Skip to main content

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-.-::. 



TL 

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 ^ ) 



/r 



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 






^6 



>ts?>° 



^^ 



■^ 



Sincerely, 




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



>\ 



J 



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. 



11 



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 



VI 



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 



IX 



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 



XI 



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 



:><*'-' 




o 

CO 

E 
o 

JO 

O 

o 

00 

_c 

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 


AT 


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 




O 

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 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-^ 




























































/ 


•^ 






\ 


\ 














' 












































/ 










\ 






























































(i 






, 


























































V 










/ 




















































/i 


VrT^ 


F 


1- 


^=F 




h 


-A 


4 


















































V 


r//>/7 






\ 


/ 


\ 


/ 




^•ii 


















































r/^ 


rrrr^''' 




'A 










\ 


^^■; 




































/ 






\^ 


,^' 


N . 


y 












,\ff 


0^' 




/ 


/' 








a 


^A 




y\ 




^ 


\ 


2^1 






































\ 




V 


? 




V 




rrr^ 


V' 














« 


\ 


y* 




^ 


-^ 


■.^.' 


;-^ 






































^ 




r/' 


/'' 


















\ 


L- 






rSiSiw; 






1 




3) 








(3) 








® [^ 


(D 












fff' 


^v 






















ly. 


'y'J 


'>V> 


V>V 


^ 


" ^^^ 'y-y^. 


'^yy'^ 


v^^ 


^ 


" '""'^ 


V>^-^ 


>w 


XxVr 


-^^^ 


^ 


^ 






































































"y^ 


K 


^^> 




















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 



Vf 



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 



I 

r-i I I 



1 



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 



I 



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 



u 

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 

o 



4-1 

•H 



o 

-H CO 
CO P-i 

c o 

<: 

0) 
M-l 



4-1 hJ 

o 

H 5-1 



bO 
ct3 
!-i 

> 

o 



CO 

d 
o 
o 

OJ 
CO 






CO 
C 
O 

•H 
4J 
•H 



i-4 
CO 

6 

P-i 



TJ) CO 4J 



3 4:^ 

cr &c 

CO -H 

^-^ CO 

I 

o 
I 

0) 






OJ 



00 






CM 









r^ 





CM 


CM 


<r 


<-{ 


iH 


CM 



CN 

CO 



CO 



00 
in 



CM 


Ol 


00 


00 


00 


00 



00 






CO 

m 











Q) 
















> 










TJ 






•H 










(1) 






4-» 










S-i 






CO 








a: 


)-l 




^ 


d 








CO 


(U 




CO 


!-i 






CO 


0) 


M-i 




01 


(U 




CO 


rH 


p^ 


CD 




p^ 


4-1 




d 


CO 




J-i 






.H 




1— i 


X 


c 


P-i 


CO 


c 


<1 


cn 


CM 


CO 


CO 




CO 


CO 




en 




3 


e 


x: 


0) 


e 


^ 


cu 


g 


cr 


m 


4-1 


CJ 


CO 


4J 


CJ 


3 


u 


en 


•H 


CJ 


Cfl 


•H 





!-i 


CO 





5 


<; 





S 


<; 


cu 


ix; 


S-i 






(-1 






x: 











u 
















CO 










X 










CO 




• 






3 




CO 






CJ- 




cu 






5-1 




> 






CO 




•H 






PC 




tH 




. 


0) 




5-1 




CO 


4=: 




CU 




d 


4-1 




60 


• 









d 


a. 


•H 


14-1 







d 


4-1 

CO 







iH 


-a 


> 


cx 




Td 


c 


OJ 


CO 




CO 


d 


,-{ 


1— 1 




^ 





CU 


5-1 






u 




CU 




0) 


(50 T3 


> 




> 




<u 







CO 


0) 


M 






X 


^ 


•H 


5-1 






4-1 


CO 
CU 







CO 

(U 


e 


T3 


0) 




4-1 







60 




•H 


S-i 


01 


CO 




CO 


M-I 


4:: 


5-1 








4-1 


CU 




>^ 


d 




> 




d 


di 


4-1 







CO 


cu 


CO 







g 


CO 












T3 


4-1 




^ 


OJ 


CU 


d 




60 


x 


5-1 


cu 




d 




CU 


CO 







d 


> 


(U 




X 


CO 





5-1 




4-J 


u 


CJ 


a 




rH 
CO 


4-1 


CO 


m 






CO 


CU 







#* 


x: 


5-1 






T3 


4-1 


CO 


ex 
CO 




cu 

CO 


OJ) 


^ 


rH 




d 


d 


CU 


5-1 






•H 


d 


CU 




(0 


j:: 




> 




•H 


4-1 


Qi 









>^ ^ 






CO 


5-1 


4-1 


CO 




5-1 


OJ 




cu 




CO 


> 


CO 


> 




CU 


(U 


cu 


rH 






>. 


CO 


d 


> 







<u 


iH 


d 




CM 


T3 


U 


•H 






d 


d 






M-( 


^ 


•H 


0) 












60 


• 




d 


0) 


CO 


CO 


CU 


•H 


60 


5-1 


Q) 


y-i 




CO 


CU 


4-1 


•iH 


4-J 


5-1 


> 


•r4 


iH 


^ 


<U 





CO 




60 


> 


CJ 




T3 


•H 







e 


0) 


CO 





>^ 


d 


4-1 


1 




5-1 


5-1 





14-1 


>> 


CO 


CU 


OJ 





5-1 


T3 


^ 


a, 


1 


CO 


d 


u 


X 


Q) 


e 







<D 


d 


•H 





-0 




•H 


5-1 


OJ 


d 


d 



hJ P-i en CO <! 



.h|cnj|co| ^rl 



S 
CO 

OJ 
H 



a 

5-1 

d 
o 

CO 



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 



1 










OJ 




O 










QJ 




O 




4-J 






M 




3 


c 


c 


QJ 




u 






01 


0) 


s: 


«^ 






d 


D. 


a 


4-1 


1-1 


en 




o 


O 


0) 




0) 


3 




>, 




ed 


T3 


^ 


43 




C 






0) 


o 


UJ 




•H 


• 




o 


o 


O 




c 
1 


CO 


S-i 


T3 


o 


>-> 




^1 


r~~ 


QJ 


0) 


c 


01 




01 


c^ 


O- 


t-i 


o 


^ 




a- 


M 


•H 






4J 




■H 




c 


>, 


UJ 






C 


•^ 


p 


.— 1 


>-■ 


a 




3 


C 


■I"! 


-u 


3 


•H 




•f~) 


3 




C 


u 


^ 






o 


o 


n) 


o 


■U 




c 


^ 


z 


o 


o 


•H 




•H 


m 




■H 




3 




J2 






U-J 








-t-J 


T3 


• 


•H 


• 


M 




•H 


c 


T3 


C 


cd 


QJ 




3 


rt 


c 


00 


QJ 


a. 








(0 


■H 


U 


o 




13 


QJ 


■-I 


Ul 


OJ 


i-H 




0) 


3 


•a 






m 


. 


•H 


o 


o 


en 


•o 




T3 


U-) 


hJ 


o 


n) 


c 


M 


c 


■H 


^^ 


3 


j:: 


to 


OJ 


CO 


m 








M 


4-1 


tH 


w 


T3 


QJ 


c 


•a 


m 


T3 


cfl 


c 


C 


M 


o 


•rH 


O 


i-H 


n) 


•H 


D 


o 


o 


O 


U 


i-H 


D-Xl 


3 


e 


3 





0) 


>-■ 








u 


3 


cn 






QJ 


O 


CO 






w 


CJ 


j= 




4-1 


u 


o 






M 


cd 




0) 




QJ 


o 


o 


CU 




cn 


CO 


cn 


>. 




QJ 




rH 


H 




Q 




nj 






QJ 


^ 


cd 


. 




> 


rn 


C 


QJ 




rt 


r~- 


■H 


1:1. 




^ 


C3^ 


^ 


P^ 


• 


o 


rH 


O 


4-1 


>~, 


S 




c 




u 




* 




c 


•H 


QJ 


C 


•o 





cn 


S^ 


3 


c 


■H 


1-1 


AJ 


o 


CO 


4-1 


QJ 




u 




CO 


> 


l+H 


PQ 


». 


4-1 


•H 


o 




QJ 


QJ 


T3 




•o 


> 


bD 




QJ 


C 


CO 


QJ 


cn 


> 


cfl 


M 


> 


D 


■H 




CO 




•H 


4-1 


QJ 




cn 





« 


3 


•V 


•H 


QJ 


AJ 


o 


^ 


J3 


O, 


C 


hJ 


CO 


4-1 


cn 


QJ 


^^ 


o 






cn 






G 


Xi 


QJ 


X3 


»« 


•H 


00 


u 


3 


QJ 


x; 


•H 


a. 


^4 


C 


4-1 


x: 


QJ 


O 


•H 


•H 




Pi 


U) 


O. 


3 


CO 





1 

c 


cn 








^ 


00 


■H 


■H 


^ 


cn 


cn 


^ 


C 


IX x: 


cn 


QJ 


•H 


1^ 


H 




H 


4-1 


p- 




CT^ 


1-1 


QJ 




C 




QJ 


rH 


1-1 


X 




CO 


4-1 


C 




3 


4-1 


• 


-H 







*• 







QJ 


a 


C 


N 


M 





X) 


> 









00 





a 





C4-1 


•H 


cn 







CO 


JO 





4-1 


■H 


> 


QJ 




CO 




to 


x: 


■■— ' 


C 


3 




>> 


iJ 


H 










T3 


4-1 


0) 







t^ 


rH 


c 


QJ 


00 




M 




0) 


CO 


•H 


QJ 


• 


.-1 


d 


X 


.-1 


IJ 


> 


01 


•H 







•a 


CO 




c 


4-1 


H 


c 





> 


e 








4-1 













N 





H 


■1-1 


3 


QJ 


ij 







CO 


4-1 




T3 


14H 


QJ 




C 


CO 


0) 


■H 




X 


>, 


CO 


4-1 


0) 


3 


cn 


4-1 


X 


S-i 


Q) 


1-1 




QJ 






4-1 


00 


4-1 


CO 


•H 


3 


3 




QJ 






u 








1-1 


> 


CO 


cn 


<U 


.-{ 


r-H 







3 


C 


G. 


01 


QJ 




QJ 


^ 


■H 


cn 


XI 


X 


Q) 


JZ 


cn 


CO 








c 


4-1 





4-1 


00 T3 


TJ 







I-) 


c 


C 


c 


QJ 


4-1 


c 







•H 


CO 


4-1 





Q) 


1-1 





T3 




•H 





QJ 







3 


QJ 


e 


Qi 


3 




QJ 


.-1 


> 


•H 




4-1 


C 


c 


CJ 





iH 


C 


QJ 








C 


x> 


QJ 


< 


X 


P^ 


N 


■H 


CO 


T3 



CM 
T3 











C 


c 


CO 


+c . E 


CO 


CO 


.H 


rH 





0) 


CO 


^ 


■H 


00 


.H 


QJ 


4-1 


G 


.-H 


C 


CO 





QJ 


>. 


•H 


4-1 


1-1 




X 


-Q 


CO 





cn 


0. 


1-1 


X 


■-I 


3 





3 





X 


01 


a 


4-1 


M 





1-1 





■H 


0) 


e 


CO 


1-1 


CO 







3 


4-1 


■H 





cn 


u 


4J 


C 


3 


1-1 


cn 


c 


•H 


C 


01 


3 


3 


x: 


H 


3 


X 


O. 


u 


PH 


CD- 


oi 





W 

















•H 




•H 




e 


c 




3 


a 


* 


4-1 


CO 


CO 


CO 


-X . e 


fX 


^ 


CO 


CO 


^ 


M 


•X cn 


3 


X 


Cl 


QJ 


CO 


CO 


■H 





4-1 


•H 


00 





•H 


cn 


cn 


■rH 


C 


4-1 


c 





^ 


3 


•H 


C 





CO 





01 


X 





T3 


■r-l 


01 


cn 


a 


IJ 


i-i 


•4-1 


■H 


00 


> 


CO 








CO 


c 


■H 


1-1 


00 


CO 


M-( 


i-i 


I-H 


3 


CO 


> 


■H 


QJ 


x: 


, 


X 


QJ 


CJ 


Q) 


> 


u 





E 


X 





1-1 


CO 


1-1 


00 


g 


3 


: 01 




X 


CO 


_ c 


CO 


CO 


CJ 


CO 


IJ 


CO 


CO 





■H 


•H 





■M 


CO 


-a 


■H 


•M 


00 


4-1 


4-1 


C 


4-1 





Q) 


U 


> 








C 


■H 


d 


a 


X 


CO 


rM 


-H 


a 


3 


X 


3 


3 


0, 





CO 


1-1 


CO 


Q. 


U 


Q. 


p« 


w 


< 


cyj 


w 


u 





W 






01 














>^ 










c 










•H 










D. 


^ 






cn 

3 


X) 


CO 






4-1 


Q) 







1-1 





> 






CO 


CO 


CO 


Q) 


X 


01 





QJ 


> 


cn 


a, 




rH 


•H 


3 


1 


00 


1 


.-( 


X> 


0) 





QJ 






^ 


X 


^ 


X 


3 


to 


01 


00 


3 


CO 





00 


d 


1-1 


3 


d 


•0 


■H 


X 


CT 


CO 


01 


C/J 


cn 


CO 


Pm 


P3 





u 






0) 










•H 






X 










CM 






3 






en CO 




4-1 













3 rH 




d 






3 






■U f-H 




■H 






X 




IH 


CJ 


0) 







QJ 






CO 


CO X 


QJ 


■T— ) 




00 


CO 




QJ 





1-1 






CO 


•H 




Cu 




4-1 


d 




cn 


d 




1 


00 d 




•H 


3 




i-i 


CO 


QJ 


1-1 


CO 


CO 


CO 


QJ 





-rH 


^ 


X 


3 


4-1 


.H 


> 


U-i 


4-1 


CO 


QJ X 


X 


d 


U 


CO 


•H 





CJ 


00 /<i 


cn 


3 


4-1 


X 


I-H 


d 


d 


13 








CO 





CO 


CO 


CO 


0) 3 


1-) 




CJ> 


s 


CJ> 


u 


Ph 


32 pq 



d CO 









Ij 





CO d 






X 


CO 


CO 


rH -rH 




CO 


a 


QJ 





tx^ 




OJ 




0. 









4-1 


d 


1 


00 


>. d 


CO 




1-1 


QJ 





1-1 


■H 


d 





.^^ 


X 


3 >. 


4-1 





X 


CO 


QJ 


4-1 1-4 





e 


^ 


CJ 


00 


d vi 


d 


u 





d 


13 


QJ CO 


CO 





3 


CO 


QJ 



CJ PL, CJ 2 pa pL, n: 



CO 

CO b-i 
OJ 

pi. rH 
>. 

H 4-) 

d 

o 
d 
o 

to IH 
4-1 -rl 

01 > 

00 d 

OJ w 
> 





•rH 


>> 






cn 






d 








cn 




3 


4-J 






0) 






CO 


d 






QJ 


cn 




•H 






X 















X 


-0 .-H 


P-^ 


CJ 






CJ 






cn 


>^ 






a 


d -rl 


rH 


CO 






d 






Q) 


d 






d 


CO 


rH 


PI- 




. 


■H 






Cl, 


•H 




• 


•H 


C/2 


QJ 


CO 




4-t 











Pl- 




4-1 




1 


> 







QJ 


lO 


. 




rH 






QJ 


in 


X 


to 






QJ 


rH 


IH 




cn 







QJ 


rH 


•u • 


IH 


0) 




UH 


1 


01 






4-J 




MH 


1 


i-i cn 


00 rH 






vX 


4-1 




T) 








^ 


QJ 




4J 









d 




QJ 


IH 









d px 


IH 


4-1 









•H 




d 


CO 







• • 








■H 


. 





d 


3 


a 


•H 


rH 




i-t 


d 


IJ rH 




rH 


d 


•t 









CO 


•H 




^ 





QJ CO 


>^ 







LO 


•H 


d 


<^ 


1-1 


e 




in 


•H 


X 


^ 


-a 


•H 


1 


4-1 


•H 


^ 


XI 


•H 




1 


4-1 


00 00 


u 


d 


4-1 





to 




P3 


1 


cn 







to 


•H d 





to 


d 





4-1 


3 





rH 









4-1 


X -H 


IH 




OJ 


00 


•H 








rH 


cn 




<r 


•H 







Q) 


u 


•1 


O- 


d 


5 


QJ 


rH 




*• 


0. 


0) CO 


^ 


00 


OJ 


<!■ 


•rl 


CO 




3 


•H 




-* 


•H 


X MH 


3 


CO 


IH 









W 














U 1 





d 




-> 


QJ 


rH 


w 


d 


CO 






QJ 


4-1 


rH 


•H 


IH 


d 


M 


to 


Prf 







• 


d 


IH 


cn cn 


rH 


CO 


OJ 





PL 


d 


H 






XI 





Cl, 


01 CO 


to 


IH 


4-1 


•rH 









4-1 


• 


d 


•H 




■H QJ 


X 


-a 


CO 


4-1 


rH 


•H 


< 


d 


cn 


to 


4-1 


rH 


a, X 


cn 




3 


CO 


to 


cn 





0) 


0) 


rH 


to 


CO 


3 4-1 




■V 




> 


3 


CO 


ffi 


cn 


00 13 


> 


3 


IH 


QJ 





IH 


01 


d 





CO 


01 


T3 





QJ 


d 





IH 








rH 


d 








I-I 


•H 





<-< 


d 


d 


to 


00 MH 


w 


<C 





•-) 


PM 


U 


3 


W 


<; 



ca 

x: 







0) 01 







CO 


PI, QJ 


rH 




3 


i+H 


1 




X 


rH 


-^J- 


w 


cn 


CO 




z 













1-1 


>, u~i 


d 


N) 




r-i « 







Q) 


rH <r 


•H 


3 


X 


0) 1 


4-1 





4-1 


> 


CO 


hH 




to 


4-1 


H 


3 


iH ^ 


•H 


M 





00 - 


0. 


CO 


•-i 


<r 


•H 


25 


01 


d 





<2 


X 


•• 


QJ 


PH 




d 


IH 


H 


XI 


X) 


PL 




QJ 


d -H 




H 


4-1 


CO 4-1 


rH 


a; 


to 


rH CO 


CO 


w 


3 


•o > 


3 


CO 


-u 


0) 


d 


w 


-H 


rH 


d 


ca 


CO 


3 W 


< 



4-2 



a 
<u 

a 

CO 



-t-J 




0) 


r~i 


. 


G 




x: 


r^ 


>-, 


0) 


>^ 


4-1 


<y\ 


4J 


•H 


OJ 




■— 1 


•H 


00^ 


14-4 




C/1 






o 


•> 


C 


0) 


0) 




C 


(U 


- 


> 


m 


S 


-d 


(fl 


■H 


V4 


o 




c 


Uh 


o 


SJ 


3 


O 




4-1 


m 


o 


N 


4-1 


(0 




.H 


•H 


tn 


o 


T3 




M 


M 


•H 


c 


P>~, 


< 


•H 


•O 


tfl 


M 




14H 


c 




01 


14-1 




•H 


0) 


> 


o 


OJ 




U 






g 


01 


o 


c 


4-1 


U 


hJ 


•H 


u 




cfl 






m 








4-1 


Cu 


• 


■a 


X) 


c 




4-4 


D 


c 


(U 


tn 


u 


4-1 


m 


cn 


■H 


0) 


U) 


rH 


CLI 




cn 


•H 


n. 


>-i 


0) 


QJ 


^ 


3 


D. 


a. -o 








>, 




cn 


CD 


OJ 


4-1 


W 


OJ 


c 


U 




3 


•H 


o 


cfl 


cn 


4J 


O 


N 




■H 


o 


0) 


■H 


T) 


tC 


to 


[X 


>-l 


C 


P 


o 


cn 


<: 


t8 







r. 






cu 








<u 


0) 




p. 








> 


G 


tu 


o. 




cn 




tfl 


o 


x: 


3 




cu 




tlO 


SI 


4-1 






•H 




< 






cu 




rH 


0) 




C 


* 


x: 






c 




O 


4J 


4J 




0) 


o 


• 


•H 


V4 






c 


i^j 


0) 


4-) 


CU 


0) 




o 




M 


•fH 


cn 


> 




N 


o 


3 


cn 


a) 


o 






u 


cn 


C 


Q 


X 


• 


cn 


tfl 


o 


tfl 




tfl 


X 


•H 


3 


a 


M 


OJ 




CD 


g 


60 


X 


4-1 


> 


4H 


3 


to 


<u 




tfl 


cn 


X 




cn 




til 


x: 


3 






1 


c 


J= 


o 


•r-i 


cu 


• 


li 


•H 


4-1 


S 




4-1 


cn 


X) 








cn 


o 


cu 


u 


CD 


B 


OJ 


0) 


cn 


4J 


0) 


tjO 


o 


X 


■H 


o 


tfl 


> 


c 


M 


4-1 


rH 


0) 


c 




tfl 


tM 






>-l 


•H 


o 


x; 




c 


OJ 


tJ 


B 


rH 


U 


^ 


M 


c 




o 


to 




tfl 




O 


OJ 


X) 


Ou 


to 


o 


, 


1^1 


X 

4J 


XI 


01 


t4-l 


X) 


0) 


X 




cn 


x: 


o 


c 


)-l 


cn 


U-l 


3 


4-1 




tfl 


tu 


3 


o 


U 




ai 




X 


1-1 




J3 


C 


cn 


to 




X 


cn 


^ 


•iH 


3 


c 


Vj 


^ 


4J 


o 


x; 


to 


•H 


3 


o 


•H 


tfl 


4-1 


tJ 


rH 


tJ 


tfl 


e 


rH 


•H 


0) 


O 


u 


r-i 


■H 


CQ 


s 


XI 


c 


o 


Xi 


rH 



o 
(J 



T3 

cu 











* 








E 


* 


-i« , 3 


* cn 


cn 


rH 


tfl 


CU 


-K C 


rH 


a 


XI 


tfl 


•K '11 


>. 


u 


■K O 


(U 


■H 


XI 


X 


as 


cn 


X 


4J 


■H 


a 


tfl 


o. 


U 


■H 


4-1 


c 


> 


0) 


cn 


o 


O 


1-1 


c 


tfl 


O 


rH 


o 


u 


r" 


tfl 


tfl 


00 


rH 


a 


c 


o 


4-1 


rH 


o 


■H 


CU 


cn 


•H 


•H 


c 


•H 


tfl 


00 


00 


1^ 


e 


tfl 


cn 




•H 


tfl 


tfl 


o 


to 


cn 


tfl 


X 


•H 


U-) 


B 


tfl 


X 


3 


CU 


u 


3 


4-) 


•H 


tfl 


01 


tfl 


•H 


cfl 


tfl 


a 


OO 


•H 


•H 


•H 


X) 


•H 


•H 


cfl 


(U 


4-1 


3 


^ 


■H 


4-1 


4-1 


o 


a 


C 


00 


tu 


CJ 


C 


C 


o 


^4 


3 


3 


O 


>-l 


3 


3 


1-1 


tfl 


a 


O 


c 


OJ 


CX 


cu 


cu 


(J 


o 


fe 


w 


u 


O 


O 


U-, 





tfl 










■K 




■H 


•H 




rH 


•H 




O 


C 




tfl 


t4-l 


•K C 




e 


■H 


tfl 


to 




•H 


4-1 


1:4- 


■K 6 




cn 


u 


1-1 


tfl 


rH 


•K 


cn 


o 


tfl 


cn 


tfl 





OJ 


cn 


■H 


4J 


4-1 


■r4 


CJ 


•rl 


00 


•H 


CO 


tfl 


cn 





U 


C 


1-1 


O 


tfl 


4-1 


C 


X 





01 


tfl 


e 


1-1 


C 


0) 


4-1 


1-1 


7—i 


to 


(U 


01 


> 


C 





cn 


■H 


1-1 


X 


X) 


tfl 


to 


rH 


3 


cn 


w 


•H 


X 


CJ 


X 


cu 


tfl 


QJ 


d 


V4 





tfl 





1-1 


X 


c 


tfl 


4J 


B 


: 0) 




>^ 


u 


to 


tfl 


CJ 


tfl 


0£ 


cu 


tfl 


tfl 


■H 


•H 





■H 


O 


tfl 


01 


■H 


4-1 


4-1 


C 


4-1 


tu 


X 


u 


> 


C 


c 


•H 


c 


rH 


CJ 


u 


rH 


3 


3 


x: 


3 


o 


tfl 


tfl 


tfl 


a 


(X 


u 


tx 


u 


S 


kJ 


CO 








w 












0) 




























•a 






















to 






M 






















rH 






0) 






















^ 






> 


to 












to 




cn 













rH 












rH 




3 




X 









rH 




CO 








rH 




4-1 











rH 







3 




1-1 







1-1 











X 


tfl 


X 




4J 




cu 




01 X 


to 


CO 




u 




cn 


0. 





rH 


CJ 


X 


4-1 




00 


01 





rH 


a) 




3 






■H 


tfl 


CO 


cn 




to 


0. 




•H 


0) 





X 


•-I 


G 


to 





3 


cfl 


01 


cn a 


1 


00 


CO 


XI 


rH 


cu 


rH 


^4 


4J 




!-i 




4-1 


u 


<u 





4-1 


S-1 


rH 


rH 


•H 





^4 


f-t 


X 


4-1 





o> 


^ 


X 


U 


tfl >^ 


■r( 


4-1 


X 


X 


0) 


CU 


-^^ 


u 


CO 


> X 


tfl 


0) 


0) 


3 -0 


4-1 


4-1 


4-1 


.^ 


> 


1-1 


CJ 


01 





to ^ 


a 


00 


> 


00 XI 





■rl 





CJ 


to 


IJ 


tfl 


CO 


cu 


X 


c 


ta 


to 


as cu 





1-1 





3 


(U 


to 


rH 


0) 


u 


3 


tfl 


0) 


01 


cn H 





M 


P-, 


pa 


pa 


pa 


oa 


Q 


u 


S pa 


0-1 


X 


pa 



o 



tfl 
cn U-i 

0) 

o. 1 

>> to 

H 
C 
0) 

e 
c 
o 
1-1 



00 c 

O) w 

> 



o 

CJ 

<d 

CO 

I 

w 

Q 

P!J 

w 
> 

o 

rJ 

<c 

PLl 



4-1 


-a 






. 


•H 


OJ 


XI 




CO 


3 


C 


C 




0) 




•H 


to 




X 


0) 


to 









D. 


1-1 


•• 


■ 


c 





X) 


4-1 


4-1 


•H 


rH 


1 


OJ 


01 




cn 


r-t 


0) 


tu 


00 




rH 


MH 


CM 


1 


00 


0) 






<f 


C 


IS 










•H 










• • 





» 





rH 


a 


to 


>^ 


«« 


«. 





M-l 
1 


rH 
rH 


1 


1 


•H 
4J 


X 


01 








tfl 


4-1 


> 








4-1 


3 


to 





a\ 


•H 





1-1 


r. 


•s 


(X 


cn 


00 


01 


ro 


•H 



to 


* 


• • 




CU 




3 


c 




1-1 


cn 










(X 


0) 


rH 


■r-l 






•H 


rH 


4-1 




rH 


ex 


tfl 


• to 




tfl 


3 


X 


rH > 




3 


CJ 


cn 


•H OJ 




C 







rH 




C 





tfl 


cn w 




< 





0) 






cn 




p- 


• 




OJ 







rH 




X 




rH 


•H 









cn 





• 


G 






cn 


4-1 


■H 




00 




0) 






C 


>i 


OJ 







•H 


rH 


I4-I 


1 







rH 




n 




tfl 


0) 









t4-l 


> 





•• 




1 


CO 


^ 


d 




X 


1-1 


#• 







4-1 


00 <r 


•H 




1-1 




1 


4J 







f 





CO 




c 


T3 





4J 






0) 





■H 




CO 


c 




CX 






•H 


n 


■H 




c 


tfl 







K 





14 


■ • 


CU 


C/2 




XI 


d 


M 


tD 


XI 


1 





(X 


PtJ 


OJ 


,-i 


•H 




s 


4-1 


^ 


4-1 


rH 


tfl 


01 


tfl 


tfl 


u 


3 


3 


> 


3 


< 


4-1 




OJ 


d 


rJ 


•H 


C 


r-i 


d 


pa 


C/2 


■H 


W 


< 



■ra 
tu 

4-1 

a 

0) 
•M 
O 

P. 

<li 

C3 
O 
N 

•H 
tH 

<C 



4-3 





U 




U 


,-— V 


U 


u 


< 


C 


W 


o 


> 


u 


M 




H 




<: 


.-H 

1 


§ 


-* 


W 




H 


w 


J 


-1 


< 


^ 


X 


H 


H 



H 4-1 

a 



<u > 

> 



n) 



























-o 




1 


1 








OJ 


o 








>. 
















4-1 






d 




<u 


OJ 




1 


•* 


X 


01 








>-i 






1 










tfl 






03 




1-1 


oo 




OJ 


en 


4-1 


e4H 


OJ 






oj 






OJ 










X 




e 


rH 




o. 


0) 




4-1 


u 






X 






e 


S 




r-l 










iJ 




o 


TD 


1 




> 




OJ 


1-1 


T3 


,-^ 


4-1 






•H 


o 




01 




T3 


OJ 


d 






u 





OJ 


eu m 






OO 


OJ 


d 


0) 






T3 


M 


>-l 


u 






03 


X 


o 


U-l 




MH 


O 


T3 


4-1 •H 


o 




OJ 


en 


OJ 


"O 


Mh 




C 


a 


iJ 


0) 


u 




0) 


4-1 


•rH 


o 






3 


1-1 


•H 


1-1 




> 


OJ 




1-1 


O 




C rt 




cfl 


4J 


01 




1-1 




4-1 






en 




01 


en .-V 


03 






T3 


^--^ 


0) 






O 


OJ 


C 


0) 


X 




Q. ^^ 


3 


4-1 




01 


01 


> 


O OJ 


3 




4-1 




OJ 


> 


en 




>% 1 


g 




•H 


M 




eJl 


o 


X 


d 




•H 


OJ 




a. o. 


00 




OJ 


1-1 


OJ 




01 




c x: 


QJ 


O 


•H 








•H 


0) 




a 


1-1 


o 


D. o 


03 




X 


O 


1-1 


o 


T3 




•H -U 




r" 


e 


X 




en 


en 


iH 


4-1 




OJ 


4J 


^ 


O ,H 


en 




4-1 




4-1 


r-t 


•H 




O- U 




4-1 








•H 


0) 


iJ 


X 




D. 




03 


en 


1 






OJ 




03 


en 




O 


• 




" 


en 






OJ 


en 


01 




en 


03 


P. 


01 


OJ 




d 


e 


03 


CM 






C G 


(fl 


c 


u 


■H 




-a 


M 


•H 








3 


•^^ 


X oo T3 




•H 




3 


1 


OJ 




0) 


0) 


•H 


01 


X 


• 


d 


03 


T3 


OJ 




OJ 






H d 


IH 






o 


X 


O 


4-1 




tX dJ 


o. 




M 


4J 


01 


0) 






X 




M 


"en 


4-1 


•H 


0) 




OJ 


3 


en 


u 


•H 




o j:: 


o 


cn 


o 




ex 


rH 


XI 


en 


4-1 




OJ 


o 


1-1 


a 


> 




3 


4-1 


o 


03 


en 




4-J 


M 


4-1 


o 


en 


>. 


T3 


QJ 


4-1 






X 


n 


OJ 


• 03 






er 




■-J 


3 


o 




c 


en 


0) 


o 


4-1 


4-1 


O 


^-1 


•H 


en 




3 




en 


01 <4-l 


o 




•H 


00 




00 


a 




« c 




•H 




u 




O 


0) 




eu 








01 


T3 1 


M 




d 


d 




03 


CL 




o 


00 


X 


01 


o 


d 


3 


4-1 


T3 


4-1 




03 


4-1 


P 


03 4-1 


03 




3 


•H 


4-1 


(yi 


o 




d) 


d 


01 


.c 


a. 


o 




4-1 


d 


03 




OJ 


1-1 




ij en 


a 






N 


H 


v—^ 






p. M 


•H 




4-1 


D. 


■rH 


OJ 


03 


03 


o 




1-1 


OJ 


d 


oo 03 






en 


•H 


eil 




e 




>^ tJ 


O 


4-1 




3 


4-1 


OJ 


o 




•rH 




01 


en 


cd 


U OJ 


01 




•H 


IH 


en 


4-1 


o 




4-1 TO 


03 


n) 


OJ 


en 


03 


u 


en 


4-1 


-a 






OJ 


1-1 


OJ --^ 


X 






03 


OJ 


U 


1-1 




•H 


uh 


4-1 


1-1 




4-1 


4-1 




1-1 


d 




d 


Q 


o 


4J 


4-1 


• 


d 


4J 


Q 


01 


uh 




(fl X 


1 


■rH 


01 


4-1 


0) 




>> 


01 


•rH 




o 




d 


c ^ 




OJ 


o 


u 




en 






■H (U 


x: 


XI 


x: 


a 


00 


03 


tH 


en 






•H 


OJ 


o 


•H ,H 


>-, 


a. 


>. 


03 


0) 


01 


1-1 




,C 


4-1 


CO 


3 


01 


01 


3 


OJ 


OJ 


>^ 




4-1 


> 


en 


03 


i-H 


>, 


d 


IJ 


> 


Q 


0) 




4-1 X) 


P 


x: 




e 


> 


X 


T3 


Q 


.-1 




•H 


03 




^ 3 


4-1 


4-1 


03 


« 


03 




X 




c 


o 




en 


c 




CO 


■H 




rH 


• 


en 


X 


(U 


o 


d 




U 


X 


X 


d 


4-1 


■ 


c m 


in 


c 


OJ 


o 


d 


o 


3 


OJ 


03 


4-1 


d 


o 


X 


1-1 d 


OJ 


d 




u 


o 


03 


o 


d 


■H r-l 




o 


d 


M 


o 


■-) 




> 


u 


^-1 


03 


s 


4-1 


03 O 


d 


o 


O 






u 




o 


^ -a 


OJ 


>> 


■H 


•H 


-H 




1-1 


01 


OJ 


OJ 


ij 






3 >. 


•H 


•H 


M 


d 




o 


X 


>. 


u O 


E 


c 


> 


> 


4-1 


01 


OJ 


X 


d 


en 


4-1 


01 


-a 


OO d 


e 


4-1 


1-1 


o 


OJ 


d 


ej 


c. 


■H O 


o 


•H 


ra 


c 


OJ 


s 


> 


o 


OJ 


OJ 




X 


d 


0) 03 


O 


03 


3 


•H 


X 


o 


03 


03 


3 3 


en 


o. 


ij 


OJ 


> 


o 


2 


oo -o 


<c 


4-1 


03 


en o 


-a 


4-1 


pa 


4-1 


4-1 


C/i 


0) 


U 



00 03 
X 



00 e 



















Id 




1-1 














(U 




•rH 














x: 




4h 






03 




en 




3 




■U 






rH 




3 




u 




d 






t-H 




4-1 




3 




•rH 






O 


IH 


o 




X 


(U 


O 




OJ 


X 


03 


0) 






<u 


•r-) 




00 


o 


<U 


o 




OJ 


1-1 






OJ 




o. 






•H 


4-1 


d 




en 


a 


1 


oo 




d 




•H 


3 




M 


OJ 


o 


03 


1-1 


03 


03 


0) 


0) 


o 


-^ 


X 


•H 


o 


3 


4-1 


rH 


> 


X 


03 


OJ 


4-1 


UH 


X 


d 


O 


OJ 


^ 


a 


00 


o 


•H 


en 


3 


4-1 


X 


O 


d 


-a 


d 


iH 


o 


o 


03 


o 


3 


03 


OJ 


03 


OJ 


■-1 




l^ 


S 


m 


CL, 


a: 


o 


U 



13 






. 


d 


1 




en 


0) 


d 




01 




o 




X 


en 


>. 




a 


(U 


d 




d 


o. 


•H 


> 


•H 


o 


CI. 


4-1 




.H 




0) 


u-l 


en 


O 


0) 


rH 




4-J 


M-l 


1 


T3 






•vD 


OJ 


1-1 


o 




d 


OJ 


o 


•• 



u e 



rH 


en 




CO 


•H 


QJ 


rH 




«s 


O. 


3 


•H 

o 




n 


•H 
O 


d 


e/5 




.* 


OJ 


o 




■ 


d 


iJ 






X) 


o 


P- 


4-1 


• 


d 


•H 




d 


en 


03 


4-1 


rH 


01 


OJ 


rH 


03 


OJ 


en 


00 T3 


> 


3 


0) 


T3 


o 


OJ 


d 


ij 


•H 


O 


rH 


d 


(X 


1-1 


3 


W 


<C 









e 




d 


^< 




•K 3 


■K d 


en 




en 


rH 


03 


OJ 


OJ 




, d 


rH 


P. 


e 


-a 


•K 


(B 


QJ 


>. 


1-1 


r—\ 


o 


03 


■!< X 


-o 


X 


03 


01 


X 


OJ 


OJ 


4-1 


C 


p 


O 


OO 


4-1 


4-1 


•H 


d 


0) 


o 





d 


d 


d 


rH 


03 


^ 


V-i 


X 


OJ 


03 


03 


o 


o 


p. 


o 


4-1 


o 


oo 


en 


o 


enl 


•H 


d 


en 


03 


•H 


■H 


rH 


e 


03 


3 


ool 


> 


o 


03 


CJ 


OJ 


en 




01 




•H 


e 


OJ 


l-i 


3 


03 


S-i 


'" u 


3 


01 


4-1 


OJ 


X 


01 


QJ 


•H 


OJ 


O 


u 


•H 


•H 


•H 


T3 


•H 


o 


03 


00 


03 


4-1 


3 


•H 


4J 


d 


o 


OJ 


a 


o 


a* 


O 


d 


•H 


o 


d 


o 


d 


3 


Vj 


3 


X 


S-1 


1-1 


3 


OJ 


O 


OJ 


a 


o 


QJ 


0) 


>-i 


(_) 


u. 


o 


o 


w 


fc 


u 









<u 
















t) 
















v< 
















<u 
















> 


OJ 

rH 


en 
3 












o 


rH 


4J 


en 










rH 


o 


o 


3 




0) 






OJ 




0] 


4H 




<u 






P. 


o 


CJ 


O 




1-1 












03 




4-1 




o 


r-^ 


d 


00 


u 






01 


rH 


rH 


u 


o 




o 


OJ 


•H 


rH 


•H 


o 


X 


rH 


1-1 


3 


4-1 


•H 


X 


X 


QJ 


Q) 


0) 


X 


o 


■4J 


4J 


^ 


OO 


1-1 


3 


en 


d 


O 


O 


a 


-a 


1-1 


00 


o 


OJ 


tj 


o 


3 


OJ 


01 


03 


*-) 


a 


o 


fe 


pa 


re 


CQ 


W 



o 


. 




OJ 


rJ 


QJ 




X 


-1 


P. 




CJ 


M 


O 


• 


d 


H 


rH 


4-1 


•H 


O 


en 


OJ 




e_J 




QJ 


00 


O 


00 14-1 


1 


1 


d 




<r 


W 


•H 


O 




s 


03 


O 
00 


d 


w 


m 


" 


o 


> 


1 


m 


•H 




4-1 


1 


4-1 


o 


en 


o 


03 


rJ 


OJ 


o 


4-J 


< 


3 


^o 


•H 


eu 




•• 


P. 


1 


QJ 


CNI 


•H 


w 


X 




O 


w 


4-1 


• ■ 


01 


c<i 




d 


1-1 


H 


en 


o 


P. 




QJ 


•H 




< 


•H 


4-1 


.-{ 


p 


P. 


03 


03 


a: 


3 


> 


3 


c/^ 


CJ 


QJ 


d 


O 


o 


rH 


d 


•-> 


O 


W 


< 



o 

OJ 
4-1 

d 

4-1 
CO 



4-4 



c 


<i 


o 


w 


u 


p-l 


^^ — 


1 


>H 


s 


1 


oi 


<J- 


w 


W 


g 


hJ 









1 






rt 


D 




1 


--I 


u 




XI 


rH 




M 


OJ 


0) 






to 




QJ 


u 


B. 


• 


*. 


> • 




■a 


X 


■r^ 


,--N 


ca 


QJ 




d 


w 


d 


n 


d 


cn m 




3 




3 


r^ 





■H -H 








•I—) 


a\ 


N 


.H 




C 


• 


1 


iH 


•H 


-o -o 




n) 


tn 


d 




>-i 


d .H 






0) 


o 


»» 


< 


CO -r-l 


U) 


j: 


•H 


>, 


0) 




3 


0) 


4-1 


o 


c 


S 


d 




u 


•H 


0) 


■r-l 


o 


M 


>, T3 


3 


s 


a. P-. 


-1 


QJ 


4-J d 


■u 




en 






4J 


■M CO 


(fl 


c 






T3 


CO 


in 


0) 


o 


iH 


• 


d 


0) 


d X) 


Pm 


>, 


CO 


4-1 


rt 


3 


OJ QJ 




c 


M 


rt 






■o X 


.H 


■H 


u 


4-t 


p 


d 


en 


0) 


a. 


(fl 


•H 


3 


•H 


tn u 


•H 




a. XI 


o 




Q) Q) 


O 


M-l 


nj 


(fl 


Vj 


01 


•H 4-1 


0) 


o 


x: 


x: 


CQ 


U 


O CO 


(X 




u 




^—y 


ta 


Q) 3 


CO 


>, 




l-l 




S-i 


D. 




l-l 


U-l 


01 


-o 




cn V4 




o 


o 


OJ 


d 


M 


o 




4-1 




•a 


rt 


■H 


X >« 




0) 


>, 




r-\ 




00 




l-l 


l-l 


4-1 


T3 


QJ 


•H QJ 




0) 


o 


d 


o 


O. X .H 




> 


4J 


0) 





>^ 


X 




o 


m 


rH 


3 


H 


CO CO 



i^ CO 

H 4-1 



QJ > 

00 d 

QJ W 

> 

l-l 
O 

■1-^ 
CO 









CO 












■H 








d 


X 




QJ 


o 




00 


CO 


o 




CO 


d 


o 


■K -X rH 


■K 


^ 


-H 


3 


en 


•rH 


CO 


en 


00 


en 


■K 


CO 


t-H 


•H 


o. 


d 


d 


D. 


•H 


•H 


•H 


to 




^ 


QJ 


00 


QJ 


l-l 


l-l 


iH 


l-l 


en 


QJ 




rH 


d 


00 


Cfi 


ej 


o 


CO 


to 


CO 


^ 


d 


CJ 


•K 


>l 


•H 


0) 


o 


(0 


en 


QJ 


o 


.H 


OJ 


CO 


CO 


X 


X 


l-l 


^ 


OJ 


•rH 


O 


o 


•H 


en 


> 


d 


4-1 


o. 


l-l 


00 


>> 


> 


rH 


O 


IJ 


CO 


3 


to 


•H 


CO 


o 


d 


X 


CO 


CO 


!h 


o 


CO 


QJ 


X 


M 


CJ 


d 


4J 


CO 


a 


^ 


o 


O 


•H 


X 


l-< 


o 


Q) 


o 


o 




3 


CO 


M-l 




e 




0) 


e 




to 


e 


U) 


X 


4-1 


en 


en 


CO 


a 


CO 


X 


d 


4-1 


cn 


CO 


3 


3 


CO 


•H 


o 


• -H 




en 


a 


o 


o 


>, 


d 


d 


d 


4-1 


d 


iH 4-1 


to 


D 


l-l 


d 


4J 


l-l 


e 


e 


■H 


d 


•H 


CO d 


a 


d 


QJ 


tlj 


o 


>j 


CO 


to 


-H 


3 


^ 


> 3 


a 


•H 


d 


Q) 


l-l 


CO 


X 


X 


o 


a 


U 


o. 


3 


PH 


o- 


u 


< 


O 


OS 


oi 


z 


o 


W 




o 


>^ 



3 
^ X 

to 4-1 

o o 

d 

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 



4J 






X 




1-1 






tJ 




O 






d 




d 






■H 




T3 


en 


4-) 


rH 




d 


QJ 


QJ 


OJ 




to 


00 


0) 


1 






T3 


t4H 


eg 




en 


•H 




rH 




^ 


iH 


ro 






to 




00 


■ • 




Q) 


00 CTi 


d 




Ch 


d 


^ 


o 






•H 


^O 


■H 




d 


o 


1 


4-1 




■H 


to 


o 


to 


• 


to 


MH 


o 


+J 


rH 


4-1 


1 


LO 


•H 


rH 


d 


4-1 


#1 


a. 


to 


3 


en 


MD 


•H 


'4H 


O 


OJ 




O 


3 


B 


3 


• • 


QJ 


o 




XI 


d 


)-l 


d 


C/J 


4-) 


o 


a 


C/l 


QJ 


)H 


•H 






•H 


o 


4J 


rH 


IH 


CI. 


d 


to 


to 


QJ 


3 




> 


3 


4-1 


a 


T3 


QJ 


d 


d 


o 


d 


rH 


d 


■H 


o 


to 


w 


< 


rs 







tn 




IH 




M 








tn 


QJ 


m 


OJ 


• 


QJ 






tn 


QJ 


3 


•H 


r-^ 


cn 


3 






QJ 


4-1 






O 


OJ 









N 


a) 


T3 


QJ 


o 


ex .J 


tn 




•H 


d 


d 


D. 


o 


o 




QJ 




M 


•H 


to 


>i 




^ 


-a 


■H 




01 


e 




U 


•« 


en 


d 


O 




4-1 


o 


1 




IH 




CO 


QJ 




CJ 


XI 


X 


,^ 


QJ 


00 




CX 




to 




4-1 


to 


U 


d 


d 


en 




U 


r-f 


3 


O 


en 


•H 


3 






to 


to 





1 


■H 


O 


O 


X 




X 


IH 


tn 


d 


o 


to 


u 


00 




o 


Vj 




o 


e 


<4-l 


CQ 


•H 






to 


IH 


>^ 




1 




XI 




U 


a. 


QJ 


d 


QJ 


4-1 








•H 


to 


4H 


•H 


X 


en 


rH 


to 




to 


X 


4H 


eL4 


4H 


to 


CO 






en 


u 


O 






Q) 


IH 


t/J 




O 




X 




d 


X 


l-l 


to 




B 


, 


^ 


tn 





4J 

o 


CO 

o. 


X 




d 


4-1 


M 


0) 


XI 


d 


CO 


OJ 




o 


CO 


QJ 


ex 


QJ 




X 


a 




■H 


4-1 


•H 


o 


tn 


X) 


CJ 


E^ 




4-1 


•H 


IH 


rH 


U 


d 






to 


X 


x) 


tn 


OJ 


CO 


IH 




• 


■U 


to 






a. 




O 




>i 


QJ 


X 


QJ 


00 


tn 


1 


•H 


• 


4J 


00 




X 


d 


IH 


X 


M 


^— N 


•H 


QJ 


en 


4J 


■H 


Q) 


4-1 


QJ 


tn 


tn 


> 


•H 




CJ 


4J 


IH 


4H 


1 


d 




X 


d 


to 


d 


O 


d 


CTN 


QJ 


< 


4H 


o 


et-4 


•H 


d 


M 


f-H 


X) 









B 










3 




4H 




to 




to 


M 




rH 


■H 


en 


3 


i« 


i-H 


•H 


d 


o 


CO 




QJ 


OO 


QJ 


•H 


QJ 




d 


00 


o 


O 


■X a 


• CO 


•H 


0) 


m 


in 


CO 


to 


D. -a 


X 


l-l 


QJ 


CO 


4-1 


d 


ex -H 


l-l 


00 


> 


14-1 


to 


■H 


l/l 00 


3 


to 


, o 


l-l 


•H 


4J 


t/1 


rH 


E 


tJ 


QJ 


to 


IH 


3 


U-i 


3 


to 


3 




in 


X 


d 


X 


to 


o 


to 


3 


4H 


to 


O 


■H 


rH 


•H 


u 


o 


>^ 


OO 


to 


4H 


QJ 


U 


ij 


d 


IH 


o 


CJ 


d 


4J 


CO 


QJ 


to 


IH 


■H 


CJ 


3 


3 


rH 


3 


QJ 


CO 


l-l 


3 


a 


O 


■H 


o- 


U 


o 


w 


>- 


o 


CQ 


H 



^ 


X 




X 




W 




CO 


4H 




3 




3 




O 


O 




^ 




4H 






d 


rH 


CJ 




CJ 


tn CO 


0) 


CO 


QJ 


3 


CO 


CO 


tn 4-1 


> 


QJ 


tn 


X 


CJ 


o 


to QJ 


•H 


O 


in 




o 




IH rH 


rH 




CO 


P- 


3 


d 


00 rH 




4-1 


4H 


o 


>^ 


CO 


to 


X 


l-l 




4H 




B 


to OO 


3 


Q) 


^ 


4H 


Q) 




6 


IH 


tn 


rH 


CO 


3 


XI 


CO OO 



c/DQt/iP-icQOOpa 







OO 




. 




+J 


d 




in 




CO 


■H 




QJ 




4-1 


u 




X 




■H 


to 




ej 




X 


•^-t 




d 




CO 


1 




•H 




X 


X 

4J 




4-J O 




V-i 


3 




OJ CNI 




0) 


o 




QJ 1 




•H 


en 




'4H Csl 


^_J 


l-l 






rH 


2 


XI 


X) 

d 




O 

o •• 


2 


#. 


to 




in d 


< 


u 






- o 


cu 


QJ 


1 




^X -H 




B 


4-1 




1 4J 


K 


IH 


en 




O to 


(-J 


CO 


QJ 




O 4H 


1 


3 


3 




00 -H 


t/l 








« ex 


^ 


QJ 


*. 




tn -H 


g 


X 

4H 


0) 




tj 

.. QJ 


o 




• 




d IH 




en 


■H 


• 


o ex 


^ 


QJ 


^^ 


^^ 


•H 


w 


•H 




en 


4H rH 


o 


tx 


en 


01 


to to 


1 


3 


QJ 


ex 


> 3 


^ 


a 


4H 


o 


QJ d 


o 


•H 


t-H 


rH d 


o 


o 


en 


m 


w <; 



tn 
tu 
•H 
o 

tU 

p. 
w 



a 

(U 

4-1 

o 

o. 

nj 
C 
o 

N 

•H 
U 
< 

o 



4-5 






OJ XI 




3 rt 




o 4=; 




hJ 




a 




-O 0) 




C 0) 




CO x: 




m 


U) 


§ C 


0) 


o u 


u 


1-1 o 





« £ 


4-1 


■^ &o 


rt 


■rH 


0) 


^ XI 


fi. 


tfl 




M T3 


^ 


M C 


0) 


n) nj 


•H 


o. 


O 


nl !-i 


0) 


x; cu 


a 


U 0) 


en 


Q 



a) 
en 'A 
<D 
eu .-I 

>^ C8 
H 4-1 

C 

d 0) 

o e 

■H c 

4-1 O 

cd M 

4-1 -H 
QJ > 

00 d 
> 



4J r^ 4-1 
d 0^ to 




d 




0) 


1 


o 




M-4 


og 


•H 






t-{ 


4-1 




.-H 




nj 


. 


00 


>• 


> 


D. ^C 


G 


01 


O 


•- 


O 


i-H 


4-1 


u-l 


•H 


0) 




1 


4-1 




d 


O 


nJ 


(J 


•H 


o 


4-1 


0) 


nJ 


o 


•H 


j:: 


4-1 


<v 


D. 


00 


d 


<r 


■rH 


•H 


3 




CJ 


x; 


o 




QJ 




E 


d 


J-i 


W 




o 


O. 


01 


01 


•H 




•H 


^ 


4-1 


rH 


CU 


4-1 


« 


OJ 


3 




> 


3 


o 


-0 


CU 


d 


o 


d 


.H 


d 


o 


td 


w 


<: 



• 


. 


>, 


QJ 




^^s 


4J 


4-1 


X 




n 


to 


•H 


tn 




r-^ 


4-1 


cn 


u 




C3\ 


•H 


M 


QJ 




rH 


XI 


QJ 


4-1 






to 


> 


to 




•* 


XI 


•H 


3 




<u 




13 






3 


QJ 




>H 




o 


> 


tn 


O 




1-J 


O 
T3 


QJ 
■H 


MH 




T3 




CJ 


QJ 




d 


OO 


QJ 


3 




nJ 


d 


a. rH 






•H 


tn 


CD 




rj 


d 




> 




3 


u 


x; 






o 


3 


00 


tn 




>-l 


O 


■H 


to 




CQ 


E 


X 


X 






X! 


to 


TD 




-o 


C 




d 




d 


CO 


tn 


to 


■ 


n) 




to 




QJ 


rH 


rH 


x: 


>^ MH 


a 


•H 




4-1 


•H 


o 


to 


QJ 


•H 


rH 




3 


D. 


tn 


T3 


CO 


a- 


>. 


d 


rH 


d 




4-1 


QJ 


■H 


o 


«> 




-o 


S 


N 


1-1 


CO 






•H 


QJ 


•rl 


•o 


XI 


)-l 


QJ 


X 


d 


d 


< 


O 


H 


CO 


CO 



■H 


to 


01 


00 


■H 


■H 


OJ 


4-) 


3 


d 


d 


ty 


>-l 


3 


3 


to 


o. 


o 


u 


o 


fe 



d 
d 
to 

e 

HrH 

01 
Oj 00| 1-1 

d 



















u 














QJ 




















oJ 














X) 




















(U 








nJ 






^ 








tn 












ex 








tH 






tu 








3 








tn 






td 






rH 






> 


CO 


^ 




X 








3 




^ 


rH 






O 








o 


to 




4-1 








4-1 




rH 


rH 






x: 






o 


4-1 


o 




o 






m 


u 


yi 


^ 


o 






o 






rH 


O 




rH 


d 


CO 




3 


to 


cd 


O 


^ 










X 


to 


td 


0) 


01 


to 


■H 




4-1 


u 


OJ 


•H 


o 






Vj 




tn 


a. 


o 


> 


tn 


QJ 


c 


tn 


o 




a 


1-1 








CO 




3 






■H 


tn 


CJ 


o 


cn 


CO 


00 


1 


D. 


d 


^ 




QJ 


O 


X 


rH 


00^ 


rH 


to 




J3 


CO 


CJ 


o 


0) 




1-1 


o 


o 


X 


rH 


QJ 


,-\ 


o o 




4-1 


l-l 


tO 


t-i 




r? 


-^ 


QJ 


o 


o 


1-* 




rH 


T-K 


■rH 


X o 


J3 




u 


s 


00 T3 


Q) 


n) 


> 


^ 


X 


to 


>^ 


•H 


4-1 


X 


Q) X 


3 


^ 


QJ 




1-1 


C 


00 


o 


to 


^ 


X 


3 


XI 


4-1 


4J 


4-1 


00 ji: 


V-i 


rH 


cn 


•a 


CO 


3 


-a 


d 


X 


o 


en 


00 XI 


O 


■H 


O 


T3 tn 


X 


•H 


QJ 


Q) 


QJ 


O 


QJ 


to 


o 


3 


•r( 


to 


QJ 


o 


>-l 


o 


QJ -H 


ty] 


cn 


Q 


ec; 


m 


2^ 


X 


P-, 


s 


w 


|J^ 


CO 


H 


o 


m 


[i, 


a: til 





d 


td 




QJ 




3 


X) 




X 




O 


td 




O 




e 


*rn 

td 


, 


d 

•H 




00 X 


4-1 






G 




01 


O 




•H 


u 


Q) 


rH 




XI 


QJ 


U-l 


1 




O 


D. 




00 




1-1 


D. O 






QJ 


3 


o 
o 


d 




i-l 


Q) 


•• 


o 


o 


QJ 


X 


<r 


■H 


^ 


> 


4-1 


1 


4-1 


O 




o 


to 


:3 


rH 


XI 


o 


4-1 


o 




d 


^ 


•H 


<: 


QJ 


td 


-» 


Cu 


cn 


X 




rsi 


•H 


1 


4-1 


tn 




O 


w 




0) 


• • 


QJ 


g 


d 


cu 


d 


1-1 


o 


o 





CU 


w 




rH 


•H 




> 


cn 


tn 


4-1 


rH 




\-i 




to 


to 


o 


3 


d 


> 


3 


"^ 


O 


•rH 


QJ 


d 


o 


to 


rH 


d 


ptj 


o 


4-1 


w 


<: 



tn 
tu 

•H 
CJ 

<u 

cu 



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 



1 



: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 



1 

' 



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 













0) 














a 




(J) 
(1) 


^ CO u-^ lPi 


<r 


00 CM 


o 


O O 


o 




o 
.—1 




• • • • 


♦ 


• • 


• 


• • 


• 


1 


en 




u 


Ln 00 r-- Lo 


r- 


00 00 


r-~ 


CTN O 


o^ 


O 






< 


M Csl 


in 


i-l CM 


<r 


-H 


M 


1 


4-1 














3 




<t 










o • 
CO en 




















•—t 






<-{ 


CO 




OJ u 






w* 


CO 

o 

H 






CO 


• 






•.*.• 












rC CO 


OJ 






•.•.' 






o 

H 


O 
H 




4J XI 


> 






•.••• 
'.%• 










•H 




■U 






► • . 














O 4-1 


CO 






,\\ 














•H 


3 




ro 


















T3 5 


>-i 




V? 














CO en 

O 

I-l M-l 

o 

00 

3 C 
•H O 
4J -H 


4-1 

<: 

CU 
•H 






. •'. 


















• • 
• • • 

• • 






















m 








^> 




'■_ 






CN 




^^ 




• • • 






■ 












the exis 
the addit 


CO 




1 




\\ 




\V 






; 












o 






^ 




• • « 

• • 






J 












: 








■ 




XI 

3 
CO 






\N 




:•:•: 






1 












iH 




\^ 




•:•:• 
•••.• 






1 














g 






^ 1-1 

CO O 

OJ 

o 

CO -H 
CO CO 

^ o 


CO 
0) 
P-i 

3 
CO 

e 

en 






n 


i 


1 




i 




•.V 






'■ 














> 








ff 


' 




ff^ 


i 


• 






. 


• 




O 


\ 


|_ 


\^ 




% 




•.•/ 
•.••• 

»-•-• 






[ 
















CO O 

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


en 


: 






O 
























ffi OJ 


u 


C/) 










1-1 


O 


0) 










C -H 


4-1 


-H 










O 3 




•H 










cr 


3 












XI 0) 
CU 1-1 

u 

•H 4-1 


O 

•H 
4-1 






CO 










3 x: 


4-1 










cr 00 


<u 










OJ -rH 


00 




/'^ 






v^ e 


OJ 




0) 








> 




CL 






eu ^ 




/^ 


O 






X CJ 


3 


01 


rH 






•H 


O 


cx 


C/5 






4-' JH 




o 








o ^ 


en 


.H 


■U 






3 


4-1 


cn 


cfl o 








c» 




CT3 tH 






XI XI 


CO 


4-1 


U r-l 






r-i OJ 


a. 


Cfi 


-^ -H 






3 X) 


H 


OJ 


;-) 






O CO 


•H 


:s 


W 


o 






3 1-1 




^~^ 


m 


u 






00 


XI 






W 


o 






x» a. 


CO 


zn 




u 


1 


<-\ 




CO 3 


o 


in 




u 


OJ 


CO 




o 


1-1 


w 




<: 


T3 


H 




1-1 0) 




o 


T3 




T3 1-1 


1-1 




42 


en 


u 


c: 


w 


C OJ 


13 CO 




3 


en 


< 


to o 


> 


CO > 


c o. 




CU o 


0) 




.-1 1-1 d 


M 


<-i 


CO CO 




3 -w 


o 


Q 


-O t;J O 


H 


T3 O 


rH ^ 






o 


w 


O 3 -H 


<: 


O ,-1 


T) CJ 




CO <D 


CO 


(y: 


O GO -U 




O CO 


O 1 




> 




O 


13 CO -H 


2 


3 Ph 


o en 




rC CO 


3 r- 


P-i 


W CO 


w 


1 


3: 3 




00 ^ 


s i 


o 


OJ 1 C 


H 


OJ OJ 


jn 




3 


iz ?^ 


Pi 


oj o; m 4= 


i-l 


OJ 0) 


^ -u 




O XI 


OJ 


fl^ 


V-i 13 >-i Cfl 


<: 


1-1 1-1 


CO O 




X -H 


H 




H )-i H 3 




H H 


O C 


■K 


4-1 3 




1 


03 1-1 


1 




1 CO 


< 




.-H O 


s 




Cfl > 4-1 JD 




CO to 


3 OJ 


kJ 




<: 3 


2 


3 1-1 ^ 


Z 


3 3 


o o 


< 






.-1 « 


2 


x: o cu o 


2 


x: ^ 


>. 1 








1 


S^ 


en r-i en oj 


^ 


M cn 




c ^ 


<i 






Ln 


CO 


o rt 0) -H 


CO 


o o 


3 


•H CO 


13 






•• 


C/l 


>-) (ij Q pq 


CO 


*-) >-) 


CcJ 


P-i o 


o- 




•K 


OJ ^, 


o 
pi, 




§ 








^ 






1-1 ^ 
3 h! 


u 




u 




CJ 




ffi 




60 2 








1 






•H O 




1 


1 


1 




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 





c 


iH 


•H 


(U 


rH 


U] 


o 


QJ 


CO 


•H 


rt 


Q 


O 





uinaaqQ 








en 

c 
o 

•H 




<J 
3 
1-1 

4-1 

to 
a 
o 
u 

v^ 

o 



\^ 



FXBqBnbJBH 





a 
o 

■H 

4-1 

D. 

B 

3 

cn 

C 
o 
u 



0) 

3 

XI 

0) 

4-1 

e 



CO 

tq 



aAT3BUJa3-[v uHuissoaQ 




:n: 




b: 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
m 



o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



paaaajsjfi UBuissoaQ 

I 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 



X3n^ JO suoxT^O 





CD 




0) 




H 




g 


1 


PQ 


LO 




cu 


OJ 


)-i 


U 


3 


u 


W) 


3 


•H 


O 


[iH 


c/^ 



5-25 




3 J2 
U CO 



CO (U 






3 XI 

>-i o 

CO O 




B 

3 

d) 
U 



(U 

u 

•H 

3 dJ 

cr > 

0:5 4-1 

to 

o M 

•H <U 





CO 

J2 
CO 
3 
cr 

CO 



C 
CO 

a 

m 
en 
o 
u 

o 



d c 

P CO 

u 
>% iJ 

00 -H 
0) 

c >. 
w ^ 

rH o 



H 

4J -U 

d CO 

O U 

X OJ 

ex 

T3 O 

0) 

■u u 

CO O 

B M-( 
•H 
•U 

CO 




d 

CO 

B 

o 
u 
a 





a 




CO 




0) 




H 






-n 


1 « 


<u 


LO 


1-1 


•• 


M 


0) OJ 


OJ 


u o 


M-l 


3 l-l 


0) 


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 







































































' — 


--^ 


N; 












































7030 


















/ 








N 










































■ 


7020 


















/ 










\ 
































































(i) 
















































7000 


















\ 








y 


/ 
























































/ 


1 — 


-> 


1 








-4- 


— 1 












































t— 


— u. 


1 






1 


-^^■)-^ 


J — 1 












,0 


A 


/ 


'V" 


\ 


^ 






'^ 


















































^ 


^ 


^^^ 














¥\ 


r 






'^- 








•^•ft; 


i . 










































6960 


'^ 




yy'^. 


k^-^- 


^ ^J5 


\ 


6950 






/ 


/ 


r 


















^<J 


^ 


^ 












































<^ 


/ 


r 
























1 


fc2 






© 












i 




















6940 


/I1 


r 






























*^-^^. 


'V>^ 


'>v:s 


V^'^^ 


"\ 






t 




















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 



































1 










— -^^ 


































































/ 


^ 








\ 


























































/ 










\ 


























































1 





































































V 










) 




































A 


Trr 


















F 


\ 

1- 


^ 

■^=1: 




— h 


H 




































.i^ 


li(^ 


^^ 


\ 




















^ 


/ 


N 


































A 


rfT^ 


;/' 






\ 




















/ 








i?'-'.'- 


















\ 


y 


N . 


y ^' 






„' 




\ 


/ 


1 








a 


A 




















y 


^^ 


^ 


->"' 


% 


















s. 


y 


\ 


y 




s,<^^' 




rfff^ 


y 














1 


\ 


















> 


y 


N 




'^■' 


















y^ 




1^' 


'7-' 


















\\ 


® 






(D 








./- 


^ 






'W 


& 












trr 


<i^ 






















/V 


^r^-^^yyy^y^ 


'yyy 


'^yyy 


y^y) 




.^yy. 


.■yy^yy^yyyy 


y^yyyyyyyy^y^y. 


^ 






































































^. 


'77:^. 


\ 


*^^>^ 




































































"^^ 



10 



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 



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. 

V 

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 

to 



C 
O 

N t3 
-H rO 
U U 



Bureau of Land Management 

Library 

Denver Service Center 




Q 

W 

U Z 

Q H 








U 

o 












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