DOCSLIB.ORG

Bw1 Foia Cbp 009584 Review Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bw1 Foia Cbp 009584 Review Draft Environmental Impact Statement U.S SEPTEMBER2002 REVIEWDRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTSTATEMENT U.S.BORDERPATROL TUCSONANDYUMASECTORS ARIZONA IMMIGRATIONANDNATURALIZATIONSERVICE WASHINGTON,D.C. BW1 FOIA CBP 009584 REVIEW DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. BORDER PATROL TUCSON AND YUMA SECTORS September 2002 Lead Agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service 425 I Street NW Washington, D.C. 20536 Responsible Official: (b) (6) INS Environmental Officer INS Facilities and Engineering Division (b) (6) Point of Contact: (b) (6) USACE-Fort Worth INS A/E Resource Center (b) (6) BW1 FOIA CBP 009585 ABSTRACT PROPOSED ACTION: This USBP proposes to expand its current operations/activities and complete ongoing infrastructure projects. In addition to those projects currently being constructed, this alternative would include (b) (5) (b) (5) PURPOSE AND NEED: The improvements that have been completed or are being proposed by INS and USBP are in an effort to enhance the USBP’s capability to gain, maintain and extend control of the U.S.-Mexico border. ALTERNATIVES ADDRESSED: (b) (5) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS: (b) (5) CONCLUSIONS: Potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, cultural resources sites, wetlands and other sensitive resources would be avoided to the extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, mitigation measures to reduce or compensate for losses would be implemented and coordinated through the appropriate Federal and state resource agencies. No significant impacts to land use, soils, air quality, hazardous waste sites, or socioeconomic resources are expected. Implementation of best management practices and stormwater pollution prevention plans would be required, as appropriate, for construction activities to reduce any potential effects to soils, soil erosion, and water quality. Based upon the results of the PEIS and environmental design measures to be incorporated as part of the proposed action, it has been concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. Programmatic EIS - Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft ii BW1 FOIA CBP 009586 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S. BORDER PATROL ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE BORDER AREAS OF THE TUCSON AND YUMA SECTORS ARIZONA (X) Draft ( ) Final U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Headquarters, Facilities and Engineering Division 425 I Street, NW (b) (6) Washington, DC 20536 Type of Action: ( X) Administrative ( ) Legislative PROPOSED ACTION: This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzes the potential for significant adverse or beneficial environmental impacts of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) operations and proposed infrastructure within the Arizona border regions of the Tucson and Yuma Sectors, Arizona. The PEIS was prepared in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA, and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Regulations for Implementing NEPA (28 CFR part 61). The proposed action is located along the international border between the United States and Mexico in Cochise, Santa Cruz, Pima and Yuma counties, Arizona. The scope of this PEIS covers the daily operations (i.e., ground and aerial patrols, maintenance of drag roads, lighting, remote video surveillance (RVS) systems, and checkpoint operations) within the Tucson and Yuma (Arizona portion) Sectors. The PEIS also addresses the potential effects of known or reasonably foreseeable infrastructure construction projects (i.e., fences, bridges, stations, and lighting). The PEIS describes the purpose and need, alternatives considered, existing conditions of the human and natural environment, the anticipated impacts that would result from implementation of the alternative, any design measures needed to reduce potential impacts, and cumulative impacts for the study area. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION: The overall need of the operations and infrastructure proposed by the USBP in this PEIS is to satisfy the USBP mission mandated by the U.S. Congress to gain, maintain, and extend control of the border to prevent the unlawful entry of persons into the United States. The purpose of the programs and improvements of the proposed action are to facilitate USBP law enforcement along the identified section of the U.S.-Mexico border, as mandated by Federal laws, by: Programmatic EIS –Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft iii BW1 FOIA CBP 009587 (1) Providing a safe, effective, and efficient working environment in which to accomplish the USBP mission. (2) Enhancing the effectiveness of the apprehension activities through the combined use of manpower, technology and infrastructure to increase deterrence. (3) Protecting sensitive resources, public and private lands, and U.S. citizens from illegal entrants and illegal activities. In addition to the purpose and need stated above, the proposed border infrastructure system has been planned in compliance with Title I, Subtitle A, Section 102, of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996. IIRIRA states that the Attorney General, in consultation with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers, roads and other infrastructure deemed necessary in the vicinity of the U.S. border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high entry into the U.S. ALTERNATIVES: Four separate alternatives were considered in the PEIS that could satisfy all or portions of the purpose and need. The proposed action alternative (Alternative 1) analyzes potential impacts from the expansion of operations/activities and the completion of all on-going and proposed infrastructure construction projects. This is the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 emphasizes expanding the use of technology-based operations and infrastructure such as RVS, lighting, skywatch towers, and sensors over the traditional operations (e.g., patrols, road dragging, checkpoints). The only infrastructure that would be constructed under this alternative would be the technology-based structures. That is, no additional roads, fences, etc., would be constructed. Alternative 3 considers expanding operations/activities with no new construction of traditional infrastructure (i.e. fences, roads, etc.). Alternative 4 considers construction of additional infrastructure while maintaining the current level of operations/activities. NEPA also requires that the “No Action” alternative be analyzed in an EIS. The “No Action” alternative, as presented in this PEIS, would not allow for the expansion of USBP operations and would eliminate all proposed infrastructure construction. Each alternative carried forward for analysis is briefly described in the following paragraphs. No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would consist of continuing the operations at the same level as they are currently. On-going infrastructure construction would be completed, but no new infrastructure construction would be initiated. Even though this alternative would reduce unavoidable impacts and irretrievable losses of resources, it would greatly hinder the USBP’s mission to gain and maintain control of the border. Alternative 1. Expand Operations and Infrastructure (Proposed Action) This alternative would allow the USBP to expand its current operations/activities and complete ongoing infrastructure projects. In addition to those projects currently being constructed, this alternative would include construction of several proposed infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects that are currently planned include new or expanded station facilities, roads, fences, and vehicle barriers. This alternative would Programmatic EIS –Tucson/Yuma Sector Review Draft iv BW1 FOIA CBP 009588 also include construction or installation of technology-based structures such as RVS systems, stadium lighting, and ground sensors. Alternative 2. Expansion of Technology Based Infrastructure/Operations Only This alternative promotes the use of technology-based operations and infrastructure over traditional barrier type operations. This alternative would include expanding the use of RVS sites, remote-sensing systems, portable generator and stadium style lights, skywatch towers, sensors, and repeaters. Traditional operations would remain at current levels and no new traditional infrastructure (e.g., roads, fences, vehicle barriers, etc.) would be constructed. Alternative 3. Expansion of Traditional Operations without New Infrastructure Alternative 3 includes the expansion of current USBP operations (e.g., drag roads, checkpoints and aerial reconnaissance), but would not allow for construction of proposed infrastructure projects. Construction projects that have already been evaluated through the NEPA process and/or currently under construction would be completed. Alternative 4. This alternative would allow for the completion of current infrastructure projects and the construction of proposed infrastructure projects but would not allow for the expansion of USBP operations. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: This PEIS presents information on the existing conditions of the project area and analyzes potential impacts, in a programmatic sense, to the environment that could occur as a result of the proposed operational and construction activities. Resources, which are not expected to be affected by the Proposed Action, are not fully analyzed in this PEIS. Background information
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]
    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001] Area Overview Size and Location: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) encompasses 37,330 acres. This area is located in the Tumacacori and Atacosa Mountains, which are part of the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona (see Map 4 at the end of this document). The Tumacacori PWA is overlapped by 30,305 acres of the Tumacacori Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 81 percent of the PWA. Vicinity, Surroundings and Access: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area is approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The Tumacacori PWA is centrally located within the mountain range and encompasses an area from Sardina and Tumacacori Peaks at the northern end to Ruby Road at the southern end and from the El Paso Natural Gas Line on the eastern side to Arivaca Lake on its western side. The PWA is adjacent to the Pajarita Wilderness Area, Arivaca Lake and Peña Blanca Lake. Both Pena Blanca and Arivaca Lakes are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Interstate 19 (I-19) connects the Tucson metropolitan area to the City of Nogales and the incorporated community of Sahuarita. The unincorporated communities of Green Valley, Arivaca Junction-Amado, Tubac, Tumacacori-Carmen and Rio Rico, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are within close proximity to the eastern side of the Tumacacori Mountains and the PWA. State Highway 289 provides access from I-19 across private and National Forest System lands into the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area to Peña Blanca Lake and Ruby Road (NFS Road 39).
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 & 2022 Fishing Regulations Fishing Regulations
    ArizonaArizona Game and Fish DepartmentDepartment 20212021 & 2022 FishingFishing Regulations i Get a GEICO quote for your boat and, in just 15 minutes, you’ll know how much you could be saving. If you like what you hear, you can buy your policy right on the spot. Then let us do the rest while you enjoy your free time with peace of mind. geico.com/boat | 1-800-865-4846 Some discounts, coverages, payment plans, and features are not available in all states, in all GEICO companies, or in all situations. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. In the state of CA, program provided through Boat Association Insurance Services, license #0H87086. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, DC 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. © 2020 GEICO ii ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT — AZGFD.GOV 2021 & 2022 ARIZONA FISHING REGULATIONS 1 AdPages2019.indd 2 12/11/2020 11:36:21 AM AdPages2019.indd 1 12/11/2020 11:35:54 AM Table of Contents Fishing License Fees GETTING STARTED Licenses available at all license dealers, Department offices and online at azgfd.gov. License Information and Fees .......................................................... 3 More information about the new licenses can be found under Commission Rules R12-4-207, R12-4-209 and R12-4-210. Regulation Changes .............................................................................4 All fishing and combo hunt/fish licenses listed are valid for the take of all aquatic wildlife, which includes legal fish species, crayfish, frogs, waterdogs and Douglas A. Ducey, Governor softshell turtles. How to Use This Booklet .................................................................... 5 Started Getting ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION LICENSES PRIVILEGES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT Kurt R.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest
    CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST TUMACACORI ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT AREA Transportation Analysis Plan June 2005 Revised August 2009 Edited By ELI CURIEL JR. ID Core Team Leader Approved By /s/ Kent C. Ellett August 13, 2009 Kent C. Ellett, Nogales District Ranger Date Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Step 1 – Setting Up the Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 4 Step 2 – Describing the Situation ................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.1 – Existing Transportation system .................................................................................................. 9 Table 2.2 - Existing Road Classifications .................................................................................................... 26 Step 3- Identifying Issues .............................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 3.1 Annual Deferred Maintenance Costs .......................................................................................... 28 Step 4- Assessing Benefits, Problems and Risks of the Existing Road System ........................................................ 30 Lands .............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Coronado Revised Plan
    Coronado National United States Forest Department of Agriculture Forest Draft Land and Service Resource Management August 2011 Plan The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – Month and Year Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For more information contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] ii Draft Land and Management Resource Plan Coronado National Forest Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Land and Resource Management Plan ......................................... 1 Overview of the Coronado National Forest .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Saddlebrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description
    SaddleBrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description AZ Trail B Arizona Trail: Alamo Canyon This passage begins at a point west of the White Canyon Wilderness on the Tonto (Passage 17) National Forest boundary about 0.6 miles due east of Ajax Peak. From here the trail heads west and north for about 1.5 miles, eventually dropping into a two- track road and drainage. Follow the drainage north for about 100 feet until it turns left (west) via the rocky drainage and follow this rocky two-track for approximately 150 feet. At this point there is new signage installed leading north (uphill) to a saddle. This is a newly constructed trail which passes through the saddle and leads downhill across a rugged and lush hillside, eventually arriving at FR4. After crossing FR4, the trail continues west and turns north as you work your way toward Picketpost Mountain. The trail will continue north and eventually wraps around to the west side of Picketpost and somewhat paralleling Alamo Canyon drainage until reaching the Picketpost Trailhead. Hike 13.6 miles; trailhead elevations 3471 feet south and 2399 feet north; net elevation change 1371 feet; accumulated gains 1214 northward and 2707 feet southward; RTD __ miles (dirt). AZ Trail A Arizona Trail: Babbitt Ranch This passage begins just east of the Cedar Ranch area where FR 417 and FR (Passage 35) 9008A intersect. From here the route follows a pipeline road north to the Tub Ranch Camp. The route continues towards the corrals (east of the buildings).
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks, Basin
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Study of Uranium Favorability of Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks Basin and Range Province, Arizona Part I General Geology and Chronology of Pre-late Miocene Cenozoic Sedimentary Rocks By Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt Open File Report 79-1429 1979 This report was funded by U.S. Geological Survey Grant No. 14-08-0001528. It;has not been edited for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards or with accepted U.S. Geological Survey stratigraphic nomenclature. FOREWORD This report by Robert Scarborough and Jan Carol Wilt summarizes the results of a study made for the U.S. Geological Survey jointly by the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology and the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry, College of Earth Sciences, University of Arizona, under Grant No. 14-08-0001528. Age dating by the K/Ar method was cost-shared with. NSF Grant No. EAR78-11535 which supports volcanic rock studies by the Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry. It is considered that this report adequately fulfills the agreement objectives. Principal Investigator: H. Wesley Peirce, Principal Geologist Geological Survey Branch Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology University of Arizona, Tucson Co-Principal Investigator: Paul E. Damon, Chief Scientist Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry Department of Geosciences College of Earth Sciences University of Arizona, Tucson CONTENTS Page Abstract ,....,,...,...,........« « 1 Introduction ...,.,..*....««..« «« 3 General statement ........ , ».....,....». 3 Purpose and scope .«..,,.....,.......... 3 Acknowledgments ..................... * . 4 Location and physiographic setting .............. 4 Approach ........................... 5 General Cenozoic geology of Basin and Range Province sediments . General statement ...................... 7 Group I localities with radioactive anomalies ........ 9 Mineta Formation ..................... 9 Cardinal Avenue sediments ................
    [Show full text]
  • Reintroduction of the Tarahumara Frog (Rana Tarahumarae) in Arizona: Lessons Learned
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 15(2):372–389. Submitted: 12 December 2019; Accepted: 11 June 2020; Published: 31 August 2020. REINTRODUCTION OF THE TARAHUMARA FROG (RANA TARAHUMARAE) IN ARIZONA: LESSONS LEARNED JAMES C. RORABAUGH1,8, AUDREY K. OWENS2, ABIGAIL KING3, STEPHEN F. HALE4, STEPHANE POULIN5, MICHAEL J. SREDL6, AND JULIO A. LEMOS-ESPINAL7 1Post Office Box 31, Saint David, Arizona 85630, USA 2Arizona Game and Fish Department, 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 3Jack Creek Preserve Foundation, Post Office Box 3, Ennis, Montana 59716, USA 4EcoPlan Associates, Inc., 3610 North Prince Village Place, Suite 140, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA 5Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2021 North Kinney Road, Tucson, Arizona 85743, USA 6Arizona Game and Fish Department (retired), 5000 West Carefree Highway, Phoenix, Arizona 85086, USA 7Laboratorio de Ecología, Unidad de Biotecnología y Prototipos, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Iztacala, Avenida De Los Barrios No. 1, Colonia Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México 54090, México 8Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Abstract.—The Tarahumara Frog (Rana tarahumarae) disappeared from the northern edge of its range in south- central Arizona, USA, after observed declines and die-offs from 1974 to 1983. Similar declines were noted in Sonora, Mexico; however, the species still persists at many sites in Mexico. Chytridiomycosis was detected during some declines and implicated in others; however, airborne pollutants from copper smelters, predation, competition, and extreme weather may have also been contributing factors. We collected Tarahumara Frogs in Sonora for captive rearing and propagation beginning in 1999, and released frogs to two historical localities in Arizona, including Big Casa Blanca Canyon and vicinity, Santa Rita Mountains, and Sycamore Canyon, Atascosa Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for the USA (W7A
    Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) Summits on the Air U.S.A. (W7A - Arizona) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S53.1 Issue number 5.0 Date of issue 31-October 2020 Participation start date 01-Aug 2010 Authorized Date: 31-October 2020 Association Manager Pete Scola, WA7JTM Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Document S53.1 Page 1 of 15 Summits on the Air – ARM for the U.S.A (W7A - Arizona) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHANGE CONTROL....................................................................................................................................... 3 DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 ASSOCIATION REFERENCE DATA ........................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Program Derivation ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 General Information ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Final Ascent
    [Show full text]
  • Water Sources by Passage 5.27.20-Sheet1
    Water Sources on the Arizona Trail by Passages Arizona Trail Water Reports 5/27/20 Water reports are compiled from personal experiences, hikers, e-mails, and phone calls. Check regularly for updates. Please send any current water reports to Fred Gaudet at [email protected] or call (480) 983-0112 Trail users are posting current water conditions on the Arizona Trail APP. These postings will be more recent than most Water Reports. Mileage -- south to north -- agrees with Arizona Trail Segment Passages and GPS data at www.aztrail.org. Information in this report is provided as a service to the community. Information in this report may not be accurate. Natural water sources in Arizona can and do rapidly change. Resupply box may be empty. The user of this information is solely responsible for their own safety. Hike your own hike. Man made water sources are listed as TOWN or other facility. Some locations may be closed and no water available. The LOCATION will indicate if a water source is off trail with a note, such as 0.5m E Abbreviations: m - mile; N - north; E -east; S - south; W - west. "~" means "approximately" Water Codes: w0-not reliable or none; w1-seasonal or "iffy"; w2-probable; w3-fairly reliable; w4-very reliable source It is recommended that water sources be verified with local sources, such as Forest Service Ranger Stations, National Park Service, BLM offices, or AZA Trail Stewards. Water quality may vary greatly and it is recommend that water sources be treated to reduce risk of water borne diseases. Historic PassageS-N Location
    [Show full text]
  • Otices of Exempt Rulemaki G
    Arizona Administrative Register / Secretary of State otices of Exempt Rulemaking OTICES OF EXEMPT RULEMAKIG The Administrative Procedure Act requires the Register publication of the rules adopted by the state’s agencies under an exemption from all or part of the Administrative Procedure Act. Some of these rules are exempted by A.R.S. §§ 41-1005 or 41-1057; other rules are exempted by other statutes; rules of the Corporation Commission are exempt from Attorney General review pursuant to a court decision as determined by the Corporation Commission. OTICE OF EXEMPT RULEMAKIG TITLE 12. ATURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4. GAME AD FISH COMMISSIO Editor’s ote: The following otice of Exempt Rulemaking was reviewed per Laws 2009, 3rd Special Session, Ch. 7, § 28. (See the text of § 28 at 15 A.A.R. 1942, ovember 20, 2009.) The Governor’s Office authorized the notice to proceed through the rulemaking process on ovember 30, 2009. [R11-40] PREAMBLE 1. Sections Affected Rulemaking Action R12-4-801 Amend R12-4-802 Amend R12-4-803 Amend R12-4-804 Amend 2. The statutory authority for the rulemaking, including both the authorizing statute (general) and the statutes the rules are implementing (specific): Authorizing statute: A.R.S. § 17-231(A)(1) Implementing statute: A.R.S. § 17-231(B)(2) Exempt from the requirements of Title 41, Chapter 6, Article 3 under A.R.S. § 41-1005(A)(2) 3. The effective date of the rules: June 20, 2011 4. A list of all previous notices appearing in the Register addressing the exempt rule: None 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest
    CORONADO NATIONAL FOREST FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN Reviewed and Updated by _/s/ Chris Stetson ___________ Date __5/18/10 __________ Coronado Fire Management Plan Interagency Federal fire policy requires that every area with burnable vegetation must have a Fire Management Plan (FMP). This FMP provides information concerning the fire process for the Coronado National Forest and compiles guidance from existing sources such as but not limited to, the Coronado National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), national policy, and national and regional directives. The potential consequences to firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected help determine the management response to wildfire. Firefighter and public safety are the first consideration and are always the priority during every response to wildfire. The following chapters discuss broad forest and specific Fire Management Unit (FMU) characteristics and guidance. Chapter 1 introduces the area covered by the FMP, includes a map of the Coronado National Forest, addresses the agencies involved, and states why the forest is developing the FMP. Chapter 2 establishes the link between higher-level planning documents, legislation, and policies and the actions described in FMP. Chapter 3 articulates specific goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and/or desired future condition(s), as established in the forest’s LRMP, which apply to all the forest’s FMUs and those that are unique to the forest’s individual FMUs. Page 1 of 30 Coronado Fire Management Plan Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION The Coronado National Forest developed this FMP as a decision support tool to help fire personnel and decision makers determine the response to an unplanned ignition.
    [Show full text]