The Bradshaw-Harquahala Planning Area was divided into distinct geographic units designated as Management Units (MUs), to more accurately facilitate planning within the considerable size and diversity of the planning area. This shapefile shows those MUs that exist in alternative A. The MUs were developed to provide both a geographic and a community focus to management in the alternatives, and MUs may contain land of any ownership (while the "allocations" that are the subject of the files that address one resource at a time contain polygons with BLM-owned land, only). From the alternatives, one set will be selected to be proposed as the geographic area to which particular management actions will be applied, to manage the resource upon adoption of the Resource Management Plan (RMP). The Alternatives comprise Alternative A, also known as the no-action or current management alternative, and four action alternatives: Alternative B, which plans for increased public use while ensuring resource protection; Alternative C, which places greater emphasis on identifying and protecting natural resources than in Alternative B; Alternative D which emphasizes natural landscapes and non-motorized recreation, with more management dedicated to maintaining primitive recreation opportunities than under the other alternatives; and Alternative E, the preferred alternative.
This data set was prepared for use in the BLM Phoenix Field Office (PFO) Agua Fria National Monument and Bradshaw-Harquahala planning areas Resource Management Planning (RMP) process. The RMP process was initiated by the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on April 24, 2002 (67 FR 20148), and was ongoing when the consultant (Jones & Stokes) datasets were submitted to BLM PFO in March, 2004. The shapefile is intended for regional analysis and display at a scale of 1:24,000. Abstract and corresponding spatial domain (extent) indicate the area covered by the shapefile, within or outside the planning areas.
Time Period when the allocations correspond to actual or feasible future management actions.
The data and corresponding attributes are only as accurate as the source maps from which they were obtained. Accuracy may vary depending upon the date and method of acquisition. The data is suitable for regional planning and management decision support at intermediate scales, i.e. 1:24,000 or smaller, and cartographic purposes. The data is not suitable for the purposes of navigation. The data is not suitable for analysis at scales larger than 1:24,000. If the Receiving Agency (RA) has modified the data in any way, the RA is obligated to describe the types of modifications it has performed on hardcopy maps using the data. The RA specifically agrees not to misrepresent PFO data sets nor to imply that any changes made were approved by BLM. No warranty is made by BLM for use of the data for purposes not intended by BLM. This information may be updated without notification
Previously existing feature attributes were taken from source material, then edited as appropriate. Sets of "alternative" attributes indicate the status of an "allocation" polygon for the respective "alternative."
Polygons were checked aganist original manuscripts for consistency.
Overall horizontal accuracy for this data is not greater than national mapping accuracy standards (NMAS) for USGS source maps. Snapping and coordinate shift tolerances in the source digital files were maintained at 0.01 meters or less throughout editing. Horizontal positional accuracy for the digital data wet was tested by visual comparison of the source data with hard copy.
BLM PFO (1) digitized certain base information for the resource from USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle sheets as source maps on a digitizing table, and supplied the digital information to the contractor; (2) or supplied USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle sheets with polygons designated by hand, which the contractor then digitized from the sheets.
Internal feature number.
Jones & Stokes
2700 N. Central Ave., Suite 1250