Skip to main content
SHARE
Publication

The Apache Longbow-Hellfire Missile Test at Yuma Proving Ground: Ecological Risk Assessment for Tracked Vehicle Movement acro...

by Mark J Peterson, Rebecca A Efroymson, William Hargrove Jr
Publication Type
Journal
Journal Name
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
Publication Date
Page Number
919
Volume
14
Issue
5

A multiple stressor risk assessment was conducted at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, as a demonstration of the Military Ecological Risk Assessment Framework. The focus was a testing program at Cibola Range, which involved an Apache Longbow helicopter firing Hellfire missiles at moving targets, M60-A1 tanks. This paper describes the ecological risk assessment for the tracked vehicle movement component of the testing program. The principal stressor associated with tracked vehicle movement was soil disturbance, and a resulting, secondary stressor was hydrological change. Water loss to washes and wash vegetation was expected to result from increased infiltration and/or evaporation associated with disturbances to desert pavement. The simulated exposure of wash vegetation to water loss was quantified using estimates of exposed land area from a digital ortho quarter quad aerial photo and field observations, a 30 �� 30 m digital elevation model, the flow accumulation feature of ESRI ArcInfo, and a two-step process in which runoff was estimated from direct precipitation to a land area and from water that flowed from upgradient to a land area. In all simulated scenarios, absolute water loss decreased with distance from the disturbance, downgradient in the washes; however, percentage water loss was greatest in land areas immediately downgradient of a disturbance. Potential effects on growth and survival of wash trees were quantified by using an empirical relationship derived from a local unpublished study of water infiltration rates. The risk characterization concluded that neither risk to wash vegetation growth or survival nor risk to mule deer abundance and reproduction was expected. The risk characterization was negative for both the incremental risk of the test program and the combination of the test and pretest disturbances.