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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The AGFD provides “Guidelines for Handling Sonoran Desert Tortoises Encountered on Development Projects.” These guidelines include the following recommendations: • The contractor shall employ a qualified biologist to complete preconstruction surveys for Sonoran Desert tortoises and to conduct a Sonoran Desert tortoise awareness program. Preconstruction surveys for Sonoran Desert tortoises shall be conducted within 48 hours prior to construction in areas that will be disturbed. • If any Sonoran Desert tortoises are encountered during construction, the contractor shall adhere to the AGFD “Guidelines for Handling Sonoran Desert Tortoises Encountered on Development Projects,” revised October 23, 2007. No Action Alternative Vegetation The No Action Alternative would not have any impact on vegetation because it would not involve any development. Wildlife The No Action Alternative would not have any impact on wildlife because it would not involve any development. Threatened and Endangered Species The No Action Alternative would not have any impact on threatened and endangered species because it would not involve any development. BLM Sensitive Species and USFWS Species of Concern The No Action Alternative would not have any impact on BLM sensitive species because it would not involve any development. 4.5 Cultural Resources Cultural resources are sites, buildings, structures, districts, and objects as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended. Cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are termed “historic properties” regardless of their age. “Traditional cultural properties” having heritage value for contemporary communities (often, but not necessarily, Native American groups) also can be listed in the NRHP because of their association with historic cultural practices or beliefs that are important in maintaining the cultural identities of such communities. Environmental Assessment 23 Ajo Housing Development Project
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their activities and programs on NRHP-eligible properties. Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800) define a process for federal agencies to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Native American groups, other interested parties, and when appropriate, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to ensure that historic properties are duly considered as federal projects are planned and implemented. The steps in the “Section 106 consultation process” involve: • Identifying the area where a proposed undertaking could affect cultural resources—the area of potential effects. (Undertakings can include approvals, funding, issuance of permits, and so forth.) • Identifying and evaluating the eligibility for listing in the NRHP of properties that might be affected by the proposed undertaking. • Assessing the potential effects of the undertaking on eligible properties. • Consulting with SHPO, Native American groups, other interested parties, and the ACHP, as appropriate, to determine ways to avoid or reduce any adverse effects (impacts) if such are anticipated. • If necessary, providing the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed undertaking and the effects on properties determined to be eligible for NRHP listing. • Proceeding with the undertaking under the terms of a Programmatic Agreement, a Memorandum of Agreement, or in consideration of ACHP comments, if required. If a federal agency decides a proposed action is an “undertaking,” the agency has an obligation to determine the undertaking’s effect on historic properties and to consult with SHPO (and sometimes the ACHP) regarding that determination. There are three possible effect determinations: – “No historic properties affected” – “No adverse effect” – “Adverse effect” Executive Order (EO) 13006 mandates that “the Federal government shall utilize and maintain, wherever operationally appropriate and economically prudent, historic properties and districts, especially those located in our central business areas.” The EO also directs that federal agencies “shall give first consideration to historic properties within historic districts.” Based on the GSA Public Building Service—Urban Policy Update, Issue 1, May 2000, the GSA has concluded that EO 13006 is not applicable to this project. The focus of this EO is on our nation’s central cities and “urban areas.” The Office of Management and Budget defines an urban area as (1) within the jurisdiction of any incorporated city, town, etc., with a population greater than 10,000 or (2) within or adjacent to a city, town, etc., with a population density of 1,500 inhabitants or more per square mile. The community of Ajo meets neither criterion. Environmental Assessment 24 Ajo Housing Development Project
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: Species Habitat Potential Occurrenc
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 and 132:
Page 5 of? Survey stated that the A
Page 133 and 134:
Page 7 of7 the property which can p
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?