US Customs and Border Protection Ajo Housing Development ... - GSA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 6 ot 7 The Hia Ced O'odham people are believed to have been the predominant people who inhabited this area. area. The Hia Ced O'odham Tribal Council was not contacted during the scoping period or preparation preparation of the DEIS. Protecting, maintaining, and monitoring the native landscape, vegetation and wildlife as well as the aesthetic vista of an area such as this is known to be regarded as a primary responsibilty of people living people living and using such an area by the native inhabitants of this area, past and present. Maintaining Maintaining this integrity of use was not addresssed in the cultural resource inventory. Recent time revitalization of the project adjacent Ajo Historical District by the International Sonoran Sonoran Desert Alliance and private individuals such as the owners of the adjacent Guest House Inn, Inn, has attempted to complement the past with the present in carrying out development projects. Past mining and military use of this site did not attempt this and the area fell into disrepair and abandonment as noted in the DEIS. Impacts The site specifications for the project indicate clearing the site of all natural vegetation and wildlife, wildlife, leveling and replacing the existing environment with a wasteland of blacktop, asphalt, concrete, concrete, and metal. There appears to have been no attempt to obtain and coordinate constructive input from Native American keepers of history of this site or from those groups involved in revitalizing the Ajo Historical Historical District. This comparatively shortterm military housing boom project, when cumulatively added to the mining mining boom and bust in the 20th century, is not providing a living enviroment that will meld with and with and sustain the Ajo community cultrually or economically or socially over the long term. This prooject combines to create a significant adverse impact on the existing environemtnt which GSA GSA Regional Historic Preservation Officer Jane Lehman described in her October 27,2010 DEIS input letter as: "suffers so much from a loss of integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, workmanship, feeling and association, that further study on whether it meets eligibility criteria is unwarranted". In otherwords, it will not be a good example of federal stewardship to pass on to the the future. Alternatives and Mitigation Measures GSAIUSBCP project proponents must coordinate a constructive joint method of input with Ajo community groups such as the International Sonoran Desert Alliance, The Hia Ced O'odham Tribal Council, the Tohono O'odham Tribal Council, Ajo Community Agriculture, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Ajo Improvement Company, Ajo Master Gardeners and Western Pima County The recommendations of this group must be adopted as conditions of project site design and construction implementation. National Historic Preservation Act requirements are stricter for federal projects than private projects. It projects. It must be determined if there are any Native American values or artifacts on or near the 12/16/2010
Page 7 of7 the property which can potentialy suffer significant adverse impacts from project implementation. This This includes impacts on the integrity of the site and its setting. If such impacts are found the site must site must be professionally recorded with SHPO and sensitive areas must be inventoried thoroughly thoroughly prior to development, avoided entirely, or protected through some other method approved approved by the NHPA Completion of the above inventories, impact analysis and implementation of alternatives or or mitigation measures to reduce potential significant adverse impacts of the project to a level of insignificance cannot be dismissed merely on the basis of financial infeasibility. To do so denies the the purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act. If there are not enough funds to do an adequate adequate DEIS and if there are not enough funds to carry out a project which does not have a significant significant adverse impact on the environment, then perhaps the project just should not happen. 12/1612010
Page 1 and 2:
Final Environmental Assessment for
Page 3 and 4:
Chapter 7 Conclusion...............
Page 5 and 6:
SR 85 State Route 85 SWPPP Storm Wa
Page 7 and 8:
^ Du "10 nt W'1IJtIl o G !lUll I ON
Page 9 and 10:
The need to staff the POE for 24-ho
Page 11 and 12:
The CBP Housing Program Feasibility
Page 13 and 14:
Lukeville, Why, and Ajo areas. Thre
Page 15 and 16:
3.1.3 Lukeville Alternative 3 Lukev
Page 17 and 18:
Perro De Nieve S. Sahuaro St. Monte
Page 19 and 20:
3.2.2 No Action Alternative Under t
Page 21 and 22:
environmental justice concerns. Dat
Page 23 and 24:
The median household income of Ajo
Page 25 and 26:
Gila woodpeckers, ravens, roadrunne
Page 27 and 28:
Species Habitat Potential Occurrenc
Page 29 and 30:
Section 106 of the NHPA requires fe
Page 31 and 32:
Federally funded projects are subje
Page 33 and 34:
ecognizes that major modifications
Page 35 and 36:
No Action Alternative The No Action
Page 37 and 38:
Chapter 5 Cumulative Impacts Cumula
Page 39 and 40:
Arizona Game and Fish Department Th
Page 41 and 42:
GSA response: Discussed in Chapter
Page 43 and 44:
Approximately 60 people attended th
Page 45 and 46:
Comment 7. Involve local developers
Page 47 and 48:
Comment 16. What is the cumulative
Page 49 and 50:
Comment 31. Notes apparent contradi
Page 51 and 52:
Comment 45. There is a clear misund
Page 53 and 54:
Chapter 7 Conclusion 7.1 Summary of
Page 55 and 56:
Chapter 8 Project Preparers and Con
Page 57 and 58:
Parkhurst, Janet H. 2001. Ajo: A Mo
Page 59 and 60:
Appendix A USFWS Threatened, Endang
Page 61 and 62:
Appendix A. USFWS threatened, endan
Page 63 and 64:
Appendix B Scoping Letter and Maili
Page 65 and 66:
On General Services Administration
Page 67 and 68:
Project Vicinity U.S. Customs and B
Page 69 and 70:
.' GSA Pacific Rim Region October
Page 71:
cc: Kirsten Brinker-Kulis Advisory
Page 75 and 76:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Rev
Page 77 and 78:
Arizona's On~line Environmental Rev
Page 79 and 80:
Arizona's On-line Environmental Rev
Page 81 and 82: Arizona's On-line Environmental Rev
Page 83 and 84: GUIDELINES FOR HANDLING SONORAN DES
Page 85 and 86: Mr, Mr. Michael ODawson .....son Ae
Page 87 and 88: G_a' US Mr. Michael Oewson Dawson R
Page 89 and 90: U.S. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION NO
Page 91 and 92: 111'1 EcoPlan Associates, Inc. .. C
Page 93 and 94: Dear Representative Grijalva: Thank
Page 95 and 96: Page ;? Mr. Robert Frankeberger UC1
Page 97 and 98: U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIO
Page 99 and 100: Appendix E Public Scoping Meeting a
Page 101 and 102: GSA CBP Ajo Housing Development Pro
Page 103 and 104: Pacific Rim Region Public Hearing A
Page 105 and 106: Appendix F Public Comments
Page 107 and 108: Page two of two Jim and Linda Sharp
Page 109 and 110: file:///W|/07-033%20GSA/Task%20013-
Page 111 and 112: ~ue1t~~~ e ....:.;·•••••
Page 113 and 114: , ... , i I I I I I ,. I Mar 24 10
Page 115 and 116: (} 5A ;0 t1{lLlf!l6L R. ))/tWSOIJ ;
Page 117 and 118: A..t~ II·Pacific Rim Region Public
Page 119 and 120: Page 10f2 Mike Dawson From: Sent: T
Page 121 and 122: ·. From: osmahn.kadri@gsa.gov [mai
Page 123 and 124: ---------- Forwarded message ------
Page 125 and 126: Page 1 of 1 Mike Dawson From: osmah
Page 127 and 128: Page lof? Mike Dawson From: Sent: T
Page 129 and 130: Page 30f7 human nutritive value, or
Page 131: Page 5 of? Survey stated that the A
Page 135 and 136: oPP011unity there is to tighten not
Page 137 and 138: INTERNATIONAL SONORAN DESERT ALLIAN
Page 139 and 140: Mr. Osmahn Kadri Re: U.S. General S
Page 141 and 142: The Draft EA does not contain any c
Page 143 and 144: Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources Ther
Page 145 and 146: should be done at the EA stage so t
show all

US Customs and Border Protection Ajo Housing Development ... - GSA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?