Ariz. Admin. Code § R12-5-2502 - Reclassification

A. Criteria: Reclassification of state lands as suitable for conservation purposes shall be in the best interest of the Trust as determined by the Commissioner. The Commissioner and the Conservation Advisory Committee may consider any or all of the following criteria in evaluating whether the nominated land should be reclassified as suitable for conservation purposes:

1. Open space: Existence of substantially undisturbed open space values that make the land's conservation an asset to the community or to other adjacent developable state trust land;

2. Unique scenic beauty:

a. Existence of a natural community landmark such as a significant mountain vista; or,

b. Existence of a scenic vista on to or through the land under petition from nearby major roadways or pathways, in addition to the mere existence of undeveloped open space;

3. Wildlife and vegetation:

a. Existence of significant vegetation or wildlife, both native to the region and worthy of protection due to the relative lushness, health and diversity of the vegetation or the number and diversity of the wildlife;

b. Existence of endangered, threatened, or protected plants or endangered or threatened wildlife species as identified under federal or state laws;

c. Existence of significant stands of a signature plant characteristic of the location;

4. Cultural resources:

a. Existence of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site;

b. Existence of a historic structure; or

c. Comparative costs of mitigation, data recovery, or preservation compared to potential revenue production of the land;

5. Wildlife habitat:

a. Existence of sufficient acreage and habitat quality to support populations of endangered, threatened, or other particular species;

b. Interconnection between the land under petition and nearby public lands for wildlife movement;

c. Diversity of plant communities or biodiversity of plant or animal species;

d. Habitat condition, whether intact or degraded; or

e. Distance from an existing or proposed roadway, utility line, or urban development;

6. Other:

a. Geologic and topographic features:

i. Existence of a significant wash, slope, or other topographic feature;

ii. Existence of a unique rock outcropping, formation or other unusual geologic feature; and

iii. Known soil conditions unsuitable for development purposes;

b. Watershed integrity: Relationship of the land to maintenance of the integrity of one or more watersheds;

c. Floodplain management: Impact of the 100-year floodplain on the land;

d. Surface water and groundwater:

i. Existence of a spring or other wetland;

ii. Occurrence of perennial or intermittent stream flow; and

iii. Potential for groundwater recharge.

e. Long-term viability of the land for conservation management:

i. Viability of the land based on its size, configuration, and location for successfully conserving the resources it seeks to protect; and

ii. Relationship of conservation of the land to resolving wildland fire issues, particularly in the urban-wildland interface;

f. Local, regional, or other planning considerations:

i. Relationship between the proposed conservation designation and adopted local and regional plans and policies; and

ii. Relationship of the land to other federal, state, local, or private land trust preserves, holdings, or plans;

g. Recreation:

i. Existence of or proposed trail-based or other low impact recreation opportunities; and

ii. Existence of direct access to or from adjacent public or private lands used for recreational purposes;

h. Accessibility:

i. Public accessibility and nature of that accessibility to the land; and

ii. Impact of accessibility, based on the purpose of conservation of the land;

i. Scientific education:

i. Historic use of the land for scientific research purposes; and

ii. Opportunities for scientific education;

j. Types of multiple use:

i. Multiple use potential of the land; and

ii. Impact of specific multiple uses on the land;

k. Resource production preservation:

i. Existence of grazing lands under petition that a conservation designation may help to protect;

ii. Existence of prime agriculture areas under petition that a conservation designation may help to protect; and

iii. Protection of the resource production component (such as grazing, agriculture, mining, and timber) of the local or regional economy;

l. Relationship to other state trust lands:

i. Proximity to other state trust lands;

ii. Development capability of adjacent state trust lands; and

iii. Anticipated timing of development activity on adjacent state trust lands;

m. Preexisting protections: Existence of any federal, state, or local law requiring protection by existing lessee of proposed conservation values;

n. Tourism: Impact on local or regional tourism;

o. Benefit to the Trust: Whether and for what reason reclassification is in the best interest of the Trust;

B. Multiple Petitions: If multiple petitions are received and the Commissioner determines that reclassification is in the best interest of the Trust, the Commissioner may reclassify the land with the conservation purpose stated in one or more than one of the petitions, or the Commissioner may reclassify the land without stating a conservation purpose.

C. Management Plan: Upon reclassification, the Commissioner may require a party to submit a management plan to allow existing and conservation uses to be coordinated in a manner that will protect both existing uses and conservation and open space values.

Notes

Ariz. Admin. Code § R12-5-2502

Adopted effective March 5, 1998 (Supp. 98-1).