatened or Endangered
Species

A limited field search revealed no proposed
Federal threatened or endangered plant species
at any of the proposed sites. After the specific
routes of access roads are known, however, field
searches might reveal the presence of one of the
three varieties of Coryphantha vivipara (see sec-
tion 4).

radar installation would also conflict with the
Mohave County recreation-residential designa-
tion of the site.

A facility on Harquahala Peak would conflict
with natural environmental recreational values
and with a possible wilderness designation. It
would intrude into crucial bighorn sheep habitat
and might conflict with recreation and game
values and with the solar observatory historic
site.

LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES,
AND CONTROLS

The construction of radar facilities at any of
the three proposed sites would conflict with land
use plans, policies, and controls and might have
profound effects on land use in the areas in-
volved.

The most significant impact would involve
the precedent that an installation would set for
the location of compatible facilities nearby. For
example, in the past BLM has received applica-
tions for the use of Grossman Peak as a commu-
nications site but has denied these applications
on the premise that communications facilities
would conflict with the BLM management deci-
sion to preserve the peak in a natural state.
Grossman Peak's becoming a radar site would in-
validate that management decision and might
lead to BLM's reconsidering the use of Gross-
man Peak as a communications site. Such con-
tinued development would have a cumulative im-
pact.

A radar facility on Grossman Peak would con-
flict with BLM's Management Framework Plan
(MFP) decisions concerning visual resources,
wildlife, and recreation and would conflict with
Mohave Gounty's recreation-residential designa-
tion of the site. The Mohave Gounty Planning and
Zoning Commission has concluded that "the po-
tential problems resulting from the construction
of a new roadway into an isolated area would be
detrimental to wildlife, the delicate desert soils,
and character of Grossman Peak and the sur-
rounding area" (Fass, 1979). The installation of a
radar station at Grossman or Gherum Peaks
would require the approval of a zoning use per-
mit (conditional use permit) by the Mohave Goun-
ty Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Board of Supervisors.

Gherum Peak is not among the BLM-identi-
fied communication sites, and clearing land
there during construction would conflict with
managing the area as important deer habitat. A

ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

Energy requirements have been estimated for
both the construction and the annual operation
and maintenance of radar installations at Cross-
man, Gherum, and Harquahala Peaks (figures
5-11 and 5-12).

Energy consumption for construction varies
among sites mainly because of differences in
the length of road constructed. Figure 5-11
shows that the Cherum/Harquahala combination
would require about 1.4 times as much energy to
construct as the Grossman Peak site with pre-
ferred access but that Grossman Peak site with
alternative access would require mpre energy to
construct than the Cherum/Harquahala sites.

Energy consumed in annual operation and
maintenance consists mainly of gasoline used in
commuting to the sites from communities in
which the operators live. Each site would con-
sume the same amount of electricity. The
Gherum and Harquahala Peak facilities would
use twice the electricity of the Grossman Peak
facility.

Figure 5-12 shows estimated average month-
ly energy consumption for access to the pro-
posed radar sites. The average monthly con-
sumption of gasoline needed for access to
Grossman Peak over the preferred route would
amount to 250 gallons or 40 percent of that re-
quired for access to Gherum Peak. Access to
both the Gherum and Harquahala Peak sites
would require about six times as much energy as
would access to the Grossman Peak site over the
preferred route.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The no-action alternative would produce
none of the adverse or beneficial impacts listed
previously for the two construction alternatives,
nor would it satisfy the purpose and need for the
project.

5-24

pauTquio3 hx^M^^^jeh PUf^ uinaaqQ

•H

uinaaqQ

c
o

•H

<J
3
1-1

4-1

to
a
o
u

FXBqBnbJBH

a
o

■H

4-1

C
o
u

4-1

aAT3BUJa3-[v uHuissoaQ

:n:

o
o
o

o
o
m

o
o
o

o
o

paaaajsjfi UBuissoaQ

o
o
o

o
o

X3n^ JO suoxT^O

)-i

•H

[iH

c/^

5-25

3 J2
U CO

CO (U

3 XI

>-i o

CO O

d)
U

•H

3 dJ

cr >

0:5 4-1

o M

•H <U

J2
CO
3
cr

C
CO

m
en
o
u

d c

P CO

u
>% iJ

00 -H
0)

c >.
w ^

rH o

4J -U

d CO

O U

X OJ

T3 O

■u u

CO O

B M-(
•H
•U

o
u
a

-n

1 «

1-1

••

0) OJ

u o

M-l

3 l-l

OO 3

t-l

•H O

fX,

Plh M

5-26

Aircraft would continue to use the area on a
"see and be seen" basis, resulting in unquantifi-
able impacts of wasted time, fuel, and decreased
safety. The supplemental benefits identified in
section 1 (Purpose of and Need for the Action)
would not be realized.

The no-action alternative would affect FAA's
capabilities and mission in the following areas:

Quality of Existing Radar Coverage

Only fair radar surveillance of aircraft above
15,000 feet exists in the area shown by map 3-2.
This area is under the surveillance of Angel's
Peak radar near Las Vegas, Mt. Humboldt radar
near Phoenix and Mt. Laguna radar near San
Diego. Poor to no radar information exists below
an elevation of 15,000 feet. If any one of the three
radars should fail, the existing coverage above
this area would be reduced by one-third because
of a lack of backup (overlapping) coverage. When
coverage is lost in this area, all traffic must fly on
a "see and be seen" or "manual separation"
basis, resulting in an inefficient and antiquated
air traffic operation. Such a system fails to pro-
vide the system and the user with safety en-
hancements attendant in a radar environment, in-
cluding "Conflict Alert" to warn of aircraft on
collision course and "Minimum Safe Altitude
Warning," to warn aircraft of high terrain.

The addition of Grossman Peak radar (or
Cherum and Harquahala radars) would provide
the primary radar information required and would
also provide needed backup coverage for the
three existing radars.

Increase of Air Travel in Southern
Arizona and California

Air traffic in this area consists of a mix of air
carrier, military, and general aviation aircraft
operating at all altitudes. Official FAA air traffic
forecasts indicate a straight-line increase of over
50 percent in the number of operations in the
area during the 1980s. Low-level military training
flights and general aviation flights below 18,000
feet are forecast to increase to a point that "see
and be seen" flying would be neither practical
nor safe. Present plans provide ior positive radar
control (all aircraft within an area are under radar
surveillance) of aircraft flying visual flight rules
between 12,500 feet and 18,000 feet. This change
will require the addition of radar on Grossman
Peak, or Gherum and Harquahala Peaks to pro-
vide the additional safety demanded by the pub-
lic.

Traffic Delays

In areas of limited or no radar coverage, air
traffic control requires nonradar separation pro-
cedures. These procedures reduce the number
of aircraft traveling through a portion of airspace
for a given time and may cause the rerouting or
holding of aircraft on tfie ground or in holding
patterns in the air. The no-action alternative
would result in flight delays due to lack of quality
radar coverage and would increase collision po-
tential. Aircraft forced into holding patterns
waste fuel and generate air pollution. If aircraft
depart on time but travel farther to avoid non-
radar covered airspace, the longer flights also
consume more fuel, conflicting with the Presi-
dent's fuel conservation directives.

Radar Assistance Supporting
Emergency Efforts

One of the most important missions of FAA
is the assistance to pilots during emergencies,
such as finding and directing lost aircraft, search
and rescue efforts for downed aircraft, or divert-
ing aircraft with inflight emergencies to the near-
est airports. Radar surveillance quickly identifies
any aircraft in an emergency, saving property and
lives. Radar on Grossman Peak, or Gherum and
Harquahala Peaks would provide the radar cover-
age necessary for these emergencies.

Weather

Radar also provides tracking data on severe
storms in the search area. Air traffic control pro-
vides weather advisory service to all aircraft and
directs pilots around or over adverse weather
conditions. The lack of radar coverage seriously
hampers the weather advisory capability of FAA
in this desert area. Since this area has one of the
highest incidences of thunderstorms in the Unit-
ed States and since the National Transportation
Safety Board has publicly identified severe
weather as the primary cause of aircraft acci-
dents, the no-action alternative is not accept-
able.

Military Missions

Numerous low-level military training routes
are flown in southeastern Galifornia and south-
western Arizona by high performance jet fighter
aircraft based at Yuma Marine Gorps Air Station,
Nellis, Luke and Williams Air Force Bases. These
aircraft fly part or all of their missions below
10,000 feet, below current radar coverage on a

5-27

"see and be seen" basis and under nonradar de-
tection. Without radar surveillance these aircraft
are unaware of each other or of air carriers and
general aviation users at these lower altitudes.
With the addition of radar on Grossman Peak or
Cherum and Harquahala Peaks, awareness of
military training missions or other airspace users
would increase service and safety.

Firefighting Support

With radar control, FAA traffic control is able
to assist BLM or Forest Service firefighting air-
craft to and from the fire area, provide guidance
through low visibility areas, and restrict the fire
area airspace to only aircraft used in support of
firefighting. The no-action alternative would vir-
tually preclude FAA firefighting support.

FAA's Conclusion

Failure to provide primary radar coverage
over the area in question would tend to negate
FAA's congressionally approved program to
bring all controlled airspace into a radar environ-
ment. The use of nonradar procedures would
pose a safety hazard to all users of the system
and would be wasteful of airspace, time, and
energy. Finally, the adoption of the no-action al-
ternative would severely hamper FAA's mission
and would expose airspace users to the increas-
ing risk of aircraft collision.

MITIGATING MEASURES

Due to the nature of the sites and resources
involved, very little can be done to mitigate the
impacts. However, if either alternative is con-
structed, the following measures will be used to
mitigate the adverse impacts. These mitigating
measures meet the criteria of being real, com-
mitted, and enforceable.

Soils

Water bars and culverts will be constructed
where appropriate to minimize erosion and
changes in drainage patterns.

Vegetation

In access road construction, the amount of
material cut will be balanced with that used for
fill to avoid disposing of excess material by side-
casting. Any excess material will be hauled to
disposal sites agreed upon by BLM and FAA.
This measure will also mitigate adverse visual
impacts.

To reduce the amount of earthwork neces-
sary, thereby reducing the visual and vegetative
impact, the facilities on Cherum Peak will be
placed at separate elevations and blended into
the terrain insofar as technically feasible (see
figure 5-13).

State-Protected Plants

Arizona State law provides that the Arizona
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture be
given at least 30 days notice before construction
to inspect an area and salvage State-protected
plants. Salvage will be encouraged where practi-
cal.

Federal Threatened or Endangered
Plant Species (Proposed FWS List)

BLM will conduct a field search for the three
varieties of Coryphantha vivipara when site-
specific locations for roads and radar facilities
are determined.

If threatened or endangered species on Fed-
eral lists are located during field inventories,
BLM will determine their abundance and distri-
bution and, if necessary, initiate formal consulta-
tion under section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act to determine if the proposed action would
jeopardize their existence.

Wildlife

The following measures will be implemented
to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife. If the
Crossman Peak site is selected, the applicant
will build one game water catchment or tank to
the north of the site to provide water for desert
bighorn sheep, mule deer, and Gambel's quail. If
the two-site alternative is selected, the applicant
will install a game water catchment or tank
south-southwest of the Harquahala Peak site to
sustain bighorn sheep and other wildlife.

Recreation and Visual Resources

At Crossman Peak the radome and tower will
be located to the east of the radar building to re-
duce the dome's visibility from Lake Havasu City
(see figure 5-14). At any site(s) approved, non-
specular materials will be used in construction
and facilities will be painted in flat earthen tones
to blend into the surrounding terrain. Powerlines
that would be visible from critical viewpoints will
be buried.

If necessary for site security, a small portion
of the Crossman Peak access road near the sum-
mit will be closed to nonofficial vehicles. BLM
and FAA will select a site as close as possible to

5-28

' —

--^

7030

■

7020

(i)

7000

1 —

-4-

— 1

t—

— u.

-^^■)-^

J — 1

'V"

^^^

¥\

'^-

•^•ft;

i .

6960

yy'^.

k^-^-

^ ^J5

6950

^<J

fc2

6940

/I1

*^-^^.

'V>^

'>v:s

V^'^^

6930

^^^I.

/6^

V^:'%^<

7>^

S9I0

-00.

— 1

•W,

"^^^

10 20 30 40 90 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 ISO 190 200 210 220 290 240 290 t«0 270 280 280 300 310 320 3S0 340

LEGEND

>® R^AOAR TOWER WITH &7. 5 DIA. RADOME
4"

8&'~ eVj'x 47-6!/," RADAR BUILOINQ

«^EAT EXCHANGER
"MARD RAILS
CHAIN LINK
^CLOSED STAIRWAY

.rum Peak Development Plan to Reduce Visual Impacts

UNITED STATfS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

CHERUM PEAK

DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO
REDUCE VISUAL IMPACTS

SOURCE: BLM TEAM

5-29/30

— -^^

)

Trr

■^=1:

— h

.i^

li(^

rfT^

;/'

i?'-'.'-

N .

y ^'

„'

->"'

s,<^^'

rfff^

'^■'

1^'

'7-'

./-

trr

<i^

^r^-^^yyy^y^

'yyy

'^yyy

y^y)

.^yy.

.■yy^yy^yyyy

y^yyyyyyyy^y^y.

'77:^.

*^^>^

"^^

to 30 40 80 60 70

eo 90 100 no izo iso I40 too leo iro iso i»o zoo tie

LEGEND

30" RADAR TOWEH ^WITH 57.5' DIA. RADOME
ao'-eVj'x 47'- 6/2 RADAR BUILDING

i5-i-;.

HEAT EXCHANGEW
OUARD RAILS
8' CHAIN LINK f £MCE
ENCLOSED STAIRWAY
CUT SLOPE (.35 < c 1)
"ILL SLOPE ' K5 So 1)

fossman Peak Developmeni Plan to Reduce Visual Impacts From Lake Havasu City.

ttO tSO t4C £50 ttO 270 280 290 900 310 320 330 340

UNITED STATES OiPAHTMEHT OF THE INTEHIOR
■ UREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

GROSSMAN PEAK
RADAR PROPOSAL

GROSSMAN PEAK

DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO REDUCE VISUAL
IMPACT FROM LAKE HAVASU CITY

SOURCE: BLM TEAM 531/32

the summit yet level enough to construct a turn-
around. At the turnaround site, FAA will con-
struct a substantial gate across the road.

BLM will approve all final construction loca-
tions and specifications for facilities, power-
lines, and access routes.

Cultural Resources

The applicant will be required to fund an in-
tensive (BLM Class III) inventory of all areas to be
disturbed as soon as specific locations are
staked. The inventory will include a 100-foot buf-
fer zone around all potentially disturbed areas.
Specific mitigation measures will be developed
for each site located during the intensive inven-
tory. If possible, the sites will be avoided. Where
avoidance is not possible, the applicant will be
required to fund salvage operations appropriate
to the site as approved in advance by BLM.

The Installation of radar facilities and access
roads to them would involve the commitment of
construction materials and energy. Once used
the energy would be irretrievable. Once the fa-
cilities are installed, construction materials
would be irretrievably committed, although they
might have some salvage value.

The major irreversible and irretrievable com-
mitment of financial resources would involve the
costs associated with installation, maintenance,
and operation of the facilities. Once the expendi-
tures are made, those particular funds would not
be available for alternative public programs. An
additional irretrievable commitment would in-
volve labor. Labor, once expended, cannot be re-
trieved.

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES

This section identifies the irreversible and ir-
retrievable commitment of resources that would
result from the placement of radar facilities at
Grossman Peak or at Cherum and Harquahala
Peaks. Such commitments would primarily in-
volve the disturbance to vegetation and visual
resources and the expenditures of energy,
human labor, and construction materials.

Opening new roads and allowing construc-
tion would irreversibly commit the natural re-
sources of the peaks. Public and private use pat-
terns would develop that would never allow the
areas to return to their present state.

Areas cleared of vegetation for access roads
and radar facilities would be irreversibly lost for
the life of the project. Moreover, experience in
Arizona indicates that when a road is estab-
lished, it tends to be continuously used by off-
road vehicles. Consequently, vegetation lost for
the new road development would be irretrievably
committed.

Any disturbance to surface soil or rock col-
ors, erosion patterns, or geologic features leav-
ing a permanent scar on the landscape would be
irreversible. The radar facilities and access
roads, which would intrude on the naturalistic
landscape, would have adverse visual impacts
that would be irretrievable for the life of the proj-
ect and even beyond.

In the short term (during the life of the proj-
ect), air safety would be enhanced and the sup-
plemental benefits of having improved radar cov-
erage would accrue.

In the long term projection (beyond the life of
the project), productivity of the biological re-
sources would be reduced if either construction
alternative is approved. Scars created by road
and site development would remain far beyond
the life of the project. If the precedent of al-
lowing one user (FAA) results in additional com-
munication facilities, the mountain tops would
probably remain committed to this use for the
foreseeable future. If so, the bighorn sheep pop-
ulation may be reduced or lost and never reestab-
lished. Impacts to Native American values could
probably never be retrieved once the scars and
increased public use occur.

A radar facility on Crossman Peak would pre-
empt the option of Congress to create a wilder-
ness area. A radar facility on Harquahala Peak
might slightly reduce the area available to this
option.

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

On the basis of anticipated impacts to the
land-based resources (primarily wildlife, cultural
resources and wilderness values), planning con-
siderations, attitudes of and economic benefits
to the local communities, and Native American
values, if either of the construction alternatives

5-33

is approved, the two-site alternative (Cherum and
Harquahala Peaks) would be the preferred alter-
native. Moreover, if the mining claimant on Har-
quahala Peak wins the current litigation and con-
structs his proposed road to the summit, most of
the impacts identified for Harquahala Peak
would occur whether or not radar facilities are
constructed. Addition of the radar facilities
would then only slightly increase impacts to
soils, vegetation, wildlife, and wilderness values.

Even without the mining claimant's new road,
the existence of a recognized road, the solar ob-
servatory, and livestock facilities (reservoir and
line shack), combined with the broad, relatively
flat terrain at the summit, would keep the impact

of a radar facility on Harquahala Peak consider-
ably below the impact expected on Grossman
Peak.

The two-site alternative would also add a
small but unquantifiable measure of air safety by
providing additional secondary radar coverage
for most of the area. This additional coverage
would be most valuable during mechanical
breakdowns or adverse weather that limits radar
detection.

The two-site alternative would cost approxi-
mately twice as much to construct and operate.
It would also double the electrical energy re-
quirements, and increase vehicle fuel consump-
tion from 250 to 1,500 gallons per month.

5-34

SECTION 6

PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

SECTION 6
PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS

PREPARERS

Name: Karl L Kipping

Job Title: ES Team Leader, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.S., Range Management, Washington State University
M.S., Range Science, University of Nevada

Experience: Range Conservationist, Bureau of Land Management, Burley District, Idaho, 5 years
Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona, 6 years
ES Team Leader, Bureau of Land Management, Palo Verde-Devers ES, Yuma District,
Arizona, 2 years

Name: Hal W. Pilkington

Job Title: Writer-Editor, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Literary Writing and Political Science, University of Nevada

Certification as Safety Engineer, U.S. Mine Health and Safety Academy, Beckley, West
Virginia

Experience: Liaison Officer, Mine Health and Safety Administration, 2 years

Public Information Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Miles City District, Mon-
tana, 1 Vi years
Journeyman Newspaper Editor, 8 years

Writer-Editor, Bureau of Land Management, Palo Verde-Devers ES Team, Yuma District,
Arizona, 1 Vi years

Name: Herbert K. McGinty

Job Title: Writer-Editor, BLM, Arizona State Office

Education: B.A., History, Duke University

M.A., Geography, Clark University

Certificate of Accomplishment in Editorial Practices, Department of Agriculture Gradu-
ate School

Experience: Geographer, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 31/2 years

Writer-Editor, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, Phoenix, Arizona,
3 years

Name: Allan H. Borden

Job Title: Wildlife Biologist, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Biological Sciences, University of California

B.S., Wildlife Management, Humboldt State University

Experience: Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside District, California, 6 months
Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, Arizona, 6 months
Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona, 6 months

6-1

Name: Bernhardt E. "Boma" Johnson

Job Title: Cultural Resources Specialist, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Social Anthropology, Brigham Young University
B.A., Archaeology
M.A., Archaeology
Post M.A. Studies, Cultural Resources Management, Arizona State University

Experience: Field Research and Teaching Archaeology, Brigham Young University, 3 years
Field Archaeologist, Arizona State University, 2 years

Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside District, California, 2 years
Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona, 2 years

Name: Kenneth Kuhlman

Job Title: Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.S., Science in Forestry with a Range Management Minor, University of Montana

Experience: Range Conservation, Bureau of Land Management, Dillon District, Montana, 4 years
Range Conservation, Bureau of Land Management, Burley District, Idaho, 5 years
Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona,
7 years

Name: Judy E. McGinnis

Job Title: Illustrator, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Counseling and Art, Loretto Heights College, Denver, Colorado

Experience: Draftsman, Atomic Energy Commission, Casper, Wyoming, 3 years
Draftsman, Bureau of Reclamation, Casper, Wyoming, 14 years

Illustrator, Bureau of Land Management, Palo Verde-Devers ES Team, Yuma District,
Arizona, 2 years

Name: Ronald J. Oberlercher

Job Title: Electronics Technician, FAA, Western Region Office

Education: City College, San Francisco, California

Department of Defense, Radar Technology School, IVz years

Experience: Radar Station Supervisor, 12 years

Radar Engineering and Installation, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region,
Los Angeles, California, 3 years

Name: Keith L. Pearson

Job Title: Social Scientist, BLM, Denver Service Center

Education: B.A., History, Augustana College, Illinois
M.A., Anthropology, University of Arizona
Ph.D., Social Anthropology, University of Arizona

Experience: Environmental Assistance Staff, Washington Office

Planning and Environmental Coordination, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service
Center, Denver, Colorado

6-2

Name: Wayne L. Pry

Job Title: Project Engineer, FAA, Western Region Office

Education: B.S. Civil Engineering, University of Colorado

Experience: Industrial Construction Engineer, 7 years
General Engineer, USAF, 3 years

Civil and General Engineer, Federal Aviation Adnninistration, 18 years
Multi-engine Aircraft Pilot, 2 years

Nanne: John H. Schiuler

Job Title: Botanist, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Botany, University of Wisconsin

M.A., Botany/Plant Ecology, University of Montana

Experience: Botanist/Ecologist, Desert Planning Staff, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside,

California, 2 years
Botanist/Ecologist, Bureau of Land Management, SOHIO ES, Los Alamitos, California,

1 year
Botanist/Ecologist, Bureau of Land Management, Palo Verde-Devers ES, Yuma District,

Arizona, 2 years

Name: Phillip A. Shelstad

Job Title: Project Engineer, FAA, Western Region Office

Education: B.S.E.E., Washington State University

Experience: Electronics Engineer, Combat Systems Office, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Long
Beach, California, 2 years
Electronics Engineer, Establishment Engineering Branch, Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, Western Region, Los Angeles, California, 6 years

Name: Arthur E. Tower

Job Title: Environmental Coordinator, BLM, Arizona State Office

Education: B.S., Forest Management, University of Montana

Experience: Area Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas District, Nevada, 4 years
Branch of Training, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., 4 years
Environmental Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office,
Phoenix, Arizona, 3 years

Name: H. Lance Vanderzyl

Job Title: Mineral Specialist, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.A., Geology, Simpson College

Experience: Engineering Department, private industry, 5V2 years

Staff Member, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Spokane, Washington, 1 year

Mineral Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona, 3 years

6-3

Name: Jill E. Welch

Job Title: Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM, Yuma District Office

Education: B.S., Outdoor Recreation, Arizona State University

Experience: Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office,
Phoenix, Arizona, 2 years
Outdoor Recreation Planner, Bureau of Land Management, Yuma District, Arizona,
1 year

Name: Marvin Weiss

Job Title: Regional Economist, BLM, Arizona State Office

Education: B.S., Agronomy, University of Wyoming

42 semester hours of graduate study in economics at University of Colorado and Uni-
versity of Wyoming

Experience: Agricultural Economist, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 7 years
Regional Economist, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, 8 years
Regional Economist, Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, Phoenix,
Arizona, 3 years

REVIEWERS AND
CONTRIBUTORS

Department of the Interior

John Farreii, Chief, Land Management Staff,

Office of Environmental Project Review,

Washington, D.C.
Patricia S. Port, Regional Environmental Officer,

San Francisco, California
Lillian K. Stone, Chief, Energy Facilities Staff,

Office of Environmental Project Review,

Washington, D.C.

Bureau of Land Management

Julian Anderson, Range Conservationist, Phoe-
nix, Arizona
James Atkins, Wilderness Coordinator, Yuma,

Arizona
H. Max Bruce, District Manager, Yuma, Arizona
Hilton Cass, Geologist, Phoenix, Arizona
Leslie Cone, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Phoe-
nix, Arizona
Jim Crisp, Realty Specialist, Phoenix, Arizona
Ted Dingman, Outdoor Recreation Planner,

Phoenix, Arizona
Malcolm Johnson, Realty Specialist, Phoenix,

Arizona
Bruce Jones, Wildlife Biologist, Phoenix, Arizona
Chris Kincaid, Archaeologist, Phoenix, Arizona

Olive Kincaid, Wilderness Coordinator, Phoenix,

Arizona
Mitch Linne, Geologist, Kingman, Arizona
Collis Lovely, Hydrologist, Phoenix, Arizona
Kenneth Reinert, Chief, Planning Coordination

Staff, Phoenix, Arizona
Robert Scherer, Realty Specialist, Washington,

D.C.
Robert Steele, Area Manager, Lake Havasu City,

Arizona
Richard Taylor, Natural Resource Specialist,

Washington, D.C.
Roger Taylor, Area Manager, Kingman, Arizona
Gary Tucker, Soil Scientist, Phoenix, Arizona

Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Claude F. Cook, Chief, Radar Automation Divi-
sion, Washington, D.C.

Robert F. Eisengrein, Office of Chief Counsel,
Washington, D. C.

Thomas A. Ferguson, Civil Engineer, Western
Region, Los Angeles, California

Stuart Halsey, Controller, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia

Robert Klose, Chief, En Route Radar Branch,
Washington, D.C.

Wallace Landford, Realty Specialist, Western
Region, Los Angeles, California

6-4

APPENDIX 1

FIELD INTERVIEWS

During February and March 1979 a BLM
social scientist conducted 77 field interviews
pertaining to the proposed action and the alter-
native. Averaging 30 minutes, these interviews
were held in Mohave County, Arizona (Lake
Havasu City, Kingman, Chloride), Maricopa
County, Arizona (Wickenburg, Aguila, Gladden,
Phoenix), Yuma County, Arizona (Parker), and on
the Chemehuevi and Fort Mohave Indian Reser-
vations. Being informal, unstructured, and open-
ended, these interviews involved no question-
naires.

Although the interviewer did not employ a for-
malized statistically valid representative sample,
he attempted to obtain viewpoints and ideas
from various segments of the residents of Lake
Havasu City, Chloride, Aguila, and the Indian res-
ervations.

Approximately half of the interviews (37) were
held with citizens at large. The other half (40) in-
volved discussions with agency and organization
representatives. A list of the agencies and orga-
nizations follows.

LISTING OF AGENCY/
ORGANIZATIONAL PERSONNEL
CONTACTED

1. Federal Government:

BIA Area Office, Phoenix
BIA Agency Office, Parker

Indian Reservation Tribal Council Members:

Fort Mohave, Needles, California
Colorado River Indian Tribes, Parker
Chemehuevi, Lake Havasu Landing, Call
fornia

3. State Government:

Mohave County Planning Department
Maricopa County Planning Department

4. County/Local Government:

Mohave County Manager's Office

Mohave County Museum

Colorado River Indian Tribal Museum

Lake Havasu City Library

Kingman Library

Maricopa County Library

Wickenburg City Manager's Office

Lake Havasu City Chamber of Commerce

Lake Havasu City Airport Operations

5. Other:

Newspapers (Lake Havasu City)
Business Proprietors (Lake Havasu City,
Wickenburg, Aguila, and Chloride)

A-1

APPENDIX 2

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION HAZARDS

The ARSR-3 generates nonionizing radiation
(nonionizing radiation is the less energetic form
of radiation and lies in the 10^ to 10^^ wave-
length portion of the electromagnetic spectrum).
The United States standard USAS C 95.1 - 1766,
entitled "Safety Level of Electromagnetic Radia-
tion with Respect to Personnel" recommends a
safe level for whole body exposure not to exceed
10-milliwatts per-square-centimeter (10 mw/cm^)
averaged over any possible 1-hour period. This
standard is approved by the Department of the
Navy and the Institute of Electrical and Elec-
tronic Engineers (IEEE). FAA Handbook 3710.3
specifies 10 mw/cm^ as the maximum safe level
for personnel for an unlimited time. FAA con-
ducted tests on the radar on May 20, 1978, and
concluded that the 10 mw/cm^ power density

level is located at 200 feet from the center of the
antenna and on the main axis of the radar beam.

Power density levels measured on the deck
perimeter and on the outside catwalk were ap-
proximately 5 mw/cm^ at 6 feet above the deck.
The survey team did not locate any high levels
(710 mw/cm2) except in the vicinity of the sail
itself (ARSR-3 Electromagnetic Radiation Sur-
vey, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, FAA Academy,
April 10-11, 1978).

Design, construction, and security of the
ARSR-3 are such that there is no human access
within 200 feet of the main beam of the radar,
therefore, the question of excessive exposure is
not considered probable.

A-2

GLOSSARY

Bibliography

Beaudry, R., 1979. Wildlife Manager, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Lake Havasu City, Arizona. Personal communica-
tion.

Bureau of Land Management, 1979. Scoping Meetings for the
Grossman Peak Environmental Statement, Yuma, Arizona.

, 1978. Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Live-

stock Grazing Program Cerbat /Black Mountain Planning Units,
Phoenix, Arizona.

Cass, Hilton, 1979. Lower Gila Resource Area geologist, BLM,
Phoenix District. Personal communication.

Cultural Systems Research, Inc., 1978. Persistence and Power, A
Study of Native American Peoples in the Sonoran Desert and
The Devers-Palo Verde High Voltage Transmission Line. Report
prepared for Southern California Edison Company, Menlo
Park, California.

Fass, V. G., 1979. Director, Mohave County Planning and Zoning
Commission, Kingman, Arizona. Personal Communication.

Federal Aviation Administration Academy, 1978. ARSR-3 Electro-
magnetic Radiation Survey, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

Hanson, H. C.
Books.

1962. Dictionary of Ecology, New York: Bonanza

Kroeber, A. L., 1972. More Mohave Myths. Anthropological
Records, Volume 27, Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.

Kniffen, F. B., 1935. Walapai Ethnography. In Memoirs of the
American Anthropological Association, No. 42, ed. A. L.
Kroeber, p. 40-41.

Lowe, C. H., 1964. Arizona Natural Environment. Tucson, Arizo-
na: University of Arizona Press.

Lowe, C. H., and D. E. Brown, 1973. The Natural Vegetation
of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press.

Martin, S. C, 1973. Responses of semidesert grasses to seasonal
rest. Journal of Range Management, 26:165-170.

Miller, Glen, 1979. Field engineer. Arizona Department of Mineral
Resources, Phoenix, Arizona. Personal communication.

Range Term Glossary Committee, 1974. A Glossary of Terms Used
in Range Management. Denver, Colorado: Society for Range
Management.

Roth, George, 1976. Incorporation and Change in Ethnic Structure,
Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

Shelstad, Phillip A., 1979. Electronic Engineer, Federal Aviation
Administration, Los Angeles, California. Personal communica-
tion.

Smith, Austin, 1979. Federal Aviation Administration Frequency
Management, Los Angeles, California. Personal communica-
tion.

Soil Conservation Society of America, 1970. Resource Conservation
Glossary. Ankeny, Iowa.

Vogl, R. J., 1976. An Introduction to the Plant Communities of the
Santa Ana and San Jacinto Mountains. In Symposium Pro-
ceedings, Plant Communities of Southern California. California
Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 2, Berkeley,
California.

Weaver, R. K., 1979. Wildlife Specialist, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Planning and Evaluation Branch, Phoenix,
Arizona. Personal communication.

B-1

INDEX

Page

Access Routes

Aguila, Arizona

Air Route Surveillance Radar {ARSR-3)

Air Safety

Air Traffic Delays

Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center

Amphibians

Animals (Also see Wildlife)

Habitat Types

Threatened and Endangered

Archaeological Resources

Birds

Chloride, Arizona

Climate

Construction

Costs

Impacts

Cultural Resources

Desert Bighorn Sheep

Desert Tortoise

Electromagnetic Radiation Hazards

Emergency Support

Energy Requirements

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Field Interviews

Geology

Gilbert Skink

Gladden, Arizona

Harquahala Observatory

Historical Resources

Kingman, Arizona

Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

Bureau of Land Management

Conflicts

Mohave County, Arizona

Yuma County, Arizona

Livestock Grazing

Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center .

Maintenance and Operation of Site Costs

Military Air Missions

No.

4-1
1-3
1-1

5-27
3-1
4-14
4-13
4-14
4-14
4-27

4-13

4-1
4-1
5-21
5-21
5-21
4-27

4-13
4-14

A-2

1-2

5-24

5-33

A-1

5-2
4-14
5-21

4-27
4-27

5-21

4-1

4-28
4-28
4-28
4-28
4-28

4-1
3-1

5-22
5-27

Page No.

Mining 4-22

Mining Claims 4-22

Mitigating Measures 5-28

Mule Deer 4- 13

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 2-1

National Register of Historic Places 4-27

Native Americans 4-14

Chemehuevi 4-21

Hualapai 4-2 i

Hopi 4-21

Mohave 4-14

Yavapai 4-21

No-Action Alternative 3-15

Peregrine Falcon 4-14

Plants (Also see Vegetation Types) 4-27

Federal Threatened or Endangered 5-24

Key 4-2

State Protected 5-23

Predators 4-13

Public Meetings 2-1

Radar 5-23

Compatibility with Communication Facilities 5-23

Costs of Coverage 3-15

Sites Analyzed by FAA 3-8

Radio Reception 5-23

Recreation Resources 4-1

Reptiles 4-14

Rock Collecting 4-1

Scoping 2-1

Small Mammals 4-13

Soils 4-1

Television Reception 5-23

Vandalism 5-23

Vegetation Types 4-2

Visual Resources 4-21

Weather 5-27

Wickenburg, Arizona 5-21

Wild Burros 4-13

Wild Horses 4-13

Wilderness 4-21

Wildlife 4-13

0) la
■M o
(0 ft

-M
CO

cr>
^ (0

O
u
ft

C
O

N t3
-H rO
U U

Bureau of Land Management

Library

Denver Service Center

U Z

Q H

I -

U 1

TL 696 .R25

C767 1979

U. S. Bureau

of Land

Management.

Arizona State

Grossman Peak radar proposal

BLM LIBRARY

,,^,,';1S150ABLDG.50

DENVbR FEDERAL CENTER

P.O. BOX 25047

DENVER, CO 80225