CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000227-FME000372 Draft EIS Oct 2007 (Final)

FME000227
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
San Diego Sector, California
FME000228
FME000229
COVER SHEET
PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR

CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
SAN DIEGO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in San Diego County,

California.
Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure, to include a pedestrian
fence, supporting patrol roads, and other infrastructure in two distinct segments
along the U.S./Mexico international border within USBP’s San Diego Sector. The
two segments would be approximately 0.7 miles and 4.9 miles in length.
Report Designation: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately

5.6 miles of tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international border in
San Diego County, California. Proposed tactical infrastructure would consist of
pedestrian fence, patrol roads, access roads, and construction staging areas in
two segments. The first segment would be approximately 4.9 miles in length and
would start at Puebla Tree and end at Boundary Monument 250. The proposed
segment would be adjacent to and south of the Otay Mountain Wilderness
(OMW), would follow the Pak Truck Trail, and would not connect to any existing
fence. The OMW is on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The second segment would be approximately 0.7 miles in
length and would connect with existing border fence west of Tecate, California.
This fence segment is an extension of an existing fence up Tecate Peak and
would pass through a riparian area. Some portions of the fence segments might
also encroach on multiple privately owned land parcels.
The EIS process will serve as a planning tool to assist agencies with
decisionmaking authority associated with the Proposed Action and ensure that
the required public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) is accomplished. This Draft EIS presents potential environmental
impacts associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives and provide
information to assist in the decisionmaking process about whether and how to
implement the Proposed Action.
Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
status and progress of the Proposed Action and the EIS via the project Web site at
www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com, or
by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S. Army
FME000230
Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support

Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102; and
Fax: (817) 886-6404.
You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBInet, Tactical

Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
(a) Electronically through the Web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

(b) By email to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
(c) By mail to: San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751
Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031; or
(d) By fax to: (757) 257-7643.
PRIVACY NOTICE
Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

addressed in the EIS and made available to the public. Any personal information
included in comments will therefore be publicly available.
FME000231
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
SAN DIEGO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
OCTOBER 2007
FME000232
FME000233
Preliminary Draft EIS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 INTRODUCTION
3 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
4 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (herein referred to as USBP) proposes to
5 construct, maintain, and operate approximately 5.6 miles of tactical infrastructure
6 along the U.S./Mexico international border near the Otay Mountain Wilderness
7 (OMW) and Tecate, San Diego County, California.
8 USBP is charged with preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
9 the United States and interdicting illegal drugs, illegal aliens, and those that
10 attempt to smuggle illegal drugs or aliens into the United States. USBP has nine
11 administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border. USBP San
12 Diego Sector is responsible for 7,000 square miles of land in southern California
13 and 66 miles of the U.S./Mexico international border.
14 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to evaluate the
15 environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives in accordance
16 with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
17 PURPOSE AND NEED

18 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct, operate, and maintain
19 tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological
20 assets to increase security capabilities at the U.S./Mexico international border.
21 The Proposed Action would assist USBP agents and officers in gaining effective
22 control of our nation’s borders.
23 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary
24 to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between Ports of Entry (POEs).
25 The Proposed Action would also help to deter illegal entries through improved
26 enforcement, prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United
27 States, reduce the flow of illegal drugs, and provide a safe work environment and
28 enhance the response time for USBP agents.
29 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

30 effective control of our nation’s borders, USBP is developing an effective
31 combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure; mobilizing and rapidly
32 deploying people and resources; and fostering partnerships with other law
33 enforcement agencies.
34 USBP San Diego Sector has identified several areas along the border that
35 experience high levels of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. These areas
36 are, among other factors, remote and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near
37 the POEs where concentrated populations might live on opposing sides of the
38 border, or have quick access to U.S. transportation routes. In the urban area
San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007
ES-1
FME000234
1 west of Tecate, California, individuals who illegally cross the border have only a
2 short distance to travel before disappearing into neighborhoods. Based on
3 operational challenges in these areas, USBP needs to construct, maintain, and
4 operate the proposed tactical infrastructure to gain effective control of our
5 nation’s borders.
6 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
7 USBP initiated the public scoping process for this EIS on October 14, 2007, with
8 the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal
9 Register. The NOI requested public comments on the scope of the EIS and
10 provided information on how the public could submit comments by mail,
11 facsimile, electronic mail, or through the project-specific Web site. Public
12 comments submitted as part of the scoping process were considered during the
13 development of the EIS.
14 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

15 USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
16 consisting of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, and access roads along the
17 U.S./Mexico international border in the San Diego Sector, California. The Fiscal
18 Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295) provided
19 $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the
20 border (CRS 2006).
21 Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of fence segments in areas

22 of the border that are not currently fenced. The first segment is approximately
23 4.9 miles in length and would start at Puebla Tree and end at Boundary
24 Monument 250. The second segment would be approximately 0.7 miles in length
25 and would connect with existing border fence west of Tecate, California. The
26 proposed fence and tactical infrastructure could encroach on both public lands
27 managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and privately owned land
28 parcels.
29 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
30 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
31 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
32 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
33 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
34 within USBP San Diego Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP
35 mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is
36 prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and will
37 be carried forward for analysis in the EIS. The No Action Alternative also serves
38 as a baseline against which to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.

ES-2
FME000235
1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

3 consisting of pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads along the
4 U.S./Mexico international border in the San Diego Sector, California. Congress
5 has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical
6 infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure in these or other
7 locations might be required in the future as mission and operational requirements
8 are continually reassessed.
9 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in two segments along
10 the international border within USBP San Diego Sector, in San Diego County,
11 California. The first segment would be approximately 4.9 miles in length and
12 would start at Puebla Tree and end at Boundary Monument 250. The proposed
13 segment would be adjacent to and south of the OMW and would not connect to
14 any existing fence. The OMW is on public lands administered by BLM. The
15 wilderness area boundary is at least 100 feet from the U.S./Mexico international
16 border, and the proposed fence would occur in this corridor between the
17 U.S./Mexico international border and the wilderness area boundary. However,
18 due to steep topography, a portion of road or other tactical infrastructure might
19 encroach into the wilderness area.
20 The second segment would be approximately 0.7 miles in length and would
21 connect with existing border fence west of Tecate. This fence segment is an
22 extension of an existing fence on Tecate Peak and would pass through a riparian
23 area. This proposed fence segment could encroach on multiple privately owned
24 land parcels. Construction of this fence segment would include an upgrade to an
25 existing access road west of Tecate.
26 Routes alternatives for Segment A-1 near the OMW are being considered.
27 Route A is the route initially identified by USBP San Diego Sector as best
28 meeting its operational needs and would be approximately 3 feet north of the
29 U.S./Mexico international border within the Roosevelt Reservation.1 Route A
30 would require significant amounts of blasting activity, cut-and-fill operations,
31 creation of at least two construction staging areas, and construction of
32 switchback roads; and general improvement to existing access roads.
33 Route B would provide our alternative alignment to avoid or minimize

34 environmental impacts. Route B was developed during the EIS process through
1
In 1907, President Roosevelt reserved from entry and set apart as a public reservation all
public lands within 60 feet of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico
within the State of California and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico. Known as the
“Roosevelt Reservation,” this land withdrawal was found “necessary for the public welfare ... as
a protection against the smuggling of goods.” The proclamation excepted from the reservation
all lands, which, as of its date, were (1) embraced in any legal entry; (2) covered by any lawful
filing, selection, or rights of way duly recorded in the proper U.S. Land Office; (3) validly settled
pursuant to law; or (4) within any withdrawal or reservation for any use or purpose inconsistent
with its purposes (CRS 2006).
ES-3
FME000236
1 consultation with cooperating agencies to identify a route alternative with fewer

2 adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, Route B represents a compromise
3 alignment that takes into account a balance between operational effectiveness of
4 proposed tactical infrastructure and environmental quality. Although Route B
5 would have fewer impacts than Route A, it would still require significant amounts
6 of blasting activity, cut-and-fill operations, creation of at least two construction
7 staging areas, construction of switchback roads, and general improvement to
8 existing access roads.
9 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

10 The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) directed USBP to construct at
11 least two layers of reinforced fencing along the U.S./Mexico international border.
12 Two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be
13 constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2,
14 Route B.
15 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
16 patrol roads. The patrol road would be between the primary and secondary
17 fences. The design of the pedestrian fence under this alternative would be
18 similar to that of Alternative 2.
19 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

20 Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential impacts anticipated under each
21 alternative considered, broken down by resource area. Section 4 of this EIS
22 evaluates these impacts.
23 MITIGATION
24 USBP followed design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and
25 would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
26 environmental impacts. Design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts
27 include selecting a location for tactical infrastructure that would avoid or minimize
28 impacts on environmental and cultural resources, consultations with Federal and
29 state agencies and other stakeholders to avoid or minimize adverse
30 environmental impacts and develop appropriate Best Management Practices
31 (BMPs), and avoidance of physical disturbance and construction of solid barriers
32 in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds. BMPs would include implement its
33 Construction Mitigation and Restoration (CM&R) Plan, Spill Prevention Control
34 and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring
35 (PRMM) Plan, Dust Control Plan, Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan, and
36 Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect natural and
37 cultural resources (see Table ES-2.)

ES-4
FME000237
1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative
Alternative 2 Alternative 2
Alternative 1: Alternative 3:
(Route A): (Route B):
Resource Area No Action Secure Fence
Proposed Proposed
Alternative Act Alignment
Action Action
Air Quality
Noise
Land Use and
Recreation
Geology and
Soils
Water
Resources
Biological
Resources
Cultural
Resources
Visual
Resources
Socioeconomics
Resources,
Environmental
Justice, and
Safety
2 [[Preparer’s Note: This table will be populated once the analysis is

3 complete and will be included prior to the publication of the Draft EIS.]]

ES-5
FME000238
1 Table ES-2. Mitigation Recommendations
Alternative Alternative 2,
Alternative 3:
1: No Alternative 2, Route B:
Resource Area Secure Fence
Action Route A Proposed
Act Alignment
Alternative Action
Air Quality No impacts Short-term and Short-term and Impacts would
would be long-term long-term be similar, but
expected. minor to major negligible to approximately
adverse minor adverse 2.5 times higher
impacts. impacts. than Alternative
2.
Noise No impacts Short-term Short-term Impacts would
would be moderate and moderate and be similar, but
expected. long-term long-term slightly greater
negligible to negligible to than the impacts
minor adverse minor adverse described under
impacts would impacts would Alternative 2.
be expected. be expected.
Land Use and Long-term Long-term Long-term Impacts would
Recreation minor minor adverse minor to be similar, but
adverse impacts would moderate slightly greater
impacts occur. adverse than the impacts
would occur. impacts would described under
occur. Alternative 2.
Geology and Long-term Short-term and Short-term and Impacts would
Soils minor long-term long-term be similar, but
adverse major adverse negligible to approximately
impacts impacts would minor adverse 2.5 times higher
would occur. be expected. impacts would than Alternative
be expected. 2.
Water Resources Long-term Short-term and Short-term and Impacts would
minor long-term long-term be similar, but
adverse negligible to negligible to approximately
impacts minor adverse minor adverse 2.5 times higher
would occur. impacts would impacts would than Alternative
be expected. be expected. 2.
Biological Long-term Short-term and Short-term and Impacts would
Resources indirect long-term long-term be similar, but
minor minor to major minor to major approximately
adverse adverse adverse 2.5 times higher
impacts impacts would impacts would than Alternative
would occur. be expected. be expected. 2.
2

ES-6
FME000239
1 Table ES-2. Mitigation Recommendations (continued)
Alternative Alternative 2,
Alternative 3:
1: No Alternative 2, Route B:
Resource Area Secure Fence
Action Route A Proposed
Act Alignment
Alternative Action
Cultural Long-term Long-term Long-term Impacts would
Resources minor major adverse major adverse be similar, but
adverse impacts would impacts would slightly greater
impacts be expected. be expected. than the impacts
would occur. described under
Alternative 2.
Visual Resources No impacts Short-term and Short-term and Impacts would
would be long-term long-term be similar but
expected. minor to major minor to major greater than the
adverse adverse impacts
impacts would impacts would described under
be expected. be expected. Alternative 2.
Socioeconomics No impacts Short-term Short-term Impacts would
Resources, would be minor direct minor direct be similar, but
Environmental expected. and indirect and indirect slightly greater
Justice, and beneficial beneficial than the impacts
Safety impacts on impacts on described under
employment employment Alternative 2.
would be would be
expected. expected.
Long-term Long-term
moderate moderate
adverse adverse
impacts on impacts on
agricultural agricultural
lands and lands and
public services public services
would be would be
expected. expected.
Long-term Long-term
indirect indirect
beneficial beneficial
impacts on impacts on
safety would safety would
be expected. be expected.

ES-7
FME000240
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

ES-8
FME000241
1 PRELIMINARY DRAFT
2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
3 FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION OF TACTICAL
4 INFRASTRUCTURE
5 SAN DIEGO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
6
7 TABLE OF CONTENTS
8
9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ES-1
10 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1-1
11 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1-1
12 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................................................ 1-3
13 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION................................................................................... 1-4
14 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................... 1-4
15 1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................... 1-4
16 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act ................................................ 1-5
17 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................. 1-6
18 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES ....................................................................... 1-7
19 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION
20 REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 1-9
21 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 2-1
22 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES .......................................... 2-1
23 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 2-2
24 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ................................................. 2-2
25 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ........................................................ 2-2
26 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................... 2-7
27 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM
28 FURTHER DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................... 2-7
29 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure .............. 2-10
30 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure .................................. 2-10
31 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED
32 ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................... 2-11
33 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................ 3-1
34 3.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3-1
35 3.2 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................... 3-2
36 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource ................................................................ 3-2
37 3.2.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................... 3-3
38 3.3 NOISE .......................................................................................................... 3-6
39 3.3.1 Definition of Resource ...................................................................... 3-6
40 3.3.2 Affected Environment ....................................................................... 3-7
41 3.4 LAND USE AND RECREATION .................................................................. 3-9
42 3.4.1 Definition of the Resource ................................................................ 3-9
43 3.4.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 3-10
44 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................. 3-11
45 3.5.1 Definition of the Resource .............................................................. 3-11

i
FME000242

2 3.6 WATER RESOURCES............................................................................... 3-15
5 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................... 3-21
8 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................... 3-27
11 3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 3-36
14 3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
15 AND SAFETY............................................................................................. 3-37
18 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................... 4-1
19 4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 4-1
20 4.2 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................... 4-2
21 4.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ................................................. 4-3
22 4.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ........................................................ 4-3
23 4.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................... 4-6
24 4.3 NOISE .......................................................................................................... 4-8
25 4.3.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .................................................. 4-8
26 4.3.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ......................................................... 4-9
27 4.3.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative .................. 4-10
28 4.4 LAND USE AND RECREATION ................................................................ 4-10
29 4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ............................................... 4-11
30 4.4.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...................................................... 4-11
31 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................. 4-12
32 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................. 4-12
36 4.6 WATER RESOURCES............................................................................... 4-14
40 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ........................................................................ 4-18
44 4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................... 4-21
48 4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4-22
ii
FME000243

2 4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .... 4-27
6 5. MITIGATION ......................................................................................................... 5-1
7 5.1 MITIGATION PLAN AND CEQA FINDINGS ................................................ 5-1
8 5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS/STATEMENT OF
9 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................... 5-15
10 5.3 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
11 RESOURCES; SHORT- AND LONG-TERM USES OF THE
12 ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 5-15
13 6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 6-1
14 6.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................... 6-7
15 6.2 NOISE .......................................................................................................... 6-7
16 6.3 LAND USE AND RECREATION .................................................................. 6-7
17 6.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................... 6-7
18 6.5 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................. 6-8
19 6.6 FLOODPLAINS ............................................................................................ 6-8
20 6.7 VEGETATION .............................................................................................. 6-8
21 6.8 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES .................................................... 6-9
22 6.9 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ....................................................................... 6-9
23 6.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................... 6-9
24 6.11 VISUAL RESOURCES ................................................................................. 6-9
25 6.12 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...... 6-9
26 7. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 7-1
27 8. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................. 8-1
28 9. LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................... 9-1
29
30 APPENDICES
31
32 A Applicable Laws and Regulations
33 B Scoping and Public Involvement
34 C Draft EIS Public Involvement
35 D Standard Design For Tactical Infrastructure
36 E Detailed Proposed Segment Maps Showing Land Use and Water
37 F Detailed Proposed Segment Maps Showing Soils
38 G Summary of Natural Resources Data Collection Efforts
39 H Summary of Cultural Resources Data Collection Efforts
40 I Air Emissions Calculations
41

iii
FME000244
1 FIGURES
2
3 1.1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure .............................................. 1-2
4 2.2-1. Alternative 2, Routes A and B ............................................................................. 2-5
5 2.2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2 ........................................ 2-8
6 2.2-3. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3 ........................................ 2-9
7 3.3-1. Common Noise Levels ........................................................................................ 3-8
8 4.9-1. Viewsheds of Segment A-1 .............................................................................. 4-25
9 4.9-2. Viewsheds of Segment A-2 .............................................................................. 4-26
10
11
12 TABLES
13
14 ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative ...................... ES-5
15 ES-2. Mitigation Recommendations ........................................................................... ES-6
16 1.7-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations ..................................................... 1-9
17 2.2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP San Diego Sector ................................... 2-3
18 3.2-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................. 3-4
19 3.3-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................... 3-7
20 3.4-1. Land Uses that Intersect the Proposed Action ................................................. 3-11
21 3.5-1. Properties of the Soil Types Found Throughout the Areas of the Proposed
22 Action ................................................................................................................. 3-13
23 3.6-1. Potential Sources of COCs ............................................................................... 3-20
24 3.7-1. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (State-listed) within the San
25 Diego County Proposed Project Corridor .......................................................... 3-25
26 3.7-2. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species Considered ............. 3-26
27 3.8-1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources .............................................. 3-33
28 4.2-1. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds .................................................... 4-3
29 4.2-2. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates from the Proposed
30 Action ................................................................................................................... 4-5
31 4.2-3. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates from Alternative 3 ............... 4-7
32 5.1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Program for the San Diego Tactical Infrastructure
33 Project ................................................................................................................. 5-2
34 6.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects .......................................................... 6-4
35

iv
FME000245
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (herein referred to as USBP) proposes to
4 construct, maintain, and operate approximately 5.6 miles of tactical infrastructure
5 along the U.S./Mexico international border near the Otay Mountain Wilderness
6 (OMW), San Diego County, California. Tactical infrastructure would consist of
7 pedestrian fence, patrol roads, access roads, and construction staging areas in
8 two segments along the U.S./Mexico international border within USBP’s San
9 Diego Sector, Brown Field Station. Proposed tactical infrastructure includes the
10 installation of fence segments in areas of the border that are not currently fenced.
11 The first segment is approximately 4.9 miles in length and would start at Puebla
12 Tree and end at Boundary Monument 250. The second would be approximately
13 0.7 miles in length and would connect with existing border fence west of Tecate,
14 California (see Figure 1.1-1). The proposed fence and tactical infrastructure
15 could encroach on both public lands managed by the Bureau of Land
16 Management (BLM) and privately owned land parcels.
17 This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is divided into nine sections plus
18 appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP missions,
19 identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the area in
20 which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public involvement
21 process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action,
22 alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3 describes
23 existing environmental conditions in the areas where the Proposed Action would
24 occur. Section 4 identifies potential environmental impacts that could occur
25 within each resource area under the alternatives evaluated in detail. Section 5
26 discusses the mitigation measures for each resource area. Section 6 discusses
27 potential cumulative impacts and other impacts that might result from
28 implementation of the Proposed Action, combined with foreseeable future
29 actions. Section 7 provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations. Sections 8
30 and 9 provide a list of preparers and references for the EIS, respectively.
31 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

32 USBP has multiple missions, including the following:
33 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of mass

34 destruction, from entering the United States
35 • Interdiction of illegal drugs and those who attempt to smuggle them into
36 the United States
37 • Interdiction of illegal aliens and those who attempt to smuggle them into
38 the United States (CBP 2006).
39 USBP’s new and traditional missions, both of which are referred to above, are
40 complementary.
1-1
3
2
1
Ch W ash Vi
d
as in gto ej a
8 Ol
d
rn R
Route A Proposed G r ad e R
ve
a Rd
Ta
Fence Segments D eh e s De
he J ap
sa a tu
Rd lR
Route B Proposed d
FME000246
California
r
Fence Segments
ve
Dr
Forests, Refuges and Wilderness Areas Los
do R
ra
Angeles Salton Arizona
Construction Staging Area San Sea
C o lo
Skyline
Phoenix
Jam U N I T E D S TA T E S Diego
A-1 Fence Segment Label Tijuana
Miles
Lyons Va
0 1.25 2.5 5 lley
R
San Diego
d
Scale Jamul Sector
Projection: Albers California
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic MEXICO
North American Datum of 1983 94
Gulf
Pacific of
Co Ocean California
rr
al
San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS

Ca
nyo
n Rd
R Pine Creek
ut
es Rd Wilderness
ge
H St y Lak
O ta
rs A
San Diego
ve
Chula Vista d Barrett Cleveland
National es R
La k Lake National
O ta y
Wildlife Refuge
1-2
Forest
Otay Mesa Lower Otay Morena
Hauser
(5 miles) Reservo ir Reservoir
Wilderness
Bee
R
it
m
Ca
n
Otay Mountain yo um
905 117 n RS
Wilderness d Potrero Valley R
Rd
San d
ey
Diego
V all
94 Rd
h
nc
Potrero
Ra
is Hauser Mountain
r
A-2
ar
H
Wilderness
188 Study Area
A-1 Tecate
M E X I C O
Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005
Figure 1.1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
October 2007
FME000247
1 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
2 USBP San Diego Sector is responsible for 7,000 square miles of Southern
3 California and 66 miles of the U.S./Mexico international border. USBP San
4 Diego Sector is responsible for the entire county of San Diego, California (CBP
5 2007).
6 The Brown Field Station has responsibility for approximately 11.5 miles of the
7 border within USBP San Diego Sector. During the 2006 calendar year, the
8 Brown Field Station was responsible for 46,213 apprehensions, or 34 percent of
9 all apprehensions within USBP San Diego Sector. The Brown Field Station is the
10 fifth busiest station (in terms of apprehensions) in USBP (CBP 2007).
11 Approximately half of the Brown Field Station area of responsibility has tactical
12 infrastructure in place. The region without infrastructure is rugged mountainous
13 terrain that is currently difficult to access and patrol. The majority of this
14 unsecured area is to the south of BLM’s OMW and has become a focal point of
15 illegal immigrant traffic, where traffickers are well-funded and organized.
16 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

17 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct, operate, and maintain
18 tactical infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological
19 assets to increase security capabilities at the international border with Mexico.
20 The Proposed Action would assist USBP agents and officers in gaining effective
21 control of our nation’s borders.
22 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the ability to
23 enhance security capabilities, by providing the tools necessary to strengthen their
24 control of the U.S. border. This is especially important between Ports of Entry
25 (POEs). The Proposed Action would also help to deter illegal entries through
26 improved enforcement, prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the
27 United States, reduce the flow of illegal drugs, and provide a safer work
28 environment and enhance the response time for USBP agents.
29 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

30 effective control of our nation’s borders, USBP is developing an effective
31 combination of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure; mobilizing and
32 rapidly deploying people and resources; and fostering partnerships with other law
33 enforcement agencies.
34 USBP San Diego Sector has identified several areas along the border that
35 experience high levels of illegal immigration and drug trafficking. These areas
36 are, among other factors, remote and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near
37 the POEs where concentrated populations might live on opposite sides of the
38 border, or have quick access to U.S. transportation routes. In the urban area
39 west of Tecate, Mexico, individuals who illegally cross the border have only a
40 short distance to travel before disappearing into neighborhoods. Based on

1-3
FME000248
1 operational challenges in these areas, USBP needs to construct, maintain, and

2 operate the proposed tactical infrastructure to gain effective control of our
3 nation’s borders.
4 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

6 consisting of pedestrian fence, patrol roads, and access roads along the
7 U.S./Mexico international border in the San Diego Sector, Brown Field Station.
8 The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295)
9 provided $1.2 billion for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and technology
10 along the border (CRS 2006). Figure 1.1-1 illustrates the location of the
11 proposed tactical infrastructure within USBP San Diego Sector. Details of the
12 Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2.
13 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

14 There are both Federal and state statutes that require comprehensive evaluation
15 of major government actions that could affect the natural or human environment.
16 Both are structured to ensure that the public is afforded opportunities to
17 participate in the evaluations so that that all points of view are considered and
18 possible alternatives to the action proposed by the agency are identified. These
19 Federal and state statutes are described below to establish a framework for the
20 development of this document.
21 1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

22 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a Federal statute requiring the
23 identification and analysis of potential environmental impacts of proposed
24 Federal actions before those actions are taken. NEPA also established the
25 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which is charged with the development
26 of implementing regulations and ensuring agency compliance with NEPA. CEQ
27 regulations mandate that all Federal agencies use a systematic interdisciplinary
28 approach to environmental planning and the evaluation of actions that might
29 affect the environment. This process evaluates potential environmental
30 consequences associated with a proposed action and considers alternative
31 courses of action. The intent of NEPA is to protect, restore, or enhance the
32 environment through well-informed Federal decisions.
33 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 Code of Federal

34 Regulations (CFR) 1500–1508, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural
35 Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, and DHS’s Management
36 Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental Planning Program. The CEQ was
37 established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this
38 process.

1-4
FME000249
1 An EIS is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potential

2 “significant” environmental impacts, or a proposed action is environmentally
3 controversial. An EIS generally presents separate chapters specifically tailored
4 to address the following:
5 • The need for the Proposed Action

6 • Reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action
7 • The affected environment
8 • The nature and extent of environmental impacts associated with the
9 Proposed Action and alternatives (including the “No Action Alternative”)
10 • A listing of agencies and persons contacted during the EIS preparation
11 process and public involvement efforts.
12 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
13 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
14 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
15 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
16 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an Environmental
17 Assessment (EA) or EIS, which enables the decisionmaker to have a
18 comprehensive view of major environmental issues and requirements associated
19 with the Proposed Action. According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of
20 NEPA must be integrated “with other planning and environmental review
21 procedures required by law or by an agency so that all such procedures run
22 concurrently rather than consecutively.”
23 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

24 authorities that can also be considered include the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean
25 Water Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
26 [NPDES] storm water discharge permit), Noise Control Act, Endangered Species
27 Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), National Historic Preservation Act
28 (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, Resource Conservation and
29 Recovery Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, and various Executive Orders
30 (EOs). A summary of additional laws, regulations, and EOs that might be
31 applicable to the Proposed Action are shown in Appendix A.
32 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act

33 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as promulgated in the
34 California Public Resources Code Section 21000-21177, was adopted in 1970 by
35 the State of California to inform governmental decisionmakers and the public
36 about the potential environmental effect of a project, identify ways to reduce
37 adverse impacts, offer alternatives to the project, and disclose to the public why a
38 project was approved. CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded, or
39 requiring an issuance of a permit by a state agency. For this project, CEQA is
40 applicable because under Section 401 of the CWA (33 United States Code
1-5
FME000250
1 [U.S.C.] 1341), states and tribes are delegated authority to approve, condition, or
2 deny all Federal permits or licenses that might result in a discharge to state or
3 tribal waters, including wetlands. Projects that have a potential for resulting in
4 physical change to the environment, or that might be subject to several
5 discretionary approvals by governmental agencies including construction
6 activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and
7 activities or equipment involving the issuance of a permit, are required to go
8 through the CEQA process. For this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
9 anticipated. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate when all
10 environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant (as defined in
11 the CEQA regulations) through mitigation of the impacts. This EIS will identify
12 the impacts before mitigation, the specific mitigation proposed to reduce the
13 impacts, and the characterization of the impacts with mitigation measures applied
14 for purposes of complying with CEQA.
15 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

16 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open
17 communication between the public and the government and enhances the
18 decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest
19 in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking
20 process.
21 NEPA and implementing regulations from the CEQ and DHS direct agencies to
22 make their EISs available to the public during the decisionmaking process and
23 prior to decisions on what actions are to be taken. The premise of NEPA is that
24 the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide
25 information to the public and involve the public in the planning process.
26 Public scoping activities for this EIS were initiated, on September 24, 2007, when
27 a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare this EIS was published in the Federal Register
28 (72 FR 184, pp. 54277–78, see Appendix B). Besides providing a brief
29 description of the Proposed Action and announcing USBP’s intent to prepare this
30 EIS, the NOI also established a 20-day public scoping period. The purpose of
31 the scoping process is to solicit public comment regarding the range of issues,
32 including potential impacts and alternatives that should be addressed in the EIS.
33 Public comments received during the public scoping period have been
34 considered in the preparation of this Draft EIS (see Appendix C).
35 In addition to the NOI published in the Federal Register, newspaper notices

36 coinciding with the NOI were published in the San Diego Union-Tribune and the
37 San Diego Daily Transcript on September 24 and 30, 2007. The notice was also
38 published in Spanish in La Prensa and Hispanos Unidos on September 28, 2007.
39 Copies of the newspaper notices are included in Appendix B.
40 Through the public involvement process, USBP also notified relevant Federal,
41 state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input on

1-6
FME000251
1 environmental concerns such agencies might have regarding the Proposed

2 Action. The public involvement process provides USBP with the opportunity to
3 cooperate with and consider state and local views in its decision whether or not
4 to implement this Federal proposal. As part of the EIS process, USBP has
5 coordinated with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish
6 and Wildlife Service (USFWS); California State Historic Preservation Office
7 (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix B). Input
8 from agencies on the scope of the EIS has been incorporated into the analysis of
9 potential environmental impacts.
10 Anyone wishing to provide written comments, suggestions, or relevant

11 information regarding this Draft EIS may do so by submitting comments to USBP
12 by contacting SBInet, Tactical Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid
13 duplication, please use only one of the following methods:
14 a. Electronically through the Web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com

15 b. By email to: SDcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
16 c. By mail to: San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS, c/o e²M, 2751 Prosperity
17 Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
18 d. By fax to: (757) 282-7697.
19 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
20 status and progress of the EIS via the project Web site at
21 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com, by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com,
22 or by written request to (b) (6) Environmental Manager, U.S.
23 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction
24 Support Office (ECSO), 814 Taylor Street, Room 3A28, Fort Worth, TX 76102;
25 and Fax: (817) 886-6404.
26 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

27 USBP invited the USACE-Los Angeles District, the International Boundary and
28 Water Commission (IBWC), BLM, and USEPA Region 9 to be cooperating
29 agencies in preparation of this EIS. As cooperating agencies, the USACE-Los
30 Angeles District, IBWC, BLM, and USEPA Region 9 have decisionmaking
31 authority for components of the Proposed Action and intend for this EIS to fulfill
32 their requirements for compliance with NEPA. The CEQ regulations
33 implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine environmental documents to
34 reduce duplication and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).
35 The USACE-Los Angeles District will act on applications for Department of the
36 Army permits pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33
37 U.S.C. 403), and Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
38 The Palm Springs South Coast Field Office of the BLM has jurisdiction over most
39 of the land traversed by the Proposed Action. BLM also has oversight for OMW,
1-7
FME000252
1 which is directly to the north of one of the fence segments. Any activity occurring
2 within the BLM-owned portions of the Proposed Action or the adjacent OMW will
3 require approval and oversight by the Palm Springs South Coast Field Office of
4 BLM.
5 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
6 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
7 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
8 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
9 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS as a cooperating
10 agency (see Appendix B) regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether
11 any federally listed, proposed endangered, or proposed threatened species or
12 their designated critical habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed
13 Action. As a cooperating agency, USFWS will complete the Section 7
14 consultation process, identifying the nature and extent of potential effects, and
15 developing measures that would avoid or reduce potential effects on any species
16 of concern. The USFWS will issue their Biological Opinion (BO) of the potential
17 for jeopardy. If USFWS determines that the project is not likely to jeopardize any
18 listed species, they can also issue an incidental take statement as an exception
19 to the prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.
20 The IBWC is an international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican

21 Section, each headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by his/her
22 respective president. Each Section is administered independently of the other.
23 The U.S. Section of the IBWC is a Federal government agency headquartered in
24 El Paso, Texas, and operates under the foreign policy guidance of the
25 Department of State (IBWC 2007). The U.S. Section of the IBWC will provide
26 access and ROWs, if necessary to construct proposed tactical infrastructure in
27 areas of the Tijuana River floodplain. It will also ensure that design and
28 placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control
29 and does not violate treaty obligations between the United States and Mexico.
30

1-8
FME000253
1 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

2 Table 1.7-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations
Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish Section 7 (ESA) coordination
and Wildlife Service MBTA coordination
CWA NPDES construction permit and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CWA Section 404 permit and mitigation
consultation
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 404
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Permit
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 NHPA coordination
California Department of Fish and Game California Endangered Species Act
(CDFG) coordination
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Control Board
California SHPO Section 106 NHPA coordination
Federally recognized American Indian Consultation regarding potential effects
Tribes on cultural resources
3

1-9
FME000254

1-10
FME000255
1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2 This section provides detailed information on USBP’s proposal to construct,

3 maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international
4 border in USBP San Diego Sector, California. Each alternative considered in this
5 EIS must be reasonable in its ability to be implemented and meet USBP’s
6 purpose and need (as described in Section 1.2). Such alternatives must also
7 meet essential technical, engineering, and economic threshold requirements to
8 ensure that each is environmentally sound, economically viable, and complies
9 with governing standards and regulations.
10 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

11 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and
12 evaluate potential alternatives.
13 • USBP Operational Requirements. Pedestrian border fencing must

14 support USBP mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the
15 border. Once individuals have entered an urban area or suburban
16 neighborhood, it is much more difficult for USBP agents to identify and
17 apprehend suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. In addition, around
18 populated areas it is relatively easy for illegal border crossers to find
19 transportation into the interior of the United States. USBP undertook a
20 detailed screening process to develop a optimum combination of tactical
21 infrastructure to include fence, technology, and other resources that would
22 best meet its operational needs.
23 • Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The
24 construction, maintenance, and operation of the proposed tactical
25 infrastructure would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on
26 threatened or endangered species and their critical habitat to the
27 maximum extent practicable. USBP is working with the USFWS as a
28 cooperating agency to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs),
29 design criteria, and potential conservation and mitigation measures.
30 • Wetlands and Floodplains. The construction, maintenance, and operation
31 of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to minimize
32 impacts on wetlands, waters, and floodplain resources to the maximum
33 extent practicable. USBP is working with the USACE-Los Angeles District
34 as a cooperating agency to minimize wetland and floodplain impacts.
35 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The construction, maintenance, and
36 operation of the proposed tactical infrastructure would be designed to
37 minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum
38 extent practicable. USBP is working with the California SHPO and tribes
39 to identify potential conservation and mitigation measures.

2-1
FME000256
1 • Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography,

2 highly erodible soils, unstable geology, or have other characteristics that
3 could compromise the integrity of fence or other tactical infrastructure. For
4 example, in areas susceptible to flash flooding, fence and other tactical
5 infrastructure might be prone to erosion that could undermine the fence’s
6 integrity. Areas with suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized.
7 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides
8 specific details of the Proposed Action, Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure
9 Fence Act Alignment Alternative, and Section 2.3 discusses alternatives
10 considered but not analyzed in detail.
11 2.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

12 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
13 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
14 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
15 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
16 within USBP San Diego Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP
17 mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is
18 prescribed by the CEQ regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the
19 EIS. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to
20 evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.
21 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

23 consisting of pedestrian fence, access roads, and patrol roads along the
24 U.S./Mexico international border in the San Diego Sector, California. Congress
25 has appropriated funds for the construction of the proposed tactical
26 infrastructure. Construction of additional tactical infrastructure in these or other
27 locations might be required in the future as mission and operational requirements
28 are continually reassessed.
29 Within USBP San Diego Sector, areas for tactical infrastructure improvements
30 have been identified that would assist the Brown Field Station gain effective
31 control of the border. USBP has identified the OMW area west of Tecate,
32 California as locations where a fence would significantly contribute to USBP’s
33 priority mission of homeland security.
34 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be constructed in two segments along

35 the border within USBP San Diego Sector, in San Diego County, California.
36 These segments are shown on Figure 1.1-1 and listed in Table 2.2-1. Segment
37 A-1 is approximately 4.9 miles in length and would start at Puebla Tree and end
38 at Boundary Monument 250. The proposed segment would be adjacent to and
39 south of the OMW, would follow the Pak Truck Trail, and would not connect to
40 any existing fence. The OMW is on public lands administered by BLM. The
2-2
FME000257
1 wilderness boundary is at least 100 feet from the U.S./Mexico international

2 border, and the proposed fence would occur in this corridor between the
3 U.S./Mexico international border and the wilderness boundary. However, due to
4 steep topography, a portion of road or other tactical infrastructure might encroach
5 into the wilderness area.
6 Table 2.2-1. Proposed Fence Segments for USBP San Diego Sector
Length of
Fence Border
General Fence
Segment Patrol Land Ownership
Location Segment
Number Station
(miles)
A-1 Brown Field Pak Truck Trail Public: BLM-managed 4.88
Public and Privately
A-2 Brown Field West of Tecate 0.69
owned
Total 5.57
7
8 Segment A-2 would be approximately 0.7 miles in length and would connect with
9 existing border fence west of Tecate, California. This fence segment is an
10 extension of an existing fence on Tecate Peak and would pass through a riparian
11 area. This proposed fence segment could encroach on privately owned land
12 parcels. Construction of this fence segment would include an upgrade to an
13 access road west of Tecate.
14 [[Preparer’s Note: Information on the preliminary design of access and

15 patrol roads is requested.]]
16 There are two alternatives for alignment of the infrastructure (Routes A and B)
17 being considered for Segment A-1. Route A is the route initially identified by
18 USBP San Diego Sector as best meeting its operational needs and would be
19 approximately 3 feet north of the U.S./Mexico international border within the
20 Roosevelt Reservation.2 Along Segment A-1, Route A would require significant
21 amounts of blasting activity, cut-and-fill operations, creation of at least two
22 stationing areas, and construction of switchback roads; and general improvement
23 to existing access roads.
24 [[Preparer’s Note: Calculations will be included when available.]]
2
In 1907, President Roosevelt reserved from entry and set apart as a public reservation all
public lands within 60 feet of the international boundary between the United States and Mexico
within the State of California and the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico. Known as the
“Roosevelt Reservation,” this land withdrawal was found “necessary for the public welfare ... as
a protection against the smuggling of goods.” The proclamation excepted from the reservation
all lands, which, as of its date, were (1) embraced in any legal entry; (2) covered by any lawful
filing, selection, or rights of way duly recorded in the proper U.S. Land Office; (3) validly settled
pursuant to law; or (4) within any withdrawal or reservation for any use or purpose inconsistent
with its purposes (CRS 2006).
2-3
FME000258
1 Route B would provide an alternative alignment, involving selected portions of

2 the two segments, to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Route B was
3 developed during the EIS development process through consultation with
4 cooperating agencies to identify a route alternative with fewer adverse
5 environmental impacts. Therefore, Route B represents a compromise alignment
6 that takes into account a balance between operational effectiveness of proposed
7 tactical infrastructure and environmental quality. Although Route B would have
8 fewer impacts than Route A, it would also require significant amounts of blasting
9 activity, cut-and-fill operations, creation of at least two stationing areas,
10 construction of switchback roads, and general improvement to existing access
11 roads. Detailed differences between Routes A and B are shown on Figure 2.2-1.
12 It was determined that no alternative route was required for Segment A-2 since
13 the segment was a short extension to a significant length of existing fence
14 currently placed no more than 3 feet from the border.
15 [[Preparer’s Note: Per the San Diego meeting on October 18, 2007, Route B
16 has yet to be finalized. e²M requests detailed information concerning
17 Route B as soon as a decision is made.]]
18 Construction of tactical infrastructure (fence and patrol road) along Segment A-1
19 would first require the construction of an access road. Equipment to be used
20 during the construction would include bulldozers, graders, dump trucks,
21 compactors, flat bed trucks, forklifts, and concrete mixers. The existing
22 Monument 250 Road and _____ Road (see Figure 2.2-1) would be used to
23 access the construction staging areas. The proposed construction access road
24 would be flagged to ensure that all equipment and construction activities remain
25 within the approved construction boundaries.
26 Two [insert number when determined] temporary staging areas would be used
27 during the construction phase. The first temporary staging area would be located
28 _______, would be approximately __ acres, and is currently [condition of site].
29 The second staging area would be located _______, would be approximately __
30 acres, and is currently [condition of site]. After completion of the project, the
31 temporary staging areas would be rehabilitated to their current condition.
32 In order for equipment and supplies to be delivered to the staging areas and
33 construction site, it will be necessary to widen both access road at various
34 locations [# and exact locations TBD] to allow for safe access and turning radii
35 of commercial delivery vehicles.
36 An estimated ___ low water crossings (LWC) would be installed [identify

37 where]. Metal or concrete drainage culverts design would be __________.
38 Approximately 52 to 56 cubic yards of riprap would be used at each culvert
39 crossing, depending on size and number of culverts needed at the crossing.
40 Sediment and erosion control plans would be developed prior to construction.
41
2-4
FME000259
Chula
Vista
CALIFORNIA
Tijuana
A-1
A-2
Route A Proposed
Fence Segments
Route B Proposed
Fence Segments
Access Roads
Construction Staging Area
MEXICO
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
Scale
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic
North American Datum of 1983
Figure 2.2-1. Alternative 2, Routes A and B

2-5
FME000260
1 Aggregate and soil stabilizing or binding agent (such as RoadOyl or

2 Pennzsuppress) would be added to the surface of the road to reduce erosion and
3 maintenance activities. An additional layer of the soil stabilizing agent would be
4 applied to the road surface on an annual basis to ensure the road surface
5 longevity. Other road maintenance might be required.
6 [[Preparer’s note: More details on Route A and B alignment differences will

7 be developed once they are available. Figure 2.2-1 will be prepared once
8 that information is received.]]
9 If approved, the final design would be developed by a design/build contractor

10 overseen by the USACE. However, the following design criteria have been
11 established based on USBP operational needs, that at a minimum, any fencing
12 must be:
13 • At least 15 feet high and extend below ground

14 • Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle
15 traveling at 40 miles per hour
16 • Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration
17 • Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need
18 • Designed to survive extreme climate changes
19 • Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements
20 • Not impede the natural flow of surface water
21 • Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.
22 Typical pedestrian fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix D.
23 [[Preparer’s Note: Additional information regarding new patrol roads,

24 access roads (construction roads) (locations, miles and acres potentially
25 impacted), staging areas, sensors (if any), etc. is requested.]]
26 The proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 60-foot-wide

27 corridor along each fence segment. This corridor would include fences, access
28 roads, patrol roads, and construction staging areas. Vegetation would be cleared
29 and grading would occur where needed. The area impacted during construction
30 within the two segments where the construction staging areas are located (both
31 route alternatives) would be approximately 41 acres. Wherever possible, existing
32 roads would be used for construction access. Figure 2.2-2 shows a typical
33 schematic of temporary and permanent impact areas for tactical infrastructure for
34 both route alternatives.
35 [[Preparer’s Note: USBP will obtain information on access and patrol roads
36 to include here when preliminary design is available.]]

2-6
FME000261
1 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would require minor

2 adjustments in USBP operations in the San Diego Sector.
3 [[Preparer’s Note: USBP input on potential changes in operations due to

4 the new tactical infrastructure, and reasonably foreseeable maintenance
5 issues with the fence and patrol roads is requested.]]
6 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in

7 Spring 2008 and continue through December 31, 2008.
8 Construction of other tactical infrastructure might be required in the future as

9 mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed. To the extent
10 that additional actions are known, they are discussed in Section 5, Cumulative
11 Impacts, of this EIS. Both Route A and Route B are viable and will be evaluated
12 in the EIS.
13 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

14 The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-367) authorized the construction of at
15 least two layers of reinforced fencing along the U.S./Mexico international border.
16 Two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary fence, would be
17 constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2,
18 Route B.
19 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
20 patrol roads. The patrol road would be between the primary and secondary
21 fences. Figure 2.2-3 shows a typical schematic of permanent and temporary
22 impact areas for this alternative. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this
23 alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
24 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate

25 150-foot wide corridor for 5.6 miles along the two fence segments. This
26 proposed project corridor would accommodate access roads and construction
27 staging areas. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where
28 needed. Wherever possible, existing roads would be used for construction
29 access. This is a viable alternative and will be evaluated in the EIS.
30 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

31 DETAILED ANALYSIS
32 In addition to the alternatives evaluated in detail in this Draft EIS, USBP
33 considered several additional alternatives. Presented below are those
34 alternatives that were considered but not carried forward for detailed study, and
35 the basis for those decisions for inclusion in the analysis.
36

2-7
4
3
2
1
FME000262
PERMANENT IMPACT AREA

±
NOT TO SCALE

57'
PATROL ROAD
2-8
60' ROOSEVELT RESERVATION
PEDESTRIAN FENCE
3'
United States
Mexico
Figure 2.2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2
October 2007
4
3
2
1
FME000263
SECONDARY FENCE
±
NOT TO SCALE

PATROL ROAD
2-9
150’ PERMANENT IMPACT AREA
PRIMARY FENCE
United States
Mexico
Figure 2.2-3. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3
October 2007
FME000264
1 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

2 USBP considered the alternative of increasing the number of agents as a means
3 of gaining effective control of the border. Under this alternative, USBP would hire
4 and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently deployed
5 along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase patrols to apprehend
6 illegal border crossers. USBP would deploy additional agents as determined by
7 operational needs, but might include 4-wheel drive vehicle, All Terrain Vehicles,
8 helicopters or fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, USBP maintains an aggressive
9 hiring program and a cadre of well-trained and disciplined agents.
10 The physical presence of an increased number of agents could provide an

11 enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into the United States, but the
12 use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed tactical infrastructure,
13 would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border
14 in the San Diego Sector. Many illegal border crossers travel under the cover of
15 darkness, particularly in urban or developed areas, when agents or aircraft would
16 have difficulty spotting movement on the ground. Tactical infrastructure, such as
17 a pedestrian fence, is a force multiplier to allow USBP to deploy agents efficiently
18 and effectively. As tactical infrastructure is built, some agents will be redeployed
19 to other areas of the border within the sector. The use of physical barriers forces
20 illegal border crossers into areas that do not provide easily accessible urban
21 cover or quick transportation into the interior of the United States. Forcing the
22 illegal border crossers into remote, open areas allows for more effective use of
23 other resources to detect illegal entry, such as aircraft overflights and agent
24 patrols. It also provides agents with longer response times to make
25 apprehensions. Helicopters are more capable of tracking illegal border crossers,
26 but their range is confined and the cost of increased operations is considered
27 prohibitive at this time (USACE 2000). [[Preparer’s note: e²M requests cost
28 data to substantiate this statement.]] Increased air patrols might aid in
29 interdiction activities, but not to the extent anticipated by the Proposed Action.
30 As such, this alternative will not be carried forward for further detailed analysis.
31 USBP considered the alternative of solely increasing the number of agents as a

32 means of gaining effective control of the border. Under this alternative, USBP
33 would hire and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently
34 deployed along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase air patrols to
35 apprehend illegal border crossers. Currently, USBP maintains an aggressive
36 hiring program and a cadre of well-trained and disciplined agents.
37 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

38 Under this alternative, USBP would use radar, cameras, lights, and other
39 technology and combinations of technology to identify illegal border crossings.
40 The use of technology in certain sparsely populated areas is a critical component
41 of SBInet and an effective force multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large
42 areas and deploy agents to where they will be most effective. However, the
2-10
FME000265
1 apprehension of illegal border crossers is still performed by USBP agents and

2 other law enforcement agents. In the more densely populated areas within the
3 San Diego Sector, physical barriers represent the most effective means to control
4 illegal entry into the United States, as noted above. The use of technology alone
5 would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border
6 in the San Diego Sector. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose
7 and need as described in Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further
8 detailed analysis.
9 2.4 IDENTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED

10 ALTERNATIVE
11 CEQ’s implementing regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs EIS preparers to
12 “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists,
13 in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless
14 another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” USBP has identified
15 its Preferred Alternative as Alternative 2, Route B.
16 An analysis of the No Action Alternative in comparison with the Proposed Action

17 is included in Section 4. Based on the analysis in this EIS, the No Action
18 Alternative would eliminate most of the environmental impacts associated with
19 the Proposed Action and, therefore, is the environmentally superior alternative.
20 However, the No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s purpose and need.
21 Implementation of Alternative 2, Route B would meet USBP’s purpose and need
22 described in Section 1.2. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need
23 but would have greater environmental impacts compared to the preferred
24 alternative without substantially increasing USBP’s ability to effectively control
25 these areas of the U.S./Mexico international border.
26

2-11
FME000266

2-12
FME000267
1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
2 3.1 INTRODUCTION
3 In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and DHS MD 5100.1, the
4 following evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resource areas
5 and conditions potentially subject to impacts and on potentially significant
6 environmental issues deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues.
7 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EIS. Some
8 environmental resource areas and conditions that are often selected for analysis
9 in an EIS have been omitted from detailed analysis because of their
10 inapplicability to this proposal. General descriptions of the eliminated resources
11 and the bases for elimination are described below.
12 Climate. The Proposed Action would neither affect nor be affected by the
13 climate. However, air emissions and their impact on air quality are discussed in
14 Section 3.1.
15 Utilities and Infrastructure. The Proposed Action would not be located in any
16 utility corridors, and would not impact utilities or similar infrastructure. Operation
17 and maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be connected
18 to any utilities.
19 Roadways and Traffic. The Proposed Action would be located in remote areas
20 not accessible from public roadways. Construction traffic would have negligible
21 impacts on other traffic in local areas. As a result, the Proposed Action would
22 have negligible impacts on transportation and transportation corridors.
23 Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste. Long-term, minor, adverse effects

24 would be expected as a result of the Proposed Action. Products containing
25 hazardous materials (such as fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, and herbicides)
26 would be procured and used during the proposed construction. It is anticipated
27 that the quantity of products containing hazardous materials used would be
28 minimal and their use would be of short duration. Minimal quantities of herbicide
29 would be used for vegetative growth in the immediate vicinity of the fence. In
30 addition, the quantity of hazardous and petroleum wastes generated from
31 proposed construction would be negligible. Contractors would be responsible for
32 the management of hazardous materials and wastes. The management of
33 hazardous materials and wastes would include the use of BMPs, a pollution
34 prevention plan, and SWPPP. All hazardous materials and wastes would be
35 handled in accordance with applicable Federal, state, and local regulations.
36 Sustainability and Greening. EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental,

37 Energy, and Transportation Management (January 24, 2007) promotes
38 environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally
39 preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and to

3-1
FME000268
1 maintain cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in their facilities.

2 The Proposed Action would use minimal amounts of resources during
3 construction and maintenance. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have
4 negligible impacts on sustainability and greening.
5 3.2 AIR QUALITY

6 3.2.1 Definition of the Resource
7 In accordance with Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, the air quality in a
8 given region or area is measured by the concentration of various pollutants in the
9 atmosphere. The measurements of these “criteria pollutants” in ambient air are
10 expressed in units of ppm, micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), or milligrams per
11 cubic meter (mg/m3). The air quality in a region is a result not only of the types
12 and quantities of atmospheric pollutants and pollutant sources in an area, but
13 also surface topography, the size of the topographical “air basin,” and the
14 prevailing meteorological conditions.
15 The CAA directed USEPA to develop, implement, and enforce strong

16 environmental regulations that would ensure clean and healthy ambient air
17 quality. To protect public health and welfare, USEPA developed numerical
18 concentration-based standards, or National Ambient Air Quality Standards
19 (NAAQS), for pollutants that have been determined to affect human health and
20 the environment. USEPA established both primary and secondary NAAQS
21 under the provisions of the CAA. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria
22 air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
23 dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (including particulates equal to or less
24 than 10 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulates equal to or less than 2.5
25 microns in diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS are ambient air
26 quality standards of which maintenance is required to protect the public health,
27 with an adequate margin of safety. Secondary NAAQS specify levels of air
28 quality of which maintenance is required to protect the public welfare. This
29 maintenance includes effects on protect vegetation, crops, wildlife, economic
30 values, and visibility.
31 The CAA requires states to designate any area that does not meet (or that
32 contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the
33 national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for a criteria pollutant
34 as a nonattainment area. For O3, the CAA requires that each designated
35 nonattainment area be classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
36 extreme, based on ambient O3 concentrations. The California Environmental
37 Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB) has
38 delegated responsibility for implementation of the Federal CAA and California
39 CAA to local air pollution control agencies. The Proposed Action is in the San
40 Diego County Air Quality Control District (SDAQCD) and is subject to rules and
41 regulations developed by the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
42 (SDAPCD).
3-2
FME000269
1 The State of California adopted the NAAQS and promulgated additional State
2 Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The California
3 standards are more stringent than the Federal primary standards. Table 3.2-1
4 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS and SAAQS.
5 These programs are detailed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are
6 required to be developed by each state or local regulatory agency and approved
7 by USEPA. A SIP is a compilation of regulations, strategies, schedules, and
8 enforcement actions designed to move the state into compliance with all NAAQS.
9 Any changes to the compliance schedule or plan (e.g., new regulations,
10 emissions budgets, controls) must be incorporated into the SIP and approved by
11 USEPA. USEPA has delegated the authority for ensuring compliance with the
12 NAAQS to the CARB. Therefore, the Proposed Action is subject to rules and
13 regulations developed by this regulatory body.
14 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
15 subareas of an AQCR, according to whether the concentrations of criteria
16 pollutants in ambient air exceed the primary or secondary NAAQS. All areas
17 within each AQCR are therefore designated as either “attainment,”
18 “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or “unclassified” for each of the six criteria
19 pollutants. Attainment means that the air quality within an AQCR is better than
20 the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS,
21 maintenance indicates that an area was previously designated nonattainment but
22 is now attainment, and unclassifiable means that there is not enough information
23 to appropriately classify an AQCR, so the area is considered attainment.
24 The General Conformity Rule requires that any Federal action meet the
25 requirements of a SIP or Federal Implementation Plan. The General Conformity
26 Rule applies only to actions in nonattainment or maintenance areas and
27 considers both direct and indirect emissions. The rule applies only to Federal
28 actions that are considered “regionally significant” or where the total emissions
29 from the action meet or exceed 10 percent of the AQCR’s total emissions
30 inventory for that nonattainment pollutant.
31 3.2.2 Affected Environment

32 The Proposed Action would be in San Diego County, California, within the San
33 Diego Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (SDIAQCR). The SDIAQCR is
34 composed of San Diego County, California. San Diego County is within a
35 Federal Subpart 1 (Basic) and State nonattainment area for 8-hour O3, Federal
36 moderate maintenance area for CO, and state nonattainment area for PM10 and
37 PM2.5. San Diego County is in attainment/unclassified for all other criteria
38 pollutants. Therefore, the General Conformity Rule applies to the Proposed
39 Action (USEPA 2007, CARB 2007). Although O3 is considered a criteria air
40 pollutant and is measurable in the atmosphere, it is not often considered a
41 regulated air pollutant when calculating emissions because O3 is typically not
42

3-3
FME000270
1 Table 3.2-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
California
Averaging National Standard
Pollutant Standard
Time
Concentration Primary Secondary
0.09 ppm
1 Hour c ---- Same as
(180 µg/m3)
O3 Primary
0.070 ppm 0.08 ppm Standard
8 Hour b
(137 µg/m3) (157 µg/m3)
24 Hour a 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Same as
PM10 Annual Primary
Arithmetic 20 µg/m3 ---- Standard
Mean d
No separate
24 Hour f 35 µg/m3
State Standard Same as
PM2.5 Annual Primary
Arithmetic 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Standard
Mean e
9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm
8 Hour a
(10 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3)
CO None
20 ppm 35 ppm
1 Hour a
(23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3)
Annual
0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Arithmetic Same as
(56 µg/m3) (100 µg/m3)
NO2 Mean Primary
0.18 ppm Standard
1 Hour ----
(338 µg/m3)
Annual
0.030 ppm
Arithmetic ---- ----
(80 µg/m3)
Mean
0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
24 Hour a ----
SO2 (105 µg/m3) (365 µg/m3)
0.5 ppm
3 hour a ---- ----
(1300 µg/m3)
0.25 ppm
1 Hour ----
(655 µg/m3)
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 ---- ----
Pb Same as
3
Calendar Year ---- 1.5 µg/m Primary
Standard

3-4
FME000271
California
Averaging National Standard
Pollutant Standard
Time
Concentration Primary Secondary
Extinction
coefficient of 0.23
per kilometer
Visibility visibility of 10
Reducing 8 Hour miles or more
Particles due to particles
when relative
humidity is less No Federal Standards
than 70 percent
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3
Hydrogen 0.03 ppm
1 Hour
Sulfide (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl 0.01 ppm (26
24 Hour
Chloride µg/m3)
Sources: USEPA 2006a and CARB 2007
Notes: Parenthetical values are approximate equivalent concentrations.
a
Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
b
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year must
not exceed 0.08 ppm.
c
(a) The standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is ≤ 1. (b) As of June 15, 2005,
USEPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in all areas except the 14 8-hour ozone
nonattainment Early Action Compact Areas.
d
To attain this standard, the expected annual arithmetic mean PM10 concentration at each
monitor within an area must not exceed 50 µg/m3.
e
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentrations
from single or multiple community-oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 µg/m3.
f
To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at
each population-oriented monitor within an area must not exceed 35 µg/m3.
1 emitted directly from most emissions sources. Ozone is formed in the

2 atmosphere by photochemical reactions involving sunlight and previously emitted
3 pollutants or “O3 precursors.” These O3 precursors consist primarily of NOx and
4 VOCs that are directly emitted from a wide range of emissions sources. For this
5 reason, regulatory agencies attempt to limit atmospheric O3 concentrations by
6 controlling VOC pollutants (also identified as reactive organic gases) and NO2.
7 The state of California’s air quality is managed by the CARB. The CARB has
8 further divided the state into key management areas to better manage air
9 pollution. The Proposed Action is within the SDCAPCD. The SDCAPCD has
10 established air pollution control regulations. These regulations are contained in
11 California Code Titles 13 and 17. The CARB has also promulgated rules
12 regulating the emissions of toxic substances which are defined as those

3-5
FME000272
1 chemicals listed in California Health and Safety Code, Division 26 Air Resources,
2 Part 2 State Air Resources Board, Chapter 3.5 Toxic Air Contaminants plus any
3 other air pollutant that is considered a health hazard, as defined by the
4 Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
5 3.3 NOISE
6 3.3.1 Definition of Resource
7 Sound is defined as a particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for
8 example the sound of rain on a rooftop. Sound is measured in decibels.
9 “A-weighted” sound levels denote the frequency range for what the average
10 human ear can sense. C-weighted sound level measurement correlates well with
11 physical vibration response of buildings and other structures to airborne sound.
12 Impulsive noise resulting from demolition activities and the discharge of weapons
13 are assessed in terms of C-weighted decibels (dBC).
14 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
15 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Noise is defined as any
16 sound that is undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense
17 enough to damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Noise can be intermittent
18 or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can involve any number of sources and
19 frequencies. Human response to increased sound levels varies according to the
20 source type, characteristics of the sound source, distance between source and
21 receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. Affected receptors are specific
22 (i.e., schools, churches, or hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or
23 designated districts) areas in which occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise
24 above ambient levels exists.
25 Most people are exposed to sound levels of 50 to 55 A-weighted decibel (dBA) or

26 higher on a daily basis. Studies specifically conducted to determine noise
27 impacts on various human activities show that about 90 percent of the population
28 is not significantly bothered by outdoor sound levels below 65 dBA (USEPA
29 1974). Studies of community annoyance in response to numerous types of
30 environmental noise show that an A-weighted day-night average sound level
31 (ADNL) correlates well with impact assessments and that there is a consistent
32 relationship between ADNL and the level of annoyance.
33 Noise Impacts on Wildlife. Noise impacts on wildlife populations are usually

34 affected only when a variety of factors combine to affect them, including declines
35 or fluctuations in the availability of a food source, habitat destruction or alteration,
36 predation, hunting, trapping, poaching, disease, or inclement weather.
37 Normally, it would be unrealistic to predict or attribute any wildlife population

38 declines to a single stressor, such as noise

3-6
FME000273
1 Ambient Sound Levels. Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the
2 housing density and location. As shown in Figure 3.3-1, a suburban residential
3 area is about 55 dBA, which increases to 60 dBA for an urban residential area,
4 and 80 dBA in the downtown section of a city.
5 Construction Sound Levels. Building construction, modification, and

6 demolition work can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient
7 level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders, and other
8 work processes. Table 3.3-1 lists noise levels associated with common types of
9 construction equipment that are likely to be used under the Proposed Action.
10 Construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient sound levels by 20 to 25
11 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in a quiet suburban area.
12 Table 3.3-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
Construction Category Predicted Noise Level at

and Equipment 50 feet (dBA)
Clearing and Grading
Bulldozer 80
Grader 80–93
Truck 83–94
Roller 73–75
Excavation
Backhoe 72–93
Jackhammer 81–98
Building Construction
Concrete mixer 74–88
Welding generator 71–82
Pile driver 91–105
Crane 75–87
Paver 86–88
Source: USEPA 1971

14 Segment A-1 of the proposed border fence is in a remote area along the
15 U.S./Mexico international border between Puebla Tree and Boundary Monument
16 250. As such, the ambient acoustical environment in the proposed project
17 corridor is likely to be equivalent to the noise levels in a rural area. Aircraft or
18 vehicle traffic is likely the largest noise contributor in the vicinity of the proposed
19 Segment A-1.
20

3-7
FME000274
3 Figure 3.3-1. Common Noise Levels

3-8
FME000275
1 The closest major transportation route in the vicinity of the proposed Segment
2 A-1 is State Route (SR) 94. SR 94 runs in a northwest-southeast direction and
3 lies about 3.5 miles north of the U.S./Mexico international border. Direct access
4 to the border is obtained by several small dirt roads. SR 94 passes by several
5 residential areas.
6 Segment A-2 is west of the city of Tecate, California. Tecate, Mexico is heavily
7 populated; however, an existing fence reduces the noise from Tecate, Mexico
8 from impacting U.S. residents in the vicinity of the proposed site. There is one
9 residential home in the United States that is approximately 250 feet from the
10 proposed project corridor. The ambient acoustical environment in this area is
11 likely to be equivalent to the noise levels in a rural or suburban area.
12 Major transportation routes in the vicinity of proposed Segment A-2 include SR

13 94 and SR 188. SR 94 is approximately 1.5 miles north and SR 188 is
14 approximately 2 miles east of the proposed Segment A-2. Direct access to the
15 proposed project corridor can be obtained from Tecate Mission Road, which
16 abuts the current segments of border fence and the city of Tecate, California.
17 Residential buildings are approximately 0.1 mile from the current border fence.
18 3.4 LAND USE AND RECREATION

20 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either
21 natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many
22 cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however,
23 no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land
24 use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions,
25 “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions.
26 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
27 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Compatibility among
28 land uses fosters the societal interest of obtaining the highest and best uses of
29 real property. Tools supporting land use planning include written master
30 plans/management plans and zoning regulations. In appropriate cases, the
31 location and extent of a proposed action needs to be evaluated for its potential
32 effects on a project site and adjacent land uses. The foremost factor affecting a
33 proposed action in terms of land use is its compliance with any applicable land
34 use or zoning regulations. Other relevant factors include matters such as
35 existing land use at the project site, the types of land uses on adjacent properties
36 and their proximity to a proposed action, the duration of a proposed activity, and
37 its “permanence.”
38 Recreational resources are both natural and man-made lands designated by

39 Federal, state, and local planning entities to offer visitors and residents diverse
40 opportunities to enjoy leisure activities. Recreational resources are those places

3-9
FME000276
1 or amenities set aside as parklands, trails (e.g., hiking, bicycling, equestrian),

2 recreational fields, sport or recreational venues, open spaces, aesthetically
3 pleasing landscapes, and a variety of other locales. National, state, and local
4 jurisdictions typically have designated land areas with defined boundaries for
5 recreation. Other less-structured activities like hunting are performed in broad,
6 less-defined locales. A recreational setting might consist of natural or man-made
7 landscapes and can vary in size from a roadside monument to a multimillion-acre
8 wilderness area.

10 The Proposed Action is adjacent to the OMW area, public domain lands owned
11 by the Department of the Interior BLM, and privately owned lands. Mexico is
12 immediately to the south of the corridor of land affected by the Proposed Action.
13 The majority of Segment A-1 (both Route A and B) is adjacent to the OMW,
14 which ranges from 250 to 1,880 feet north of the proposed proposed project
15 corridor. The OMW is managed by the BLM. Segment A-2 would be west of
16 Tecate, California. The figures in Appendix E show the location of the proposed
17 fence and access road and the proximity of adjacent and intersecting land uses.
18 [[Preparer’s Note: Details on the location of Route B will be included once

19 it has been finalized. e²M requests detailed information concerning Route
20 B as soon as a decision is made.]]
21 The current land use types traversed by the Proposed Action are described in
22 Table 3.4-1. Segment A-1 Route A encompasses 61.45 acres of public domain
23 lands owned by the BLM. No private lands are located within Segment A-1
24 Route A. Segment A-1 Route A would be within the Federal government’s 60-
25 foot Roosevelt Reservation along the U.S./Mexico international border, which is
26 designated for border enforcement. Segment A-1 Route B would encompass
27 57.45 acres of BLM lands. No private lands are located within Segment A-1
28 Route B.
29 Segment A-2 would encompass 2.82 acres of BLM lands and 10.04 acres of
30 privately owned parcels. The entire length of Segment A-2 would be within the
31 Federal government’s 60-foot Roosevelt Reservation.
32

3-10
FME000277
1 Table 3.4-1. Land Uses that Intersect the Proposed Action
Length of Fence
Fence Segment Area
Land Ownership Segment Within
Number (acres) *
Land Use (feet)
Route A
A-1 Public 17,846 61.45
A-2 Public 819 2.82
Privately Owned 2,916 10.04
Total 21,581 74.31
Route B
A-1 Public 16,684.8 57.45
A-2 Public 819 2.82
Privately Owned 2,916.1 10.04
Total 20,419.9 70.31
Note: * Acreage was calculated by multiplying the length of fence segment within the land use by
150 feet and dividing the square feet by 43,560 ft2/acre.
2 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4 Geology and soils resources include the surface and subsurface materials of the
5 earth. Within a given physiographic province, these resources typically are
6 described in terms of topography, soils, geology, minerals, and paleontology,
7 where applicable.
8 Topography is defined as the relative positions and elevations of the natural or

9 human-made features of an area that describe the configuration of its surface.
10 Regional topography is influenced by many factors, including human activity,
11 seismic activity of the underlying geological material, climatic conditions, and
12 erosion. Information describing topography typically encompasses surface
13 elevations, slope, and physiographic features (i.e., mountains, ravines, or
14 depressions).
15 Site-specific geological resources typically consist of surface and subsurface

16 materials and their inherent properties. Principal factors influencing the ability of
17 geological resources to support structural development are seismic properties
18 (i.e., potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance),
19 topography, and soil stability.
20 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material.
21 They develop from weathering processes on mineral and organic materials and
22 are typically described in terms of their landscape position, slope, and physical

3-11
FME000278
1 and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength,

2 shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can
3 affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases,
4 soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction
5 activities or types of land use.
6 Prime and unique farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act
7 (FPPA) of 1981. The implementing procedures of the FPPA and Natural
8 Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) require Federal agencies to evaluate
9 the adverse effects (direct and indirect) of their activities on prime and unique
10 farmland, as well as farmland of statewide and local importance, and to consider
11 alternative actions that could avoid adverse effects. The Visalia sandy loam (5–9
12 percent slopes) is designated as a prime farmland soil. However, none of the
13 area within the fence corridor in the United States is being used for agricultural
14 purposes.

16 Physiography and Topography. USBP San Diego Sector occupies
17 southeastern San Diego County, California, along the U.S./Mexico international
18 border. The sector is in the Peninsular Range Physiographic Province of
19 California, which is characterized by the northwest-trending Peninsular Range.
20 Specifically, USBP San Diego Sector is in the San Ysidro Mountains, a sub-
21 section of the Laguna Mountains section of the Peninsular Range. The
22 topographic profile of USBP San Diego Sector is characterized by steep slopes.
23 Elevations in USBP San Diego Sector range from about 500 to 1,350 feet above
24 mean sea level (MSL) along Segment A-1 (Routes A and B) and about 1,850 to
25 2,300 feet above MSL along Segment A-2 (TopoZone.com 2007).
26 Geology. USBP San Diego Sector is within the Peninsular Range geomorphic
27 region which consists predominantly of Mesozoic Era metavolcanic,
28 metasedimentary, and plutonic rocks. The Peninsular Range region is underlain
29 primarily by plutonic (e.g., granitic) rocks that formed from the cooling of molten
30 magmas generated during subduction of an oceanic crustal plate that was
31 converging on the North American Plate between 140 and 90 million years ago.
32 During this time period, large amounts of granitic rocks accumulated at depth to
33 form the Southern California Batholith. The intense heat of these plutonic
34 magmas metamorphosed the ancient sedimentary rocks which were intruded by
35 the plutons. These metasediments became marbles, slates, schist, quartzites,
36 and gneiss currently found in the Peninsular Range region (Demere 2007).
37 Soils. Nine soil map units occur in USBP San Diego Sector. Generally, the soils
38 of USBP San Diego Sector are well-drained to excessively drained, have varying
39 permeability, and occur on moderately steep to very steep slopes with the
40 exception of the Riverwash map unit (0–4 percent slopes) and the Visalia sandy
41 loam soil map unit (5–9 percent slopes). The Visalia sandy loam (5–9 percent
42
3-12
FME000279
FME000280
FME000281
1 slopes) was the only soil map unit listed as prime farmland. The soil map units
2 within the proposed corridor are classified as nonhydric soils (NRCS 2007).
3 Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded for long enough
4 during the growing season to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in
5 their upper part. The presence of hydric soil is one of the three criteria (hydric
6 soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) used to determine that an
7 area is a wetland based on the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical
8 Report Y-87-1 (USACE 1987).
9 The properties of soils identified in USBP San Diego Sector are described in
10 Table 3.5-1. See Appendix F for a map of soil units within Segment A-1 and
11 Segment A-2.
12 3.6 WATER RESOURCES

14 Hydrology and Groundwater. Hydrology and groundwater relates to the
15 quantity and quality of the water resource and its demand for various human
16 purposes. Hydrology consists of the redistribution of water through the
17 processes of evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and subsurface flow. Hydrology
18 results primarily from temperature and total precipitation which determines
19 evapotranspiration rates, topography which determines rate and direction of
20 surface flow, and soil properties which determines rate of subsurface flow and
21 recharge to the groundwater reservoir. Groundwater consists of subsurface
22 hydrologic resources. It is an essential resource that functions to recharge
23 surface water and is used for drinking, irrigation, and industrial processes.
24 Groundwater typically can be described in terms of depth from the surface,
25 aquifer or well capacity, water quality, recharge rate, and surrounding geologic
26 formations.
27 The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2011-300) establishes
28 a Federal program to monitor and increase the safety of all commercially and
29 publicly supplied drinking water. The Proposed Action has no potential to affect
30 public drinking water supplies.
31 Surface Water and Waters of the United States. Surface water resources
32 generally consist of lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface water is important for its
33 contributions to the economic, ecological, recreational, and human health of a
34 community or locale.
35 The CWA (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) sets the basic structure for regulating
36 discharges of pollutants to U.S. waters. Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C.
37 1344) establishes a Federal program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill
38 material into waters of the United States. The USACE administers the permitting
39 program for the CWA. Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires that
40 proposed dredge and fill activities permitted under Section 404 be reviewed and

3-15
FME000282
1 certified by the designated state agency that the proposed project will meet state
2 water quality standards. The Federal permit is deemed to be invalid unless it has
3 been certified by the state. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and
4 USEPA to identify waters not meeting state water-quality standards and to
5 develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and an implementation plan to
6 reduce contributing sources of pollution.
7 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA of 1972, as amended
8 and jurisdiction is addressed by the USEPA and the USACE. Both agencies
9 assert jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to
10 navigable waters, (3) nonnavigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that
11 are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-around or have
12 continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months), and (4) wetlands
13 that directly abut such tributaries.
14 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
15 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. The CWA objective
16 is restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and biological integrity of
17 United States waters. To achieve this objective several goals were enacted,
18 including (1) discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985,
19 (2) water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
20 shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved
21 by 1983; (3) the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; (4)
22 Federal financial assistance be provided to construct publicly owned waste
23 treatment works; (5) the national policy that areawide waste treatment
24 management planning processes be developed and implemented to ensure
25 adequate control of sources of pollutants in each state; (6) the national policy that
26 a major research and demonstration effort be made to develop technology
27 necessary to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, waters
28 of the contiguous zone, and the oceans; and (7) the national policy that programs
29 be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the
30 goals to be met through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of
31 pollution. The USACE regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material
32 (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil, cement block, gravel, sand) into waters of the United
33 States including adjacent wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA and work
34 on/or structures in or affecting navigable waters of the United States under
35 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.
36 Wetlands are an important natural system and habitat, performing diverse

37 biologic and hydrologic functions. These functions include water quality
38 improvement, groundwater recharge and discharge, pollution mitigation, nutrient
39 cycling, wildlife habitat provision, unique flora and fauna niche provision, storm
40 water attenuation and storage, sediment detention, and erosion protection.
41 Wetlands are protected as a subset of the waters of the United States under
42 Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the U.S.” has a broad meaning
43 under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic
44 habitats (including wetlands). The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that
3-16
FME000283
1 are inundated or saturated with ground or surface water at a frequency and

2 duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
3 prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
4 Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR
5 328).
6 Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
7 Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials
8 into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. Therefore, even an
9 inadvertent encroachment into wetlands or other “waters of the United States”
10 resulting in displacement or movement of soil or fill materials has the potential to
11 be viewed as a violation of the CWA if an appropriate permit has not been issued
12 by the USACE. In California, the USACE has primary jurisdictional authority to
13 regulate wetlands and waters of the United States. However, the California
14 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control (Porter-Cologne) Act (California Water
15 Code §13000) established the State Water Resources Control Board and nine
16 Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the principal state agencies for having
17 primary responsibility in coordinating and controlling water quality in California.
18 The state boards and the regional boards promulgate and enforce water quality
19 standards in order to protect water quality. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to
20 surface waters (including wetlands), groundwater, and point and non-point
21 sources of pollution. Section 401 of the CWA gives the state board and regional
22 boards the authority to regulate, through water quality certification; any proposed
23 federally permitted activity that may result in a discharge to water bodies,
24 including wetlands. The state may issue, with or without conditions, or deny
25 certification for activities that may result in a discharge to water bodies. San
26 Diego Sector is within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality
27 Control Board (Region 9). A Section 401 water quality certification application
28 should be submitted to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board for
29 any activities within wetlands and should include the following:
30 • Filing fee
31 • Complete project description
32 • Copy of the USACE Section 404 application (if applicable)
33 • Any final environmental document (i.e., environmental assessment) which
34 has already been prepared
35 • Any other appropriate information required by the San Diego Regional
36 Board.
37 Furthermore, wetlands are protected under Executive Order 11990 - Protection

38 of Wetlands (43 FR 6030), the purpose of which is to reduce adverse impacts
39 associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands.
40 Once the practicality of alternatives has been fully assessed, only then should a
41 statement regarding the FONPA be made into the record of decision (ROD).

3-17
FME000284
1 Floodplains. Floodplains are areas of low-level ground and alluvium adjacent to

2 rivers, stream channels, or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to
3 periodic or infrequent inundation due to runoff of rain or melting snow. Risk of
4 flooding typically hinges on local topography, the frequency of precipitation
5 events, and the size of the watershed upstream from the floodplain. Flood
6 potential is evaluated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
7 which defines the 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is the area that
8 has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year. Certain
9 facilities inherently pose too great a risk to be constructed in either the 100- or
10 500-year floodplain, including hospitals, schools, or storage buildings for
11 irreplaceable records. Federal, state, and local regulations often limit floodplain
12 development to passive uses, such as recreational and preservation activities, to
13 reduce the risks to human health and safety.
14 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to determine

15 whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination
16 typically involves consultation of appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps
17 (FIRM), which contain enough general information to determine the relationship
18 of the proposed project corridor to nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal
19 agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency determines that there is no
20 practicable alternative. Where the only practicable alternative is to site in a
21 floodplain, a specific step-by-step process must be followed to comply with EO
22 11988 outlined in the FEMA document Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain
23 Management.

25 Hydrology and Groundwater. USBP San Diego Sector is in the South Coast
26 hydrologic region of California. This area is characterized by a semi-arid climate
27 due to low annual precipitation (15 to 20 inches [38 to 51 centimeters).
28 Temperatures range from as low as 43 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in the winter to
29 almost 90 °F in the summer. Due to the semi-arid climate, vegetation consists of
30 shrublands which can be sparse. Reduced groundcover along with steep slopes
31 due to local topography can lead to heavy runoff and high erosion potential
32 during precipitation events. Segment A-1 (Routes A and B) surface runoff flows
33 towards three north-to-south flowing intermittent tributaries of the Tijuana River,
34 which runs east to west parallel to but outside the fence corridor and
35 predominantly on the Mexican side of the border. These three tributaries
36 intersect the project corridor and drain Copper, Buttewig, and Mine canyons. In
37 Segment A-2, surface runoff flows into a single north-to-south oriented
38 intermittent tributary of the Tijuana River. This intermittent tributary also
39 intersects the project corridor.
40 USBP San Diego Sector is not in the immediate vicinity of any confined
41 groundwater basins in the United States (CADWR 2003). Groundwater is
42 generally present under unconfined, or water-table, conditions as is evidenced by
43 the properties of the proposed project corridor soils. The depth to water table is
3-18
FME000285
1 greater than 80 inches on all soil map units except for the Riverwash map unit,
2 associated with the Tijuana River Valley, which is at a depth of 60 to 72 inches.
3 The water-yielding materials in this area consist primarily of unconsolidated
4 alluvial fan deposits. The consolidated volcanic and carbonate rocks that
5 underlie the unconsolidated alluvium are a source of water if the consolidated
6 rocks are sufficiently fractured or have solution openings (NRCS 2007).
7 Surface Waters and Waters of the United States. Segment A-1 (Routes A and
8 B) lies parallel to and north of the Tijuana River. The Tijuana River is a 120-mile-
9 long intermittent river that flows along the U.S./Mexico international border from
10 east to west before terminating in the Tijuana Estuary of the Pacific Ocean. This
11 estuary occurs on the southern edge of San Diego and is the last undeveloped
12 wetland system in San Diego County (Wikipedia 2007). The Tijuana River
13 watershed covers approximately 1,750 square miles from the Laguna Mountains
14 in the United States to the Sierra de Juarez in Mexico (SDSU 2007). Surface
15 waters in the proposed project corridor consist of three riparian corridors that flow
16 intermittently north to south and intersect the fence segment prior to discharging
17 to the Tijuana River. These riparian corridors are, from west to east, Copper
18 Canyon, Buttewig Canyon, and Mine Canyon. During the 2007 site survey
19 (e²M 2007), biologists observed that these riparian corridors were approximately
20 25 to 30 feet deep and up to 60 feet wide and of an intermittent nature. The
21 areas were dry at the time of the survey but large boulders and rocks strewn
22 across the canyon bottoms were evidence that there is heavy flow during
23 precipitation events. Tumbling boulders, cobble, and gravel that move with
24 heavy stormwater events are largely responsible for the sparse riparian
25 vegetation that consists of primarily 25 to 30 foot tall trees of oak (Quercus sp.),
26 western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina),
27 western poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and mule’s fat (Baccharis
28 sp.). No wetlands were observed in the proposed project corridor (e²M 2007).
29 Segment A-2 contains an unnamed intermittent tributary which intersects the

30 fence segment on its way to the Tijuana River. During the site survey, botanists
31 observed that this riparian corridor supports mature oak (Quercus sp.) trees and
32 an understory of willow (Salix sp.), sedges (Carex spp.), mulefat (Baccharis
33 salicifolia), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.), which are commonly associated with
34 wetlands. No other potential wetland areas were observed in the proposed
35 project corridor (e²M 2007).
36 Surface Water Quality. The Tijuana River Watershed has been used as a
37 wastewater conduit for several decades and recurring problems due to raw
38 sewage overflows from Mexico continue to occur and are being addressed using
39 cross-border efforts. The FY 2005-2006 Tijuana River Watershed Urban Runoff
40 Management Program prepared by San Diego County and the cities of San
41 Diego and Imperial Beach indicated that several high priority constituents of
42 concern (COCs) such as bacterial indicators (total/fecal coliform and
43 enterococcus), the pesticide Diazinon, and total suspended solids (TSS)/turbidity
44 have consistently had the highest occurrence in the Tijuana River Watershed
3-19
FME000286
1 since 2002. They occur in the upper and lower reaches of the watershed. The
2 nutrients ammonia and phosphorus have a medium frequency of occurrence and
3 methyelene blue active substances and copper have a low frequency of
4 occurrence in the watershed (SeaWorld Inc. 2007). See Table 3.6-1, which
5 identifies the potential sources of COCs.
6 Table 3.6-1. Potential Sources of COCs
Frequency of
COC Occurrence in Potential Sources of Contamination
Watershed
Bacterial Indicators Domestic animals, Sewage overflow,
(total/fecal coliform and High Septic systems, Wildlife
enterococcus)
Agriculture, Commercial and
Pesticides (Diazinon) High residential landscaping, Industrial
waste
Agriculture, Grading/construction,
TSS/Turbidity High
Slope erosion
Nutrients (ammonia and Agriculture, Sewage overflow, Septic
Medium
phosphorus) systems
Agriculture, Commercial and
Organic Compounds
Low residential landscaping, Sewage
(MBAs)
overflow, Septic systems
Trace Metals (copper) Low Automobiles, Industrial waste
Source: SeaWorld Inc. 2007
7 Floodplains. Segment A-1 (Routes A and B) occurs in the September 29, 2006,
8 FEMA FIRM Panel No. 06073C2225F for San Diego County, California. This
9 panel has a Zone D designation and has not been printed. Zone D is used to
10 classify areas where there are possible but undetermined flood hazards. In
11 areas designated as Zone D, no analysis of flood hazards has been conducted
12 (FEMA 2006). During the 2007 survey (e²M 2007), it was determined that
13 Segment A-1 would cross two riparian corridors associated with Copper Canyon
14 and Buttewig Canyon. Though intermittent and incised in the proposed project
15 corridor, these riparian crossings might have associated floodplains.
16 According to the June 19, 1997, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 06073C2250F for San
17 Diego County, California, Segment A-2 is located in Zone X or “areas determined
18 to be outside the 500-year floodplain” (FEMA 1997).

3-20
FME000287
1 3.7 Biological Resources

3 Vegetation. Vegetation resources include native or naturalized plants and
4 serves as habitat for a variety of animal species. This section describes the
5 affected environment for native and nonnative vegetation. This analysis is based
6 on site surveys conducted in October 2007. More detailed information on
7 vegetation resources, including vegetation classifications, species observed, and
8 the survey methodology is contained in the Biological Resources Report
9 (e²M 2007) in Appendix G.
10 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources. Wildlife and aquatic resources include native
11 or naturalized animals and the habitats in which they exist. Sensitive and
12 protected resources include animal species listed as threatened or endangered
13 by the USFWS or a state. Federal and state listed species and designated
14 critical habitats, and migratory birds are discussed under Special Status Species.
15 In California, a suite of federal, state, and local land use regulations and
16 conservation programs provide protection of biological resources on private
17 lands. Development projects are subject to environmental review under the
18 CEQA and must comply with a host of other environmental regulations and
19 permitting requirements. Projects that may cause significant adverse impacts on
20 natural resources or jeopardize the continued existence of state-listed
21 endangered or threatened species must mitigate these impacts by modifying the
22 project or by providing long-term conservation and management of natural
23 resources that would be affected by the project (CBI 2004).
24 Special Status Species. Special status species addressed in this EIS are
25 federal threatened and endangered species, state threatened and endangered
26 species, and migratory birds. Each group has its own definitions, and legislative
27 and regulatory drivers for consideration during the NEPA process; these are
28 briefly described below.
29 The ESA provides broad protection for species of fish, wildlife and plants that are
30 listed as threatened or endangered in the U.S. or elsewhere. Provisions are
31 made for listing species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of
32 critical habitat for listed species. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for
33 federal agencies to follow when taking actions that may jeopardize listed species,
34 and contains exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties are
35 provided for violations of the ESA.
36 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act directs all Federal agencies to use their
37 existing authorities to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in
38 consultation with the USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed
39 species or destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to
40 management of Federal lands as well as other Federal actions that may affect

3-21
FME000288
1 listed species, such as Federal approval of private activities through the issuance
2 of Federal permits, licenses, or other actions.
3 Under the ESA a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which is
4 in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
5 ESA defines a federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
6 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
7 significant portion of its range.
8 The State of California has enacted the California Endangered Species Act to
9 protect from “take” any species that the commission determines to be
10 endangered or threatened (Fish and Game Code; Section 2050 - 2085). Take is
11 defined as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch,
12 capture or kill” (Fish and Game Code; Section 86) (CBI 2004).
13 The state of California administers 103,855 acres in the border region. The
14 Department of Fish and Game manages Ecological Reserves and Wildlife
15 Management Areas, while the Department of Parks and Recreation manages
16 Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, and Border
17 Field State Park. The Department of Forestry and Fire Protection administers a
18 single property on the border, Tecate Peak (CBI 2004).
19 The BLM Manual 6840 provides policy and guidance, consistent with appropriate
20 laws, for the conservation of special status species of plants and animals, and
21 the ecosystems upon which they depend. The sensitive species designation is
22 normally used for species that occur on BLM-administered lands for which BLM
23 has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species
24 through management.
25 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the
26 protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing, or possessing
27 migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186,
28 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has
29 the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions
30 of the MBTA, which includes responsibility for population management (e.g.,
31 monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification),
32 international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The
33 MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which include
34 nearly every native bird in North America.
35 The MBTA and EO 13186 require federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
36 on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
37 federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds, EO
38 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and obtain a
39 Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.

3-22
FME000289

2 Vegetation. The vegetation of southern California has generally been classified
3 under the Humid Temperate Domain, Mediterranean Division of Bailey (1995).
4 The proposed project corridor is predominantly classified as the California
5 Coastal Range Open Woodland – Shrub – Coniferous Forest – Meadow
6 Province (Bailey 1995). The Jepson Manual (Hickman et al. 1996) describes
7 vegetation geography using combined features of the natural landscape including
8 natural vegetation types and plant communities, and geologic, topographic, and
9 climatic variation. This geographic system places the proposed project corridor
10 in the California Floristic Province, Southwestern California Region, and
11 Peninsular Ranges Subregion.
12 NatureServe (2007) has defined ecological systems to represent recurring

13 groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments
14 and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such as fire or
15 flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are readily
16 identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. The vegetation
17 description for the proposed project corridor was prepared in the framework of
18 ecological systems that include: 1) Southern California Dry-Mesic Chaparral
19 (CES206.930) and Southern California Oak Woodland and Savanna
20 (CES206.938).
21 Chaparral within this ecological system (CES206.930) occurs up to 4,550-ft in

22 elevation and occurs on well-drained soils of slopes, toeslopes, and in
23 concavities (NatureServe 2007). It is characterized by several species of
24 California lilac (Ceanothus [megacarpus, crassifolius, leucodermis, greggii]),
25 chamise (Adenostema fasiculatum), redshank (A. sparsifolium), manzanita
26 (Arctostaphylos glauca), birch-leaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus
27 betuloides), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), and Xylococcus bicolor. Woodlands within
28 this ecological system (CES206.938) occur in major side canyons to the Tijuana
29 River including Copper, Buttewig, and Mine. They are characterized by species
30 of oak (Quercus [agrifolia, wislizenii, engelmanii]), western sycamore (Platanus
31 racemosa), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), western poison oak (Toxicodendron
32 diversilobum), and Baccharis emoryi.
33 Several areas of the proposed corridor are unvegetated. Unvegetated sites

34 included the Pack Truck Trail and a large number of footpaths created by Illegal
35 border crossers through the chaparral shrublands on the OMW. A detailed
36 description of vegetation resources can be found in the Biological Resources
37 Report in Appendix G.
38 [[Preparer’s Note: As of 10/22/07 e²M biologists continue to survey the

39 proposed Route B Alternative. This section and Appendix G will be
40 completed in the next iteration of the Draft EIS.]]

3-23
FME000290
1 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources. The proposed fence alignment lies within the
2 Peninsular Ranges Province and is part of the warm-temperate scrublands biotic
3 community. These scrublands are dominated by the California chaparral and
4 coastal scrub communities which provide suitable habitats for a number of
5 species (i.e., bats, rodents, salamanders, snakes, and lizards, plus a variety of
6 waterfowl, shorebirds, and rangeland/forest birds) adapted to this environment.
7 The warm temperate scrublands biotic community of the Peninsular Ranges has
8 a diversity of faunal elements to coincide with the varied coastal habitats ranging
9 from coniferous forests to chaparral, oak woodlands, grasslands, marshes, sandy
10 beaches, vernal pools, and the Tijuana River Estuary (USACE 1999).
11 Riparian systems and the associated woodlands (i.e., willows, cottonwoods, and
12 oak), which are important to fish and wildlife resources occur throughout the
13 study area. These types of systems would occur in riparian vegetation along
14 most of the coastal streams (i.e., San Luis Rey, San Diego, Sweetwater, Otay,
15 and Tijuana rivers; Jamul and Campo creeks) and valley foothill and montane
16 (areas in the mountains) regions. Vernal pools occur as small depressions in
17 flat-topped marine terraces and occur in areas north and south of San Diego with
18 more sites along the border (e.g., Otay Mesa). Being an amphibious ecosystem,
19 the alternation of very wet and very dry creates a unique ecological situation that
20 supports a variety of fauna. Because of unique species diversity or hydrological
21 regime, riparian systems and vernal pools are vital for maintenance of some fish
22 and wildlife species at sustainable populations (USACE 1999).
23 Several riparian or freshwater birds reach the southern end of their breeding
24 distribution near the border. The chaparral along the border between Otay
25 Mountain and Jacumba likely serves as an important dispersal corridor for two
26 species including the gray vireo (Vireo vicinior) and sage sparrow (Amphispiza
27 belli). Habitat specialists, such as the grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus
28 savannarum), are especially sensitive to habitat fragmentation and urbanization
29 and need landscape integrity for dispersal (CBI 2004).
30 The San Ysidro area, including the Otay Mountain, Cerro San Isidro, San Miguel
31 Mountain, and Tecate Peak, supports some of the largest remaining intact
32 patches of Diegan coastal sage scrub (including coastal sage scrub with
33 abundant cactus patches) in the border region, supporting core populations of
34 California gnatcatchers and coastal cactus wrens (Campylorhynchus
35 brunneicapillus couesi). This area also supports mafic chaparral communities,
36 important riparian habitat along the Tijuana and Tecate rivers, and vernal pools
37 on the mesa tops. The Thorne’s hairstreak butterfly (Mitoura thornei) is an
38 endemic species here, whose larvae are obligate to Tecate cypress (CBI 2004).
39 Jesus Maria Mesa, on the southwestern flank of Cerro San Isidro, supports
40 vernal pools and a population of Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha
41 quino) that uses habitat on both sides of the border and is likely important to
42 recovery of the species (CBI 2004).

3-24
FME000291
1 Cottonwood Creek, which supports arroyo toads, provides an important

2 hydrographic and habitat linkage between San Ysidro and Los Pinos to the east
3 (CBI 2004).
4 The native faunal components of the Peninsular Range support over 400 species
5 of birds, which are dominated by wood warblers, swans, geese, and ducks,
6 sandpipers and phalaropes, gulls and terns, sparrows and towhees, and tyrant
7 flycatchers. The majority of these species are present in the spring and fall,
8 when neotropical migrants (e.g., flycatchers and warblers) pass through on their
9 way to either summer breeding or wintering grounds, and during winter when
10 summer resident birds (i.e., robins, kinglets, and sparrows) from the north arrive
11 to spend the winter. The majority of the mammalian species found in the
12 Peninsular Range are evening bats and rodents, with rodents being the most
13 common. Frogs are considered the most abundant and common of the
14 amphibian species. Iguanid lizards and colubrid snakes are the most dominant
15 reptiles inhabiting the Peninsular Range (CBP 2007b).
16 The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is a CDFG maintained

17 inventory of data on the location and status of state listed endangered and
18 threatened animals in California. Listed wildlife recorded on the CNDDB are
19 included in Table 3.7-1.
20 Table 3.7-1. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (State-listed)

21 within the San Diego County Proposed Project Corridor
SD County
Common Name Scientific Name Quad State Status CDFG
Arroyo toad Bufo californicus OM, T None SC
Coast (San Phrynosoma
Diego) horned coronatum (blainvillii OM, T None SC
lizard population)
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos OM, T None SC
Orange-throated Aspidoscelis
OM, T None SC
whiptail hyperythra
Townsend's big- Corynorhinus
OM None SC
eared bat townsendii
Western mastiff Eumops perotis
T None SC
bat californicus
Western
Spea hammondii OM None SC
spadefoot
Source: CDFG 2007
Notes: OM = Otay Mountain; T = Tecate
22

3-25
FME000292
1 There are no state-listed species of fish or Species of Concern within the two
2 quads (Otay Mountain and Tecate) along Segment A-1 and A-2. There were
3 several riparian habitats, which are important to fish resources, observed along
4 the proposed segments. However, most were not considered of high quality due
5 to lack of structure or lack of pooling sites.
6 Special Status Species. There are 15 federally listed taxa that have the
7 potential to occur within or proximal to the proposed fence corridors in southern
8 San Diego County: 2 crustaceans; 1 butterfly; 1 amphibian, 3 birds, and 8 plants.
9 Of these, 2 birds and 5 plants are also state-listed (see Table 3.7-2). In addition,
10 the orange-throated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra) is a BLM sensitive species
11 with the potential to occur in the area (BLM 1994). A synopsis of the biology of
12 each federally-listed species potentially occurring within the fence corridor is
13 provided in the Draft Biological Survey Report: USBP San Diego Sector, Brown
14 Field Station. State-listed species observed during the October 2007 surveys are
15 briefly described below. Potential habitat for species which were not observed is
16 also described.
17 Table 3.7-2. Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species

18 Considered
Federal State
Scientific Name Common Name
Status Status
Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp E
Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp E
Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly E
Bufo californicus arroyo toad E
Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher T
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo E E
Empidonax trailii extimus Southwestern willow flycatcher E E
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia E
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery E E
Deinandra conjugens Otay tarplant T E
Pogogyne nudiuscula Otay Mesa mint E E
Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia T
Fremontodendron mexicanum Mexican flannelbush E
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass E E
Baccharis vanessae Encinitas baccharis T E
19 [[Preparer’s Note: Information will be updated when surveys are completed,

20 and when species location data from NatureServe are delivered.]]

3-26
FME000293
1 A number of migratory birds are known to pass through or otherwise use the
2 border region between California and Baja California. Some of these species fly
3 through this general area to avoid having to cross the Gulf of California (CBI
4 2004) Examples of such species include olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus
5 cooperi), dusky flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), yellow-rumped warbler
6 (Dendroica coronata), green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus), and fox sparrow
7 (Passerella iliaca). However, no records of these species are known from the
8 immediate vicinity of the potential fence corridors.
9 On-site inspection of habitat within the potential fence alignment was conducted
10 by species specialists in October 2007 (USACE 2007).

13 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

15 “Cultural resources” is an umbrella term for many heritage-related resources.
16 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) focuses on “historic properties,”
17 specifically, prehistoric or historic district, site, building, or structure included in,
18 or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including related
19 artifacts, records, and material remains. Traditional, religious, and cultural
20 properties holding significance for Native American tribes, Native Alaskan and
21 Native Hawaiian organizations may also be considered NRHP-eligible.
22 Depending on the condition and historic use, such resources might provide
23 insight into living conditions in previous civilizations or might retain cultural and
24 religious significance to modern groups.
25 Several Federal laws and regulations govern protection of cultural resources,

26 including the NHPA (1966), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
27 (1974), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), the Archaeological
28 Resources Protection Act (1979), and the Native American Graves Protection
29 and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990).
30 Typically, cultural resources are subdivided into archaeological resources

31 (prehistoric or historic sites where human activity has left physical evidence of
32 that activity but no structures remain standing); architectural resources (buildings
33 or other structures or groups of structures, or designed landscapes that are of
34 historic or aesthetic significance); or resources of traditional, religious, or cultural
35 significance to Native American tribes.
36 Archaeological resources comprise areas where human activity has measurably

37 altered the earth or deposits of physical remains are found (e.g., projectile points
38 and bottles).

3-27
FME000294
1 Architectural resources include standing buildings, bridges, dams, and other

2 structures of historic or aesthetic significance. Generally, architectural resources
3 must be more than 50 years old to be considered for the NRHP. More recent
4 structures, such as Cold War-era resources, might warrant protection if they have
5 the potential to gain significance in the future.
6 Resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American

7 tribes can include archaeological resources, structures, neighborhoods,
8 prominent topographic features, habitat, plants, animals, and minerals that Native
9 Americans or other groups consider essential for the preservation of traditional
10 culture.
11 The NEPA process and the consultation process prescribed in Section 106 of the
12 NHPA require an assessment of the potential impact of an undertaking on
13 cultural resources and historic properties that are within the proposed project’s
14 Area of Potential Effect (APE), which is defined as the geographic area(s) “within
15 which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character
16 or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” Under Section 110 of
17 the NHPA, Federal agencies are required to locate and inventory all resources
18 under their purview that are recommended as eligible for inclusion in the NRHP
19 on owned, leased, or managed property. In accordance with EO 12372,
20 Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, determinations regarding the
21 potential effects of an undertaking on historic properties are presented to the
22 SHPO, federally recognized Native American tribes, and other interested parties.

24 [[Preparer’s Note: This cultural resources section is based entirely on the
25 results of archival and literature research completed for this project.
26 Further research and cultural resources surveys are being conducted at
27 this time.]]
28 Ethnographic Context. The APE for the Proposed Action lies in the southern
29 portion of San Diego County within the historical territory of the Kumeyaay
30 people. Kumeyaay is a native term referring to all Yuman-speaking peoples
31 living in the region from the San Dieguito River south to the Sierra Juarez in Baja
32 California and roughly west of present day Salton Sea. Prior to European
33 contact, Kumeyaay territory may have extended as far north as the San Luis Rey
34 River. To the north of the Kumeyaay live the Takic-speaking Luiseño and
35 Cahuilla. To the east and south are other peoples who speak a variety of distinct
36 languages belonging to the Yuman language family.
37 On the basis of linguistic and archaeological evidence, it has been suggested

38 that the ancestors of the present-day Kumeyaay arrived in this part of California
39 sometime between 1000 B.C. and A.D. 1000. Adding new cultural traditions to
40 the earlier patterns, the ancestral Kumeyaay seem to have assimilated with the
41 earlier inhabitants rather than displaced them.

3-28
FME000295
1 The Kumeyaay were organized sociopolitically into autonomous bands, each

2 controlling an area measuring approximately 10 to 30 miles around a water
3 source. Each band usually occupied a main village and several satellite living
4 areas. These settlements were temporary, as the community would fission
5 seasonally into smaller groups, which would establish camps to gather, process,
6 and cache seasonally available resources. Seasonal movements were geared
7 toward following the ripening of major plants dispersed from canyon floor to the
8 higher mountain slopes. During the winter months, a band would typically
9 aggregate back to the main village.
10 The Kumeyaay practiced a fairly typical California hunting and gathering

11 subsistence regime based on a variety of locally abundant terrestrial and aquatic
12 resources. The Kumeyaay diet was heavily dependent on harvesting wild plant
13 foods, with a strong emphasis on acorns and pinion. An abundance of other
14 plant food, including many different kinds of seeds, bulbs, and other plants,
15 rounded out the diet. Meat was procured through hunting of small game,
16 including rabbits, squirrels, and various reptiles. Many of these animals were
17 captured with nets or by hand. Larger game, such as deer, was taken with bow
18 and arrow, but probably did not figure prominently in the diet. Besides abundant
19 plants, the inhabitants living in the coastal zone had access to rich marine
20 environments, which provided abundant shellfish, fish, and sea birds and sea
21 mammals.
22 Interaction with neighboring tribes was maintained through extensive trade

23 networks involving the movement of goods and information across diverse
24 ecological zones. The San Diego–area Kumeyaay appear to have maintained
25 stronger trade relationships with their neighbors to the east than with groups to
26 the north and south, as evidenced by a lively trade between the seacoast and
27 inland areas as far east as the Colorado River. Acorns, dried seafood,
28 ornamental marine shell, and other materials moved eastward from the coast and
29 uplands, and salt, gourd seeds, and mesquite beans moved in the opposite
30 direction.
31 Contact between the Kumeyaay and Europeans began in 1542 when Juan
32 Rodríguez Cabrillo landed the first Spanish expedition in San Diego. Sustained
33 cultural interaction did not develop, however, until the founding of Mission San
34 Diego Alcalá in 1769. Although the Kumeyaay culture was not as severely
35 impacted by Spanish colonization as some other California tribes, its
36 sociopolitical structure was drastically disrupted during the Mission period and
37 later. Those Kumeyaay living closest to the mission were hardest hit by
38 European civilization, whereas groups living in the mountains were less
39 traumatized by cultural interaction and preserved more of their culture longer.
40 By the end of the nineteenth century, most Kumeyaay had been disenfranchised
41 from their lands and relegated either to reservations or in some cases,
42 acculturated into mainstream Euro-american society, in rural areas or at the
43 edges of small towns on land that immigrants did not want. Employment

3-29
FME000296
1 opportunities were few. Most were poorly paid and labored in mines, on ranches,
2 or in town, although some still supplemented their income with traditional
3 subsistence activities.
4 Throughout the twentieth century, the Kumeyaay have struggled and worked
5 toward maintaining their autonomy and sovereignty. Today their culture is
6 thriving and the Kumeyaay are represented by federally recognized tribes with
7 reservations throughout San Diego County. At present, about 20,000 Kumeyaay
8 descendants live in San Diego County, with approximately 10 percent of the total
9 population living on the 18 established Kumeyaay reservations.
10 Prehistoric Context. Southern San Diego County contains archaeological

11 evidence of human use and occupation that spans the known periods of
12 prehistory. Dated to the Holocene, the earliest sites are known as the San
13 Dieguito complex (9,000–7,500 years ago), so-named because the culture was
14 first defined at a site along San Dieguito River, about 20 miles north of the APE
15 for the Proposed Action. The archaeological remains from these sites consist of
16 large, stemmed projectile points and finely made scraping and chopping tools,
17 which were used for hunting and processing large game animals.
18 The La Jolla complex (7,500–2,000 years ago) followed the San Dieguito
19 complex. La Jollan sites are recognized by abundant millingstone assemblages
20 in shell middens often located near lagoons and sloughs. This complex is
21 associated with a shift from hunting to a more generalized subsistence strategy
22 relying on a broader range of resources, including plants, shellfish, and small
23 game. La Jollan sites occur in larger numbers than those of the preceding San
24 Dieguito complex, and are found across a greater range of environmental zones.
25 The origin of the La Jolla complex is unclear. Some researchers believe that it
26 developed out of the earlier San Dieguito complex, whereas others feel that it
27 may have coexisted with San Dieguito, and merely represents exploitation of
28 distinct environments by the same culture. Regardless, the remains of these two
29 complexes indicate very different subsistence strategies, with the San Dieguito
30 complex focusing on hunting and the La Jolla complex based on a broader-
31 based foraging strategy. Interestingly, some of the oldest ceramics in America, in
32 the form of figurines, have been recovered from La Jollan sites in neighboring
33 Orange County. Regional variants of the San Dieguito and La Jolla complexes
34 are found in interior regions of San Diego County. The Pauma complex,
35 originally believed to be a distinct archaeological culture, is more likely a regional
36 variant of the better-known La Jolla complex.
37 As elsewhere during late prehistory in southern California, the Yuman complex

38 (1,300–200 years ago) was a time of cultural transformation. Beginning about
39 1,000 years ago, Yuman-speaking groups moved into the San Diego area.
40 These later populations are recognized by distinctive small projectile points,
41 ceramic vessels, and an increase in the use of mortars. The acorn became an
42 increasingly important component of the diet, although subsistence pursuits from

3-30
FME000297
1 earlier periods continued. The number of Yuman-complex sites dramatically

2 outnumber those from the earlier periods.
3 Although there are differences in the settlement patterns noted for each
4 successive period, habitation sites from all periods are most commonly found
5 near lagoons and the open coast, or along inland valley stream-channels and
6 rivers. In general, the coastal zone and locales at the mouth of canyons or at the
7 confluence of streams are archaeologically sensitive and likely to contain sites
8 ranging from small activity areas to habitation sites. Smaller special-use sites
9 are found scattered across all environmental zones, particularly near water
10 sources. Extensive prehistoric quarries are known from the general region, and
11 milling features on bedrock outcrops are nearly ubiquitous in the inland portions
12 of the County. Rock art sites have also been recorded in the area.
13 Historic Context. The historical period began in the San Diego area with the
14 voyage of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, who landed near Point Loma on September
15 28, 1542. Although several expeditions were later sent to explore the Alta
16 California coast, for nearly two centuries following Cabrillo's voyage the Spanish
17 government showed little interest in the region, focusing instead on the Mexican
18 mainland and on Baja California. In the 1760s, however, spurred on by the
19 threat to Spanish holdings in Alta California by southward expansion of the
20 Russian sphere of influence, the Spanish government began planning for the
21 colonization of Alta California.
22 The Spanish originally planned to establish their first settlement in Alta California
23 at San Diego using a four-pronged expedition. Two groups would arrive by sea
24 and two by land. The various expeditions departed from their respective
25 locations throughout the first half of 1769. The two ships and both overland
26 parties eventually reached San Diego. A third supply ship was dispatched to join
27 the rest of the expedition, but it was apparently lost at sea. Meeting in San
28 Diego, the colonists succeeded in establishing Mission San Diego de Alcalá on
29 July 16, 1769 at the present-day location of the San Diego Presidio. The Mission
30 was moved inland to its present location after the original setting proved
31 unsatisfactory, leaving the Presidio on the hillside overlooking present day Old
32 Town and the mouth of the San Diego River.
33 For the next 50 years, mission influence grew in southern California. Mission
34 San Luis Rey de Francia, located north of San Diego in present-day Oceanside,
35 was established on June 13, 1798, and the assistance of Santa Ysabel and a
36 dam and flume in Mission Gorge constructed around 1818. The mission
37 economy was based on farming and open-range ranching over vast expanses of
38 territory.
39 As part of their colonization goals, the church hierarchy felt an obligation to

40 convert the native peoples to Christianity, and the church worked diligently at
41 converting the local populations. The mission priests gathered as many
42 Kumeyaay into the mission as possible. Once there, the neophytes essentially

3-31
FME000298
1 were held captive while they received religious instructions and provided free
2 labor for the mission, often forcibly. The effects of mission influence upon the
3 local native population were devastating. The reorganization of their traditional
4 lifestyle alienated them from their previous subsistence patterns and social
5 customs. European diseases for which the Kumeyaay had no immunities
6 reached epidemic proportions and many died.
7 Mexican independence from Spain in 1821 was followed by secularization of the

8 California missions in 1832. Between 1833 and 1845, the newly formed Mexican
9 government began to divide up the immense church holdings into land grants. By
10 the 1840s, ranches, farms, and dairies were being established throughout the El
11 Cajon Valley, along the Sweetwater River, and in nearby areas.
12 The rancho era in California was short-lived and, in 1848, Mexico ceded
13 California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Growth
14 of the region was comparatively rapid after succession. Subsequent gold rushes,
15 land booms, and transportation development all played a part in attracting
16 settlers to the area. San Diego County was created in 1850, the same year that
17 the City of San Diego was incorporated. Over the next 20 years the County’s
18 population increased six-fold and the City population more than tripled. By the
19 late 1800s, the County was still growing and a number of outlying communities
20 developed around the old ranchos and land grants, in particular areas in the
21 southern limits of the County.
22 Throughout the early twentieth century most of San Diego County remained
23 mostly rural. Like most of southern California, this region changed rapidly
24 following World War II when the pace of migration and growth quickened. Today,
25 southern San Diego County has transformed into a burgeoning metropolis with
26 unprecedented urban expansion. The remoteness of the project area has
27 resulted in a generally undeveloped appearance with the exception of access
28 roads, heavily used foot paths, and the accumulation of modern trash.
29 Previously Recorded Resources
30 An archeological site record and archival search was conducted at the South
31 Coastal Information Center in accord with the requirements of NHPA Section 106
32 (36 CFR 800.4 [2, 3, and 4]). The archeological site record and archival search
33 were conducted to identify and collect data for cultural resource sites and isolates
34 recorded within a 0.5 mile radius of the proposed project APE. A search of the
35 National Archaeological Data Base (NADB) also was completed in an effort to
36 identify cultural resource management reports for previously completed cultural
37 resources management activities (archaeological survey and/or evaluation
38 excavations) in or near the APE. Finally, the NRHP was reviewed for information
39 on historic properties that are or have the potential to be listed.
40 A letter to initiate consultation was sent by the Army Corps of Engineers to

41 fourteen tribal groups with cultural links to the project area (Attachment X). This

3-32
FME000299
1 letter was provided to initiate consultation and comment on traditional cultural

2 properties and areas of concern. The responses and concerns from this group
3 are summarized here and provided as Attachment 1.
4 Archaeological Resources. A review of the archaeological site records and

5 archival information, including site (CA-SDI) and Primary (P-37) plot USGS maps
6 (Otay Mountain and Tecate, California 7.5-minute quads) and the NADB
7 indicates that two cultural resource studies have been conducted within the
8 vicinity of the APE. These studies covered large areas associated with the Otay
9 Mountain Pack Truck Trail and the Heard Ranch.
10 Previously recorded archaeological resources include six prehistoric sites, five

11 isolates, and one trail (see Table 3.8-1). Five of the recorded sites are along the
12 Pack Trial and the sixth is near, but not within the proposed A-2 segment. The
13 five sites along the trail are all within the APE based on the site mapping
14 information.
15 Table 3.8-1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources
Site Number Site Description

P-37-015715 Isolate-Interior dacite flake
P-37-015716 Otay Mountain Pack Trail
P-37-024688 Isolate-Dark gray basalt flake
P-37-024689 Isolate- Light brown dacite core and light brown dacite flake
P-37-024690 Isolate-Brown dacite flake
P-37-024691 Isolate-Gray basaltic flake
CA-SDI-16368 Sparse lithic scatter
CA-SDI-16369 Small flaked lithic and prehistoric ceramic scatter
CA-SDI-16370 Seasonal camp with two milling features and a sparse flaked lithic
scatter
CA-SDI-16371 Sparse flaked lithic scatter
CA-SDI-16372 Dense flaked lithic scatter
CA-SDI-9968 Extensive bedrock milling features with sparse flaked lithic scatter
16
17 An intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project alignment was completed in
18 October 2007 by archaeologists from engineering-environmental Management.
19 Access to the project area was gained through coordination with the San Diego
20 sector of the U. S. Border Patrol and the Bureau of Land Management, Palm
21 Springs/Bakersfield Field Office under a Fieldwork Authorization Permit. The
22 survey team was escorted by a representative of the Border Patrol and the
23 fieldwork was completed in October 2007 under a Fieldwork Authorization Permit
24 granted by the BLM (Permit No. CA-08-03).

3-33
FME000300
1 [[Preparer’s Note: Archaeological survey has been postponed pending

2 access; once the survey has been completed, this section will be
3 completed.]]
4 Architectural Resources. Review of maps and land records indicate that there
5 are no buildings or structures present within the APE, or with viewsheds that
6 would include the construction corridor for the Proposed Action. Accordingly, the
7 Proposed Action will have no impact on architectural resources.
8 Resources of Traditional, Religious, and Cultural Significance to Native

9 American Tribes. A review of the NRHP provided information on one sacred
10 site within the vicinity of the construction corridor for the Proposed Action.
11 Kuchamaa/Tecate Peak is identified as an Area of Critical Environmental
12 Concern (ACEC) by the BLM. This area encompasses a sacred mountain
13 (Tecate Peak) that is a spiritual center for Native American people of southern
14 California and northern Baja California. Tecate Peak was placed on the National
15 Register of Historic Places by the County of San Diego in 1992 (#92001268).
16 This resource is listed for religious or ceremonial reasons and it is identified as a
17 ceremonial site.
18 Kuchamaa is 3,885 feet above mean sea level. The nominated area includes all
19 land from the 3,000-foot contour level up to and including the peak. On the north
20 it drops abruptly to Highway 94. The western flank consists of several dissected
21 subpeaks and the eastern aspect is an upland spine. The southern boundary
22 conforms to the international border (between the United States and Mexico).
23 This is a total of 510 acres, 320 to the west and 190 to the east.
24 The following section was taken from a report for the California Division of
25 Forestry report prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. for Tecate Peak and land to the
26 west. The following excerpt provides an excellent summary of the known
27 information on Tecate Peak or Kuchumaa.
28 Kuchumaa was first identified as a sacred site in ethnographic literature by

29 Shipek (Cuero 1970) during her study of the Kumeyaay Indians. To the
30 Kumeyaay, the peak is one of extreme religious and spiritual importance, playing
31 a part in a creation myth of the Kumeyaay. Most of the evidence for the
32 significance of Kuchumaa derives from oral tradition rather than archaeological
33 remains. To date, little archaeological evidence has been identified to speak to
34 the importance of the site in the ritual activities of the Kumeyaay. One small
35 prehistoric temporary habitation or special use site (CA-SDI-3488) has been
36 recorded approximately 150 m northeast of the peak itself. The presence of rock
37 art was reported by Dutton in 1982, and stone features and artifacts, including
38 one projectile point and ceramic sherds, have also been reported.
39 One of Hohenthal’s informants described finding a stone olla on the slopes of

40 Kuchumaa in the mid-1940s, about which he speculates that it “may have
41 actually been an example of the Chumash steatite bowls which occasionally

3-34
FME000301
1 filtered south through native trade”. Hohenthal also reported that a Sr. Barrios,
2 who owned a ranch at the base of Kuchumaa, had also “collected metates,
3 manos and stone points and blades of various sorts.” No systematic cultural
4 resource surveys have been conducted on the mountain to date, and only two
5 surveys have been conducted at the base of the mountain. Large village sites
6 have been reported for the region, but none have been documented.
7 A sacred spring named God’s Tears by the Kumeyaay lies at or near the 3,000-
8 foot contour level, an elevation that marks the transition from a sphere of spiritual
9 influence, accessible by ordinary people, to sacrosanct ground, where only
10 shaman were allowed. Sacred dances such as the horloi (whirl dance) were
11 performed on the mountain by the kwisiyai. Kwisiyai paid visits, both physical
12 and spiritual (by way of dreams and through the use of datura), to Kuchumaa to
13 increase their knowledge and interact with the spiritual world. Finally, the
14 mountain was used as a burial place for special people; kwisiyai were cremated
15 and their ashes spread or placed on the slopes of Tecate Peak, while ordinary
16 citizens were interred in communal cemeteries.
17 In the early 1900s, Dr. Walter Evans-Wentz, an authority on Tibetan Buddhism,

18 inherited 5,000 acres of land on Kuchamaa. At his death, he willed 2,261 acres
19 of the ranch to the State of California with the requirements that the property be
20 "maintained forever as a mighty monument to symbolize goodwill and fraternity
21 between the races and faiths of the Occident and the Orient across the wide
22 ocean of peace over which it looms".
23 A radio communications station was built on the summit of Tecate Peak by the
24 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1957. A dirt road constructed to provide access
25 to the station remains as the only access to the mountain’s peak. A locked gate
26 was installed to prevent unauthorized access to the radio facilities, but also cut
27 off Kumeyaay access to this sacred site. In 1965, the year of Dr. Evans-Wentz’s
28 death, a number of state and federal agencies established other radio
29 communications stations on the peak and a number of proposals to develop the
30 land on and surrounding the peak and to place transmission lines across the
31 mountain have since been presented.
32 In 1981, a proposal to build a campground on the lower slopes of Tecate Peak

33 initiated the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report by the BLM. As a
34 result of research into ethnographic literature and Native American consultation,
35 BLM sought a nomination of Kuchamaa as a NRHP district. The Tecate Peak
36 District encompasses 510 acres of both state and federal lands. The district was
37 determined to be eligible for the National Register based upon its uniqueness as
38 a site of extreme religious significance to the Kumeyaay and other Indians
39 throughout southern California. It should be noted that portions of Kuchamaa are
40 still privately owned. This creates a dilemma for the Kumeyaay, who feel that
41 they risk personal harm by divulging information about their sacred mountain, but
42 that, should portions of it be developed, the power of the site will be diminished.

3-35
FME000302
1 3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES

3 Visual resources include both natural and man-made features that influence the
4 visual appeal of an area for residents and visitors. Visual resources can be
5 defined as the visible physical features on a landscape (e.g., land, water,
6 vegetation, animals, structures, and other features).
7 In order to meet its responsibility to maintain the scenic values of public lands,
8 BLM has developed a Visual Resource Management (VRM) system based on
9 human perceptions and expectations in the context of the existing landscape.
10 Different levels of scenic values require different levels of management.
11 Determining how an area should be managed first requires an assessment of the
12 area’s scenic values. For management purposes, BLM has developed Visual
13 Resource Classes.
14 1. Class I Objective. The objective of these classes is to preserve the

15 existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural
16 ecological changes but also allows very limited management activity. The
17 level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and
18 must not attract attention.
19 2. Class II Objective. The objective of these classes is to preserve the
20 existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the
21 characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities are
22 allowed, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any
23 changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture
24 found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
25 New projects can be approved if they blend in with the existing
26 surroundings and don’t attract attention.
27 3. Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the
28 existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the
29 characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may
30 attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer.
31 Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant
32 natural features of the characteristic landscape. New projects can be
33 approved that are not large scale, dominating features.
34 4. Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for
35 management activities which require major modifications of the existing
36 character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic
37 landscape can be high. These management activities can dominate the
38 view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt
39 should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful
40 location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements of
41 predominant natural features (BLM 1986a).

3-36
FME000303

2 As discussed in Section 3.4.2, the majority of the Proposed Action would be on
3 Federal lands managed by BLM. The area surrounding the Segment A-1 falls
4 into two Classes. The OMW, north of the Proposed Action, is classified as a
5 Class I Visual Resource and the BLM managed land surrounding the OMW are
6 designated as a Class III Visual Resource.
7 Although the Segment A-2 of the Proposed Action is mostly on private property,
8 the area would be designated as a Class III Visual Resource under the BLM
9 VRM system.

11 AND SAFETY
13 Socioeconomic Resources. Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes
14 and resources associated with the human environment, particularly
15 characteristics of population and economic activity.
16 Socioeconomic data shown in this chapter are presented at the community and
17 county levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions in the context of
18 regional and state trends. Data have been collected from previously published
19 documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies; and from state and
20 national databases (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau).
21 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. There are no

22 Federal regulations on socioeconomics; however, there is one EO that pertains
23 to environmental justice issues based on socioeconomic and racial make up of
24 an affected population and the health effects that could be imposed on them. On
25 February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued EO 12898, Federal Actions to
26 Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
27 Populations. This EO requires that Federal agencies’ actions substantially
28 affecting human health or the environment do not exclude persons, deny persons
29 benefits, or subject persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or
30 national origin. The EO was created to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful
31 involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with
32 respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental
33 laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people,
34 including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate
35 share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
36 municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, tribal,
37 and local programs and policies. Consideration of environmental justice
38 concerns includes race, ethnicity, and the poverty status of populations in the
39 vicinity of a proposed action. Such information aids in evaluating whether a

3-37
FME000304
1 proposed action would render vulnerable any of the groups targeted for
2 protection in the EO.
3 In addition to EO 12898, President Clinton issued EO 13045, Protection of

4 Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This EO called for
5 the protection of children from exposure to disproportionate environmental health
6 and safety risks. This EO established that each agency has a responsibility to
7 ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address risk to
8 children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks.

10 Socioeconomic Resources. The proposed tactical infrastructure Segments A-1
11 (Routes A and B) and A-2 are within San Diego County. In 2006 San Diego
12 County had a population of 2,941,454, which is a 4.5 percent increase over the
13 2000 Census population. However, Segments A-1 and A-2 are in relatively
14 sparsely populated areas of San Diego County. To the south are the Mexican
15 cities of Tijuana and Tecate, which have a combined population of more than two
16 million people. Segment A-1 is adjacent to the OMW and near the community of
17 Otay Mesa, California. Segment A-2 is just west of Tecate, California and within
18 the zip code 91980. Otay Mesa and Tecate, California, were chosen as the
19 Region of Influence (ROI) because they best represent the socioeconomic and
20 demographic characteristics of the area.
21 Otay Mesa is a community within the City of San Diego that has undergone
22 considerable commercial and industrial development in recent years. As of
23 January 1, 2006 Otay Mesa had a population of 13,593, which is a 681 percent
24 increase from the 2000 Census population of 1,740. Otay Mesa has become the
25 largest commercial land border port and one of the busiest commercial land
26 border crossings in the U.S. (Otay Mesa undated).
27 Tecate, California is an unincorporated community in San Diego County that is

28 directly adjacent to the Mexican City of Tecate, Baja. Tecate California is a
29 relatively sparse area and zip code 91980 had a 2007 population of 248 (ESRI
30 2007).
31 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Of the 13,593

32 people living in Otay Mesa approximately 43 percent are Hispanic; 25 percent
33 White; 22 percent Black or African American; 6.9 percent Asian and Pacific
34 Islander; 1 percent are of some other race; and 0.2 percent are American Indian.
35 As of 2006 the median household income was $73,359 and the approximate
36 median age was 37. The approximate percentage of the population under the
37 age of five in Otay Mesa was 4.3 percent in 2006 (SANDAG 2006). As of
38 January 2007 the zip code 91980, containing Tecate was 38.7 percent Hispanic,
39 34.3 percent White, 1.6 Black or African American, 1.6 percent American Indian,
40 0.8 percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 14.1 percent some other race, and 8.9

3-38
FME000305
1 percent of two or more races. The 2007 median household income in zip code
2 91980 was $45,366 as of January 2007 (ESRI 2007).
3 Demographics in Otay Mesa and Tecate, California are similar to those in San
4 Diego County. As of 2005 (latest data available), approximately 52.3 percent in
5 San Diego County were White; 29.5 percent were Hispanic; 10.2 percent were
6 Asian; 5.6 percent were Black or African American; and 5 percent were some
7 other race. San Diego County’s 29.5 percent Hispanic population is lower than
8 Otay Mesa and Tecate, however San Diego County’s 2004 and Tecate,
9 California’s 2007 median household income ($51,939 and $45,366 respectively)
10 were lower than the median household income of Otay Mesa ($73,359) (U.S.
11 Census Bureau 2007).
12

3-39
FME000306

3-40
FME000307
1 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
2 4.1 INTRODUCTION
3 This chapter presents an analysis of the potential direct and indirect impacts
4 each alternative would have on the affected environment as characterized in
5 Section 3. Each alternative was evaluated for its potential to harm or destroy
6 plant and animal species, as well as the habitats they utilize.
7 Impact Characterizations. In developing this EIS, the agencies adhered to the

8 procedural requirements of NEPA, the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA
9 (40 CFR 1500–1508) and National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
10 Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts). The following
11 discussion elaborates on the nature of the characteristics that might relate to
12 various impacts:
13 • Short-term or long-term. These characteristics are determined on a case-

14 by-case basis and do not refer to any rigid time period. In general, short-
15 term impacts are those that would occur only with respect to a particular
16 activity or for a finite period or only during the time required for
17 construction or installation activities. Long-term impacts are those that are
18 more likely to be persistent and chronic.
19 • Direct or indirect. A direct impact is caused by a Proposed Action and
20 occurs at or near the location of the action. An indirect impact is caused
21 by a Proposed Action and might occur later in time or be farther removed
22 in distance but still be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the action.
23 • Negligible, minor, moderate, or major. These relative terms are used to
24 characterize the magnitude or intensity of an impact. Negligible impacts
25 are generally those that might be perceptible but are at the lower level of
26 detection. A minor impact is slight, but detectable. A moderate impact is
27 readily apparent. A major impact is one that is severely adverse or
28 exceptionally beneficial.
29 • Significance. Significant impacts are those that, in the specific context
30 within which they occur and due to their intensity (severity), meet the
31 thresholds for significance set forth in CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.27).
32 This EIS meets the agencies’ requirements to prepare a detailed
33 statement on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
34 human environment (42 U.S.C. 102.2(c)).
35 • Adverse or beneficial. An adverse impact is one having adverse,
36 unfavorable, or undesirable outcomes on the man-made or natural
37 environment. A beneficial impact is one having positive outcomes on the
38 man-made or natural environment. A single act might result in adverse
39 impacts on one environmental resource and beneficial impacts on another
40 resource.
4-1
FME000308
1 • Context. The context of an impact can be localized or more widespread

2 (e.g., regional). While the definition of the term “local” (or localized) can
3 vary by resource, it can be broadly defined as one that occurs within an
4 established regulatory limit (e.g., 100-m mixing boundary) or within
5 approximately 10 km (6 mi) of the source. “Regional” impacts are broadly
6 defined as those that occur on the order of 100 km (62 mi) or more from
7 the source.
8 • Intensity. The intensity of an impact is determined through consideration
9 of several factors, including whether the Proposed Action might have an
10 adverse impact on the unique characteristics of an area (e.g., historical
11 resources, ecologically critical areas), public health or safety, or
12 endangered or threatened species or designated critical habitat. Impacts
13 are also considered in terms of their potential for violation of Federal,
14 state, or local environmental law; their controversial nature; the degree of
15 uncertainty or unknown effects, or unique or unknown risks; if there are
16 precedent-setting effects; and their cumulative impact (see Section 6).
17 For each resource area the evaluation criteria provides a framework for
18 establishing whether an impact would be negligible, minor, moderate, or major.
19 Although some evaluation criteria have been designated based on legal or
20 regulatory limits or requirements, others are based on best professional judgment
21 and BMPs. The evaluation criteria include both quantitative and qualitative
22 analyses, as appropriate to each resource.
23 4.2 AIR QUALITY

24 The de minimis threshold emissions rates were established by USEPA in the
25 General Conformity Rule to focus analysis requirements on those Federal
26 actions with the potential to have significant air quality effects. Table 4.2-1
27 presents these thresholds, by regulated pollutant. These de minimis thresholds
28 are similar, in most cases, to the definitions for major stationary sources of
29 criteria and precursors to criteria pollutants under the CAA’s New Source Review
30 Program (CAA Title I). As shown in Table 4.2-1, de minimis thresholds vary
31 depending on the severity of the nonattainment area classification.
32 In addition to the de minimis emissions thresholds, Federal Prevention of

33 Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations define air pollutant emissions to be
34 significant if the source is within 10 kilometers of any Class I area, and emissions
35 would cause an increase in the concentration of any regulated pollutant in the
36 Class I area of 1 µg/m3 or more (40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(iii)).
37

4-2
FME000309
1 Table 4.2-1. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds
de minimis Limit
Pollutant Status Classification
(tpy)
Extreme 10
Severe 25
Serious 50
Nonattainment
Moderate/marginal (inside 50 (VOCs)/100 (NOx)
O3 (measured ozone transport region)
as NOx or
All others 100
VOCs)
Inside ozone transport 50 (VOCs)/100 (NOx)
region
Maintenance
Outside ozone transport 100
region
Nonattainment
CO All 100
/maintenance
Serious 70
Nonattainment
PM10/2.5 Moderate 100
/maintenance
Not Applicable 100
Nonattainment
SO2 Not Applicable 100
/maintenance
Nonattainment
NOx Not Applicable 100
/maintenance
Source: 40 CFR 93.153

3 Under the No Action Alternative, the USBP would not implement the Proposed
4 Action. No new fencing or access roads would be constructed. USBP would
5 continue, where possible, to repair and maintain existing USBP infrastructure.
6 Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no adverse impact on air quality.

8 As discussed earlier, the Proposed Action is within a Federal marginal and state
9 moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3, Federal serious and state
10 nonattainment area for PM10, and is in attainment/unclassified for all other criteria
11 pollutants. Regulated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action would not
12 contribute to or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS. The
13 Proposed Action would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed
14 construction projects and the operation of generators to supply power to
15 construction equipment.
16 Proposed Construction Projects. Minor, short-term adverse effects would be

17 expected from construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of
18 implementing the Proposed Action. The proposed project would result in impacts

4-3
FME000310
1 on regional air quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing

2 activities and operation of construction equipment.
3 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
4 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
5 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
6 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
7 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
8 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
9 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
10 being worked and the level of construction activity. [[Preparer’s Note: e²M
11 requests more information on actual amount of anticipated ground
12 disturbance/grading. For planning purposes it was assumed that ground
13 disturbance would be approximately 5.6 miles long by 60 feet wide.]] The
14 USBP would obtain an approved Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan to the
15 SDCAPCD prior to commencing construction activities.
16 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as

17 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of
18 a temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based
19 on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive
20 dust emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions
21 factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9.
22 For purposes of this analysis, the duration of construction and affected proposed
23 project corridor that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) were used to
24 estimate fugitive dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction
25 emissions presented in Table 4.2-2 include the estimated annual construction
26 PM10 emissions associated with the Proposed Action. These emissions would
27 produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However,
28 the effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the
29 proposed construction site.
30 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a

31 specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions
32 vary widely from project to project. For purposes of analysis, these parameters
33 were estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience
34 with similar types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions
35 from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42
36 emissions factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.
37 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-2 include the estimated

38 annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with the
39 Proposed Action in Calendar Year (CY) 2008 and operation of the diesel-
40 powered generators. As with fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions
41 would produce slightly elevated air pollutant concentrations. Early phases of
42 construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving,

4-4
FME000311
1 resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction

2 projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in
3 more CO and VOC emissions. However, the effects would be temporary, fall off
4 rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in
5 any long-term effects.
6 Table 4.2-2. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates

7 from the Proposed Action
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
Construction Emissions TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Generator Emissions 10.581 0.864 2.279 0.696 0.744
Total Proposed Action
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Emissions
Federal de minimis Threshold 100 50 100 NA NA
San Diego Intrastate AQCR
76,343 95,371 605,178 2,007 72,011
Regional Emissions
Percent of San Diego Intrastate
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
AQCR Regional Emissions
8 Generators. The Proposed Action would require six diesel-powered generators

9 to power construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be
10 approximately 75-horsepower and would operate approximately 8 hours per day
11 for 190 working days. Operational emissions associated with the Proposed
12 Action would not result in an adverse impact on air quality. The emission factors
13 and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42,
14 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. According to SDCAPCD
15 Rule 11, internal combustion engines greater than 0.3 MegaWatts (402 brake
16 horsepower) require an operating permit (SDCAPCD 2007). Therefore, the
17 generators under the Proposed Action are exempt from requiring an operating
18 permit from the SDCAPCD.
19 Summary
20 Since San Diego County is within Federal Subpart 1 (Basic) and state
21 nonattainment area for 8-hour O3, Federal moderate maintenance area for CO,
22 and State nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5, General Conformity Rule
23 requirements are applicable to the Proposed Action. Table 4.2-2 illustrates that
24 the Proposed Action’s NOx, VOC, and PM10 emissions would [would not] be
25 greater than the de minimis thresholds for the SDIAQCR. Emissions from the
26 Proposed Action would also be much less than 10 percent of the emissions
27 inventory for SDIAQCR (USEPA 2006b). Therefore, no adverse impacts on

4-5
FME000312
1 regional or local air quality are anticipated from implementation of the Proposed
2 Action.
3 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of the
4 Proposed Action. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply to the
5 Proposed Action.
6 In summary, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated

7 from implementation of the Proposed Action. A Conformity Determination in
8 accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1) is not required as the total of direct and
9 indirect emissions from the Proposed Action are below de minimis threshold
10 levels and are not regionally significant (e.g., the emissions are not greater than
11 10 percent of the SDIAQCR emissions inventory). Emissions factors,
12 calculations, and estimates of emissions for the Proposed Action are shown in
13 detail in Appendix I.
14 [[Preparer’s Note: Analysis for Routes A and B will be updated when

15 construction details are known.]]

17 Proposed Construction Projects. Minor, short-term adverse effects would be
18 expected from construction emissions and land disturbance as a result of
19 implementing Alternative 3. The proposed project would result in impacts on
20 regional air quality during construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing
21 activities and operation of construction equipment.
22 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
23 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., grading,
24 trenching, soil piles) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment.
25 Fugitive dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site preparation
26 activities and would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase,
27 level of activity, and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled
28 fugitive dust emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land
29 being worked and the level of construction activity. [[Preparer’s Note: Analysis
30 for Routes A and B will be updated when construction details are known.
31 Experience with similar projects of this type and magnitude lead us to
32 believe that there may indeed be a need for an Air Conformity
33 Determination.]] USBP would obtain an approved Fugitive Dust Emissions
34 Control Plan from the SDCAPCD prior to commencing construction activities.
35 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as

36 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of
37 a temporary nature. The emissions factors and estimates were generated based
38 on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42, Volume II, Mobile Sources. Fugitive
39 dust emissions for various construction activities were calculated using emissions
40 factors and assumptions published in USEPA’s AP-42 Section 11.9.

4-6
FME000313
1 For purposes of this analysis, the duration of construction and affected proposed
2 project corridor that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2) was used to
3 estimate fugitive dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction
4 emissions presented in Table 4.2-3 include the estimated annual construction
5 PM10 emissions associated with Alternative 3. These emissions would produce
6 slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However, the
7 effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the
8 proposed construction site.
9 Table 4.2-3. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates from

10 Alternative 3
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
Construction Emissions TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Generator Emissions 10.581 0.864 2.279 0.696 0.744
Total Alternative 3 Emissions TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Federal de minimis Threshold 100 50 100 NA NA
San Diego Intrastate AQCR
76,343 95,371 605,178 2,007 72,011
Regional Emissions
Percent of San Diego Intrastate
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
AQCR Regional Emissions
11 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a

12 specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions
13 vary widely from project to project. For purposes of analysis, these parameters
14 were estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience
15 with similar types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions
16 from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42
17 emissions factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.
18 The construction emissions presented in Table 4.2-3 include the estimated

19 annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with
20 Alternative 3 in CY 2008 and operation of the diesel-powered generators. As
21 with fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions would produce slightly
22 elevated air pollutant concentrations. Early phases of construction projects
23 involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving, resulting in higher NOx and
24 PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction projects involve more light
25 gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in more CO and VOC
26 emissions. However, the effects would be temporary, fall off rapidly with distance
27 from the proposed construction site, and would not result in any long-term
28 effects.

4-7
FME000314
1 Generators. Alternative 3 would require six diesel-powered generators to power

2 construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be
3 approximately 75-horsepower and would operate approximately 8 hours per day
4 for 190 working days. Operational emissions associated with the Proposed
5 Action would not result in an adverse impact on air quality. The emissions
6 factors and estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA
7 AP-42, Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. According to
8 SDCAPCD Rule 11, internal combustion engines greater than 0.3 MegaWatts
9 (402 brake horsepower) require an operating permit (SDCAPCD 2007).
10 Therefore, the generators under Alterative 3 are exempt from requiring an
11 operating permit from the SDCAPCD.
12 Summary
13 Since San Diego County, including Alternative 3, is within Federal Subpart 1

14 (Basic) and state nonattainment area for 8-hour O3, Federal moderate
15 maintenance area for CO, and state nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5,
16 General Conformity Rule requirements are applicable to Alternative 3.
17 Table 4.2-3 shows the NOx, VOC, and PM10 emissions for Alternative 3, which
18 would exceed the de minimis thresholds for the SDIAQCR. Emissions from
19 Alternative 3 would also be much less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory
20 for SDIAQCR (USEPA 2006b). Therefore, no adverse impacts on regional or
21 local air quality are anticipated from implementation of Alternative 3.
22 According to 40 CFR Part 81, there are no Class I areas in the vicinity of
23 Alternative 3. Therefore, Federal PSD regulations would not apply to
24 Alternative 3.
25 In summary, no adverse impacts on regional or local air quality are anticipated

26 from implementation of Alternative 3. A Conformity Determination in accordance
27 with 40 CFR 93-153(1) is not required as the total of direct and indirect emissions
28 from Alternative 3 are below de minimis threshold levels and are not regionally
29 significant (e.g., the emissions are not greater than 10 percent of the SDIAQCR
30 emissions inventory). Emissions factors, calculations, and estimates of
31 emissions for Alternative 3 are shown in detail in Appendix I.
32 [[Preparer’s Note: Analysis for Routes A and B will be updated when

33 construction details are known.]]
34 4.3 NOISE
36 Under the No Action Alternative, there would not be any construction of tactical
37 infrastructure. Therefore, no noise impacts would occur.

4-8
FME000315

2 Short-term moderate adverse impacts are expected under both Route
3 Alternatives. Sources of noise from the implementation of the Proposed Action
4 include blasting, the operation of construction equipment, noise from construction
5 vehicles, and USBP activity.
6 Blast Noise. As discussed in Section 2.3, several segments of pedestrian fence

7 along the U.S./Mexico international border would be constructed. As part of the
8 construction, particularly for Segment A-1 (Routes A and B), blasting would need
9 to occur to enable construction of the fence and related infrastructure.
10 Blast noise was modeled with the Blast Noise Prediction computer program,
11 BNoise 2.0, using an application that estimates single event noise levels. The
12 noise from blasting activities varies depending on the type of explosive, the
13 amount, and the type of material that will be subject to the explosion. To
14 estimate the noise from blasting under the Proposed Action, several different
15 amounts of TNT were used, ranging from 2.2 pounds to 8.8 pounds. Noise from
16 blasting generates an average noise level of approximately 117 to 126 dBC at
17 100 feet. Blasting activities would only occur during the construction period. As
18 such, short-term moderate adverse noise impacts would be anticipated as a
19 result of the blasting during construction activities for both Routes A and B.
20 Construction Noise. The construction of the access road, fence, and related
21 tactical infrastructure would result in noise impacts on the populations in the
22 vicinity of the proposed fence.
23 • The closest residence between Puebla Tree and Boundary Monument

24 250, proximate Redondo, California, is approximately 7,000 feet south of
25 Segment A-1. Populations in this area would experience noise levels of
26 approximately 43 dBA from construction activities.
27 • The closest residence between Puebla Tree and Boundary Monument 250
28 in the town of Dulzura, California, is approximately 14,000 feet north of
29 Segment A-1. Populations in this area would experience noise levels of
31 • The closest residence west of Tecate is approximately 250 feet from

32 Segment A-2. Residences in this area would experience noise levels of
34 Implementation of the Proposed Action (Routes A and B) would have temporary,

35 minor, adverse effects on the noise environment from the use of heavy
36 equipment during construction activities. However, noise generation would last
37 only for the duration of construction activities and would be isolated to normal
38 working hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.).

4-9
FME000316
1 Vehicular Noise. Noise impacts from increased construction traffic would be

2 temporary in nature. These impacts would also be confined to normal working
3 hours and would last only as long as the construction activities were ongoing.
4 However, SR 94 and SR 188 pass by several residential areas. It is anticipated
5 that the Proposed Action would have short-term moderate adverse noise impacts
6 as a result of the increase in traffic, most notably in the areas around Dulzura
7 and Tecate.
8 Border Patrol. The construction of the border fence and related infrastructure
9 would make the area around Segment A-1 more accessible to vehicles.
10 However, given that the closest population is about 7,000 feet away, and USBP
11 agents already patrol this area, the increase in noise from USBP traffic is not
12 expected to be significant. USBP traffic is also not anticipated to significantly
13 increase around Segment A-2.
14 Impacts of noise to wildlife are further discussed in Section 4.7.

16 Short-term moderate adverse impacts are expected under the Proposed Action.
17 Sources of noise from the implementation of Alternative 3 would be similar to
18 those described under Alternative 2. However, if the construction of the two
19 fences occurred at the same time, construction activities would be more intense,
20 and the noise from Alternative 3 would be higher than under Alternative 2. Noise
21 generation would be short-term and would be isolated to normal working hours
22 (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). It is anticipated that implementation of
23 Alternative 3 would have negligible impacts as a result of the construction
24 activities.

26 Acquiring Land
27 The proposed fence and access roads would traverse both public and private
28 lands. USBP would have to acquire the land within the proposed project corridor.
29 There are three ways for USBP to acquire these lands: lease/easements,
30 purchase, and eminent domain (CBP 2003).
31 USBP could obtain a lease/easement from landowners to construct the proposed

32 fence and access road. The lease/easement between the landowner and USBP
33 typically specifies compensation for the loss of use during construction, loss of
34 renewable or other resources, and restrictions on the permanent right-of-way
35 (ROW) after construction. The acquisition of a lease/easement is a negotiable
36 process that would be carried out between USBP and individual landowners on a
37 case-by-case basis.

4-10
FME000317
1 Construction along the border usually requires the government to acquire some
2 interest in the land. Current law (8 U.S.C. 1103) authorizes the Secretary of the
3 DHS to contract for and buy any interest in land adjacent to or in the vicinity of
4 the international land border when the Secretary deems the land essential to
5 control and guard the border against any violation of immigration law. The
6 acquisition of land is a negotiable process that would be carried out between
7 USBP and individual landowners on a case-by-case basis.
8 Congress has granted USBP the power of eminent domain to facilitate the
9 construction of the Proposed Action. Eminent domain is used as a last resort if a
10 landowner and the project proponent cannot reach agreement on compensation
11 for use or purchase of property required for the Proposed Action. The project
12 proponent would be required to compensate the landowner for the use of the
13 property and for any damages incurred during construction. However, the level
14 of compensation would be determined by a court according to applicable laws
15 and procedures for such proceedings.

17 Under the No Action Alternative, USBP would not implement the Proposed
18 Action. No new fencing or access roads would be constructed. The affected
19 environment described in Section 3.3 would remain. In areas of private property
20 concerns about safety and security would still hold down property values in the
21 absence of increased tactical infrastructure. Recreational value of BLM land
22 would continue to be limited due to public concerns over safety due to the
23 continuing presence of illegal foot traffic.

25 Constructing the proposed fence and access road could result in long-term minor
26 adverse and beneficial impacts on land use. The severity of the adverse impacts
27 would vary depending on the need for rezoning to accommodate the fence and
28 access road. The USBP might be required to obtain a permit or zoning variance
29 based on local restrictions and ordinances. Short-term minor adverse impacts
30 would occur from construction and use of staging areas during the construction.
31 Impacts on land use would vary depending on potential changes in land use and
32 the land use of adjacent properties.
33 USBP would adhere to local zoning laws and ordinances to lessen impacts on
34 land use conditions of areas affected. There is no residential land use along the
35 Segment A-1 (Routes A and B).
36 Segment A-2 could affect landowners whose property would be traversed or is

37 adjacent to the proposed alignment. USBP would be required to purchase or
38 obtain a lease/easement from each landowner or land-managing agency allowing
39 them to construct, operate, and maintain the fence and access road. USBP
40 would be required to compensate the landowner or land-managing agency for

4-11
FME000318
1 the loss of use and construction-related property damage, even in cases where
2 eminent domain is exercised. Special permits might be required to traverse
3 railroads, roadways, streams, and state and Federal lands. Minor beneficial
4 impacts might occur if the fence increased security along Segment A-2,
5 subsequently increasing land values.
6 No changes to the Roosevelt Reservation would occur because this area is

7 designated for border enforcement. Use of construction staging areas would
8 result in temporary and short-term changes to land use; however, upon
9 completion, the staging areas would be rehabilitated to return the areas to their
10 original condition.
11 Minor, indirect impacts on recreation would occur during construction of Segment

12 A-1. Impacts would be localized and short-term. No adverse impacts on
13 recreation would be expected during or after construction of the Proposed Action.
14 Indirect, long-term beneficial impacts on recreational areas could occur as a
15 result of decreased illegal traffic coming into these recreational areas. In
16 addition, by reducing the amount of illegal traffic within and adjacent to the
17 proposed project corridor, disturbance to lands north of this corridor would be
18 reduced or possibly eliminated.
19 Since Route A would be constructed approximately 3-feet from the U.S./Mexico

20 international border, less than 2 acres of U.S. land would be south of the fence.
21 Under Route B, approximately 143 acres of U.S. land would be south of the
22 fence. Since this land would be difficult and possibly unsafe to access, its value
23 would decrease significantly.

25 Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as the Proposed Action.

28 The No Action Alternative would result in the continuation of existing conditions
29 for geologic resources, as characterized in Section 3.3.2. Soil resources would
30 continue to be degraded by illegal border crossers who often damage habitat, cut
31 vegetation, and increase erosion through repeated use of footpaths (CRS report).

33 Physiography and Topography. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts
34 on the natural topography would occur as a result of implementing the Proposed
35 Action. Grading, blasting, contouring, and trenching associated with the
36 installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads, and other tactical
37 infrastructure would impact approximately 61.45 acres for Segment A-1 Route A,

4-12
FME000319
1 57.45 acres for Route B, and 12.86 acres for Segment A-2, which would alter the
2 existing topography. Modifications to the topography would be greater under
3 Route A than Route B.
4 Geology. Short- and long-term, negligible to minor adverse impacts on geologic

5 resources could occur at locations where bedrock is at the surface and blasting
6 would be necessary to grade for fence placement or patrol and access road
7 development. Geologic resources could affect the placement of the fence or
8 patrol and access roads due to the occurrence of bedrock at the surface, or as a
9 result of structural instability. Under Route A, impacts would be greater since
10 fewer geologic resources could be avoided relative to Route B. In most cases, it
11 is expected that project design and engineering practices could be implemented
12 to mitigate geologic limitations to site development.
13 Soils. Short-term, minor, direct, adverse impacts on soils in USBP San Diego
14 Sector would be expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Soil
15 disturbance and compaction due to grading, contouring, and trenching
16 associated with the installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads, and
17 utilities for lights and other tactical infrastructure would impact approximately 36
18 acres for Segment A-1 Route A, 143 acres for Route B, and 5 acres for Segment
19 A-2.
20 The proposed construction activities would be expected to result in an increase in

21 soil erosion due to the steep topography. Soil disturbance on steep slopes has
22 the potential to result in excessive erosion due to instability of the disturbed soils
23 and high stormwater runoff energy and velocity. As discussed in Section 3.5
24 and 4.5, SWPPPs and sediment and erosion control plans would be developed
25 to minimize sediment runoff. Wind erosion has the potential to impact disturbed
26 soils where vegetation has been removed due to the semi-arid climate of the
27 region. Construction activities would be expected to directly impact the existing
28 soils as a result of grading, excavating, placement of fill, compaction, and mixing
29 or augmentation necessary to prepare the site for development of the fence,
30 patrol and access roads, and associated utility lines.
31 Because proposed construction would result in a soil disturbance of greater than

32 1 acre, authorization under the Cal/EPA State Water Resources Control Board
33 (SWRCB) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
34 Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ) would be
35 required. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading,
36 and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, but do not
37 include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line,
38 grade, or capacity of the facility. The Construction General Permit requires the
39 development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
40 (SWPPP).
41 The SWPPP should contain site maps which show the construction site
42 perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection
4-13
FME000320
1 and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and
2 drainage patterns across the project. The SWPPP must list BMPs the discharger
3 will use to protect storm water runoff along with the locations of those BMPs.
4 Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program, a chemical
5 monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to be implemented if there is a
6 failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to
7 a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction
8 General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in an SWPPP. If
9 a single project traverses more than one Regional Water Quality Control Board
10 (RWQCB) jurisdiction, a complete NOI package (i.e., NOI, site map, and fee) and
11 Notice of Termination (upon completion of each section), must be filed for each
12 RWQCB.
13 Additional soil disturbance could occur during and following construction as a

14 result of periodic patrols. Compaction and erosion of soil would be expected as a
15 result of patrol operations and possible off-road vehicle use that could decrease
16 vegetation cover and soil permeability.
17 The Visalia sandy loam (5–9 percent slopes) is designated as a prime farmland
18 soil. However, none of the area within the fence corridor in the United States is
19 being used for agricultural purposes. The corridor selected for border fence and
20 patrol road development would be linear and limited in extent; therefore any
21 impacts as a result of the Proposed Action to designated prime farmland soils
22 would be considered negligible to minor.

24 The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in similar
25 environmental impacts on geologic resources as does the Proposed Action.
26 However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a larger area due to the
27 additional fence and overall larger (wider) corridor. Approximately 77 acres
28 would be impacted from Segment A-1 and 11 acres from Segment A-2 (west of
29 Tecate). BMPs and mitigation measures outlined for the Proposed Action should
30 be adapted to the entire area of impact and implemented.

33 Under the No Action Alternative, USBP would not implement the Proposed
34 Action. As a result, there would be no change from the baseline conditions and
35 no effects on surface hydrology, groundwater, surface water, or floodplains would
36 be expected to occur.
37 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing condition of

38 water resources, as discussed in Section 3.6.2. Water resources would also

4-14
FME000321
1 continue to be degraded by illegal border crossers from the increase in

2 sedimentation caused by erosion of repeatedly used footpaths.

4 Hydrology and Groundwater. Short- and long-term, minor, direct, adverse
5 impacts on surface hydrology would be expected as a result of implementing the
6 Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action, blasting, grading, and contouring
7 would be expected to alter the topography and remove vegetation, cobble, and
8 gravel which could potentially increase erosion and runoff during heavy
9 precipitation events. SWPPPs and sediment and erosion control plans would be
10 developed to minimize sediment runoff. Revegetating the area with native
11 vegetation following construction could reduce the impacts of erosion and runoff
12 due to the changes in hydrological potential dependant on the success of
13 vegetation establishment.
14 Short-term, minor, direct, adverse impacts on groundwater resources would be

15 expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Under both Route A
16 and B, water would be required for pouring concrete, and watering of road and
17 ground surfaces for dust suppression during construction. Water use for
18 construction would be temporary, and the volume of water used for construction
19 would be minimal. Additionally, this amount is minimal in comparison to the
20 volume used annually in the area for municipal, agricultural, and industrial
21 purposes. For Routes A and B, approximately XXX gallons of water would be
22 required for the construction of approximately 4.9 miles for Segment A-1 and 0.7
23 miles for Segment A-2. This volume of use assumes that patrol roads and
24 construction areas would be watered for dust suppression for one year. Water
25 not lost to evaporation during watering of surfaces during construction would
26 potentially contribute to aquifer recharge through downward seepage.
27 [[Preparer’s Note: Need numbers on amount of water to be used during

28 construction and exact mileage for Routes A and B.]]
29 Implementation of storm water and spill prevention BMPs developed consistent

30 with the SWPPP and other applicable plans and regulations (see Section 4.6.1)
31 would minimize potential runoff or spill-related impacts on groundwater quality
32 during construction.
33 Surface Water. Short-term, negligible, adverse effects on water quality would be

34 expected as a result of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would
35 cumulatively increase impervious surface area and runoff potential in the
36 proposed project corridor. Approximately 36 acres of soil disturbance would
37 occur during construction activities for Segment A-1, Route A, 143 acres for
38 Route B, and 5 acres for Segment A-2. Additional disturbance could occur as a
39 result of staging and the placement of temporary structures and equipment to
40 support construction activities. The soil disturbance associated with the
41 Proposed Action would disturb more than 1 acre of soil, therefore authorization

4-15
FME000322
1 under the Cal/EPA SWRCB Construction General Permit (99-08-DWQ) would be

2 required. Erosion and sediment control and storm water management practices
3 during and after construction would be implemented consistent with the SWPPP
4 developed under the Construction General Permit. Based on these
5 requirements, adverse effects on surface water quality would be reduced to
6 negligible.
7 Waters of the United States. Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on waters of

8 the United States would be expected as a result of Segment A-1 crossing
9 intermittent tributaries associated with Copper and Buttewig Canyons and
10 Segment A-2 crossing a riparian corridor. Fence crossings would contain grates
11 of a significant width to allow small animals to pass through and to allow water to
12 flow unimpeded. Coordination with the USACE and USFWS would be necessary
13 prior to the construction of fence crossings into drainages to acquire any
14 necessary permits. If constructed, these fence crossings will need to be
15 inspected following runoff events to remove any debris and to maintain the
16 integrity of the fence and ensure that sufficient passage is allowed for small
17 animals and water flow is unimpeded.
18 Furthermore, in Segment A-2 the riparian corridor potentially contains wetlands

19 and wetland delineation should be conducted followed by a jurisdictional
20 determination by the USACE prior to any construction activities.
21 [[Preparer’s note: Wetland delineations will be accomplished under Phase

22 2 natural resources surveys.]]
23 Floodplains. During the 2007 site survey (Appendix G), it was observed that
24 the Segment A-1 would cross intermittent washes associated with Copper,
25 Buttewig, and Mine Canyons. Based on field observations, these intermittent
26 washes might have narrow associated floodplains. Analysis using FEMA Flood
27 Maps was inconclusive. This panel has not been printed due to its Zone D
28 designation. Zone D is used by FEMA to designate areas where there are
29 possible but undetermined flood hazards. In areas designated as Zone D, no
30 analysis of flood hazards has been conducted (FEMA 2006).
31 Should the canyons in question be determined to be floodplains, a specific eight-

32 step process must be followed to comply with EO 11988 outlined in the FEMA
33 document Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management. The eight
34 steps, which are summarized below, reflect the decisionmaking process required:
35 1. Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area which

36 has a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year)
37 2. Conduct early public review
38 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base
39 floodplain, including alternative sites outside of the floodplain
40 4. Identify impacts of the Proposed Action
4-16
FME000323
1 5. If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to minimize the impacts

2 and restore and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate
3 6. Reevaluate alternatives
4 7. Present the findings and a public explanation
5 8. Implement the action.
6 No impacts on 100-year or 500-year floodplains are expected as a result of the

7 construction of Segment A-2. According to the FEMA FIRM Panel No.
8 06073C2250F for San Diego County, California, Segment A-2 is in Zone X or
9 “areas determined to be outside the 500-year floodplain”. However, Segment A-
10 2 would cross a narrow riparian corridor with potential for minor adverse effects
11 associated with erosion and sedimentation in the event of a high-volume storm
12 event or flooding during site construction. Properly designed erosion and
13 sediment controls and storm water management practices implemented during
14 construction activities would minimize potential for adverse impacts, but
15 avoidance of fence construction in this area would be advised due to ongoing
16 maintenance concerns.
17 [[Preparer’s Note: Need stream crossing design and results of hydrology

18 analysis to be conducted by Baker.]]

20 Hydrology and Groundwater. The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative
21 would result in similar environmental impacts on surface hydrology and
22 groundwater as the Proposed Action. However, the magnitude of the impacts
23 would affect a larger area due to the additional fence and larger (wider) corridor.
24 Approximately XXX gallons of water would be required for the construction of the
25 fence segments and patrol roads. BMPs and mitigation measures outlined for
26 the Proposed Action would be adapted to the additional impacted area and
27 implemented.
28 [[Preparer’s Note: Need volumetric data regarding the amount of water that
29 would be used during construction.]]
30 Surface Water. The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in
31 similar environmental impacts on surface waters and waters of the United States
32 as does the Proposed Action. However, the magnitude of the impacts would
33 affect a larger area due to the additional fence and larger (wider) corridor.
34 Approximately 88 acres would be impacted from the construction of Segments
35 A-1 (77 acres) and A-2 (11 acres). Appropriate BMP measures, coordination
36 with the USACE and USFWS, and any necessary permitting required as
37 described for the Proposed Action should be identified for the additional impacted
38 area and implemented.

4-17
FME000324
1 Floodplains. The Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative would result in similar
2 but spatially larger environmental impacts on floodplains as in the Proposed
3 Action. However, the magnitude of the impacts from Segment A-1 and A-2
4 would increase due to the additional fence and larger (wider) corridor. BMP
5 measures outlined for the Proposed Action would be adapted to the additional
6 impacted area and implemented.
7 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE

9 Vegetation. [[Preparer’s note: This section will be written following the
10 completion of the biological resources survey.]]
11 Wildlife and Aquatic Resources. Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical
12 infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access
13 roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
14 proposed project locations within USBP San Diego Sector. The No Action
15 Alternative would not directly impact wildlife in the proposed project corridor.
16 However, wildlife species and their habitat would continue to be indirectly
17 impacted through habitat alteration and loss due to illegal trails and erosion.
18 Special Status Species. Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical

19 infrastructure would not be built and there would be no change in fencing, access
20 roads, or other facilities along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
21 proposed project locations within USBP San Diego Sector – Brown Field Station.
22 Federal and state threatened and endangered species in the proposed project
23 corridor would continue as described for the baseline condition. Therefore, there
24 would be no change to the existing impacts on federal or state-listed species or
25 migratory birds.

29 Wildlife. The area temporarily impacted within the two segments (both Route A
30 and B) would be approximately 41 acres. Potential threats to wildlife in San
31 Diego County include barrier to movement, interruption of corridors, increased
32 human activity, and loss of habitat. Some wildlife deaths, particularly reptiles and
33 amphibians could increase due to the improved accessibility of the area and
34 increased vehicle traffic. Although some incidental take may occur, wildlife
35 populations within the proposed project corridor would not be significantly
36 impacted through the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.
37 Noise created during construction would be anticipated to result in short-term,

38 moderate, adverse effects on wildlife. Noise levels after construction are

4-18
FME000325
1 anticipated to return to close to current ambient levels. Elevated noise levels

2 during construction could result in reduced communication ranges, interference
3 with predator/prey detection, or habitat avoidance. More intense effects,
4 potentially resulting with intense pulses of noise associated with blasting, could
5 include behavioral change, disorientation, or hearing loss. Predictors of wildlife
6 response to noise include noise type (i.e., continuous or intermittent), prior
7 experience with noise, proximity to a noise source, stage in the breeding cycle,
8 activity, and age. Prior experience with noise is the most important factor in the
9 response of wildlife to noise, because wildlife can become accustomed (or
10 habituate) to the noise. The rate of habituation to short-term construction is not
11 known, but it is anticipated that wildlife would be permanently displaced from the
12 areas where the habitat is cleared and the fence and associated TI constructed,
13 and temporarily dispersed from areas adjacent to the project areas during
14 construction periods. See Section 3.3.2 for additional details on expected noise
15 levels associated with the Proposed Action.
16 Proposed fence near the Tecate POE would traverse a riparian corridor with
17 mature oaks and the access road for the fence would likely partially remove a
18 patch of chaparral which appeared to be good quality habitat. Rare species
19 habitat within the corridor included drainages with riparian vegetation (live oak,
20 sycamore, willows, laurel sumac, baccharis, etc.). Most of the riparian habitats
21 observed are not considered of high quality due to lack of structure or lack of
22 pooling sites.
23 The OMW boundary lays 100-ft. north of the Pak Truck Trail for its entire length.
24 However, due to steep topography, a portion of road or other tactical
25 infrastructure might encroach into the wilderness area. The Tijuana River is
26 considered a migration corridor for many species. The fence would be
27 constructed well above the river however there may still be side canyon (Copper,
28 Buttewig, Mine canyons and smaller ones) crossing issues through live oak
29 riparian vegetation and habitat. Side canyons are from 10-60m across and the
30 larger have channels incised to 5-8m deep. They are boulder strewn with
31 boulders up to 2 m diameter down to cobble-sized rocks. Riparian bottoms in the
32 areas along the Pak Track Trail consisted of mature oaks. There were no areas
33 of coastal sage scrub observed along the Pak Truck Trail. Areas slated for cut
34 and fill (both Routes A and B) would fill-in two riparian corridors (in the bottom of
35 Copper Canyon and Buttewig Canyon).
36 Aquatic Resources. There would be no direct adverse impact on aquatic

37 resources in the proposed project corridor. However, fish species and their
38 habitat would continue to be indirectly impacted through habitat alteration and
39 loss due to illegal trails and erosion.
40 Special Status Species. USBP has entered into formal consultation under
41 Section 7 of the ESA for the proposed action. A biological assessment and
42 biological opinion are being developed to evaluate potential impacts on federally-

4-19
FME000326
1 listed species within the USBP San Diego Sector – Brown Field Station.
2 Alternatives Analysis.
3 Under the Proposed Action, anticipated impacts on federal or state-listed species

4 that might result from the construction, maintenance, and operation of the fence
5 and associated tactical infrastructure include increased sensory-based
6 disturbance, direct and indirect loss of habitat and habitat quality, and increased
7 mortality.
8 Impacts on federally listed species will be evaluated in the biological assessment,

9 and addressed in the biological opinion, both of which are currently being
10 developed by the USFWS.
11 For both Routes A and B, moderate, short-term, adverse impacts would be

12 anticipated for state-listed animals and migratory birds due to elevated noise
13 levels during construction. These elevated noise levels could interfere with
14 important communications during breeding and nesting periods, affect
15 predator/prey interactions, and result in habitat avoidance.

18 Impacts on migratory birds could occur given the potential timing of fence
19 construction. However, implementation of BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse
20 impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is a list of BMPs
21 recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory birds:
22 • Any groundbreaking construction activities should be performed before

23 migratory birds return to the area (approximately 1 March) or after all
24 young have fledged (approximately 31 July) to avoid incidental take.
25 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period in which migratory
26 bird species are present, steps should be taken to prevent migratory birds
27 from establishing nests in the potential impact area. These steps could
28 include covering equipment and structures, and use of various excluders
29 (e.g. noise). Birds can be harassed to prevent them from nesting on the
30 site. Once a nest is established, they cannot be harassed until all young
31 have fledged and left the nest site.
32 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds
33 are present, a supplemental site specific survey for nesting migratory birds
34 should be performed immediately prior to site clearing.
35 • If nesting birds are found during the supplemental survey, construction
36 should be deferred until the birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all
37 young have fledged should be made by a competent biologist.
38 If the above BMPs cannot be fully implemented, a Migratory Bird Depredation
39 Permit must be obtained from USFWS.

4-20
FME000327
1 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs, impacts of the proposed action on

2 migratory birds is anticipated to be short- and long-term, minor, adverse due to
3 construction disturbance and associated loss of habitat, and long-term, minor,
4 beneficial due to reduction of foot traffic through migratory bird habitat north of
5 the impact corridor.

9 Special Status Species. Under this alternative, the impact corridor would
10 increase to 130 feet (slightly more than double that of the proposed action (60
11 feet)). Impacts on state-listed species would be similar to those described for the
12 proposed action, but more extensive in nature. However, given the paucity of
13 habitat in most sections and the apparently low populations densities of the
14 populations occupying the corridor, the impacts of this alternative on state-listed
15 species are anticipated to remain below moderate intensity.
16 Impacts on migratory birds from implementation of Alternative 3 would be similar

17 in nature to those described for the proposed action. Minor short- and long-term
18 adverse impacts would be anticipated. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts due
19 to reduction of foot traffic through habitat north of the corridor would also be
20 anticipated.
21 [[Preparer’s Note: Impacts will be updated when surveys are completed,

23 Wildlife. Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an

24 approximate 130-foot wide corridor for 5.6 miles along the two fence segments.
25 Impacts of Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2; however, the
26 area impacted would be greater. Increased threats to wildlife in these areas
27 include: barrier to movement, interruption of corridors, increased human activity,
28 loss of habitat, and increased traffic mortality.
29 Aquatic Resources. There would be no direct adverse impact on aquatic

30 resources in the proposed project corridor. However, fish species and their
31 habitat would continue to be indirectly impacted through habitat alteration and
32 loss due to illegal trails and erosion.

35 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
36 constructed and there would be no change in fencing, or access roads along the
37 border segments in USBP San Diego Sector. Since there would be no tactical

4-21
FME000328
1 infrastructure built, there would be no change to cultural, historical, and

2 archaeological resources. No historic properties would be impacted.

4 For assessing the impacts of the Proposed Action on archaeological resources,
5 the APE is confined to the construction corridor for each alternative, as well as
6 the access roads and staging areas. The APE for architectural resources
7 involves buildings and structures that will be demolished within the construction
8 corridor, but also includes those buildings and structures with viewsheds into the
9 construction corridor, access roads, and staging areas. The APE for analysis of
10 impacts on resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native
11 American tribes includes both those areas that will be impacted directly by
12 ground disturbance as well as the viewshed and general setting of those
13 resources.
14 [[Preparer’s note: This section will be written following the completion of

15 the cultural resources survey.]]

17 [[Preparer’s note: This section will be written following the completion of
18 the cultural resources survey.]]

20 Degree of Contrast Criteria
21 To properly assess the contrasts between the existing conditions and the
22 Proposed Action, it is necessary to break each down into the basic features (i.e.,
23 landform/water, vegetation, and structures) and basic elements (i.e., form, line,
24 color, and texture) so that the specific features and elements that cause contrast
25 can be accurately identified.
26 General criteria and factors used when rating the degree of contrast are as
27 follows:
28 • None: The element contrast is not visible or perceived.

29 • Weak: The element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention.
30 • Moderate: The element contrast begins to attract attention and dominate
31 the characteristic landscape.
32 • Strong: The element contrast demands attention, cannot be overlooked,
33 and is dominant in the landscape.
34 When applying the contrast criteria, the following factors are considered :

4-22
FME000329
1 1. Distance. The contrast created by a Proposed Action usually is less as

2 viewing distance increases.
3 2. Angle of Observation. The apparent size of a Proposed Action is directly
4 related to the angle between the viewer’s line-of-sight and the slope upon
5 which the Proposed Action is to take place. As this angle nears 90
6 degrees (vertical and horizontal), the maximum area is viewable.
7 3. Length of Time the Project Is In View. If the viewer can only view the
8 Proposed Action for a short period of time, the contrast may not be of
9 great concern. If the Proposed Action can be viewed for a long period of
10 time, the contrast could be very significant.
11 4. Relative Size or Scale. The contrast created by the Proposed Action is
12 directly related to its size and scale as compared to the immediate
13 surroundings.
14 5. Season of Use. Contrast ratings should consider the physical conditions
15 that exist during the heaviest or most critical visitor-use season, such as
16 snow cover and tree defoliation during the winter, leaf color in the fall, and
17 lush vegetation and flowering in the spring.
18 6. Light Conditions. The amount of contrast could be substantially affected
19 by the light conditions. The direction and angle of light can affect color
20 intensity, reflection, shadow, form, texture, and many other visual aspects
21 of the landscape. Light conditions during heavy periods must be a
22 consideration in contrast ratings.
23 7. Recovery Time. The amount of time required for successful re-vegetation
24 should be considered. Few projects meet the VRM management
25 objectives during construction activities. Recovery usually takes several
26 years and goes through several phrases (e.g., bare ground to grasses, to
27 shrubs, to trees).
28 8. Spatial Relationships. The spatial relationship within a landscape is a
29 major factor in determining the degree of contrast.
30 9. Atmospheric Conditions. The visibility of a Proposed Action due to
31 atmospheric conditions such as air pollution or natural haze should be
32 considered.
33 10. Motion. Movements such as waterfalls, vehicles, or plumes draw attention
34 to a Proposed Action (BLM 1986b).
36 Under the No Action Alternative, no pedestrian fence and supporting
37 infrastructure would be constructed, resulting in no scarring of the current
38 landscape. However, under the No Action Alternative, illegal border crossers
39 would continue to impact the area. Without improved USBP patrol efficiency and
40 effectiveness provided by road improvements, the area’s natural vistas would
41 continue to be degraded by garbage, trails, and wildfires associated with illegal

4-23
FME000330
1 border crossers. Indirect impacts from continued illegal border crossers would
2 permanently degrade the visual character of the area. Additionally, the illegal
3 grazing of cattle herded into the area by Mexican farmers would continue to
4 degrade vegetative stands with the potential for the introduction of unwanted and
5 unsightly invasive species.

7 The construction activity associated with the Proposed Action (Route A and B)
8 would result in both temporary and permanent moderate contrasts to both Class I
9 and Class III Visual Resources.
10 The construction of access roads and fences in a Class I Visual Resource area is
11 a strong contrast to the OMW and also represents a moderate to strong contrast
12 in areas of lesser Class designation. To offset the high contrasts are the
13 following factors:
14 In most areas of Segment A-1 (Routes A and B) the fence would be screened
15 from view by elevation and undulating terrain Figure 4.9-1 displays the degree to
16 which the Tactical Infrastructure is visible from various trailheads within the
17 OWA. Public viewing is also limited in this area because of low visitation
18 frequency.
19 In Segment A-2, the fence would connect to an existing fence and patrol roads,
20 which greatly reduces the overall contrast created by the Proposed Action.
21 Figure 4.9.2 demonstrates that although visibility is high from an elevated
22 vantage point (by design, for observation of the border)) there is limited line of
23 sight from other locations.
24 Over time, the changes to the landscape caused by construction and repair of
25 access roads would dissipate significantly, therefore reducing the contrast of
26 viewable sections of both segments. Additionally, the presence of the fence
27 would protect the area’s natural vistas from continuing degradation by garbage,
28 foot trails, and wildfires associated with illegal border crossers. The illegal
29 grazing of cattle herded into the area by Mexican farmers would also be
30 prevented, therefore reducing the potential for the introduction of unwanted and
31 unsightly invasive species.
32 [[Preparer’s Note: More detailed analysis to view-shed analysis will be

33 provided upon availability of further design information. Based upon
34 design, mitigation procedures to lessen impacts will be proposed.]]

36 [[Preparer’s Note: More detailed analysis to view-shed analysis will be
37 provided upon availability of further design information. Based upon
38 design, mitigation procedures to lessen impacts will be proposed.]]
39 San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

4-24
3
2
1
FME000331
U N I T E D S T A T E S U N I T E D S T A T E S
Calif ornia Calif ornia
A-1
A-1

M E X I C O M E X I C O
4-25
Route A Proposed
Fence Segments
Roads
Observation Points Calif ornia Calif ornia
Viewshed
Not Visible
Visible
A-1
A-1 Fence Segment Label A-1
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
Scale
Map Projection: Albers
Figure 4.9-1. Viewsheds of Segment A-1
October 2007
3
2
1
FME000332
Calif ornia Calif ornia
A-2
A-2

4-26
Route A Proposed Calif ornia Calif ornia

Fence Segments
Roads
Observation Point
Viewshed
Not Visible
Visible
A-2 A-2
A-2 Fence Segment Label
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 M E X I C O M E X I C O
Scale
Map Projection: Albers
Figure 4.9-2. Viewsheds of Segment A-2
October 2007
FME000333
1 The increased width of corridor associated with this alternative will increase the
2 contrast impact and be visible to a greater extent than that demonstrated for
3 either Route A or B in Segment A-1 or Alternative A in Segment A-2. Over time,
4 the changes to the landscape caused by construction and repair of this
5 alternative would dissipate significantly; therefore reducing the contrast of
6 viewable sections of both segments, but it would always be greater than in the
7 Proposed Action. This Alternative would however be even more effective at
8 protecting the area’s natural vistas from continuing degradation by garbage, foot
9 trails, and wildfires associated with illegal border crossers. The illegal grazing of
10 cattle herded into the area by Mexican farmers would also be prevented,
11 therefore reducing the potential for the introduction of unwanted and unsightly
12 invasive species.

15 Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the baseline
16 conditions. There would be no new fence segments constructed. Under the No
17 Action Alternative, illegal immigration, narcotics trafficking, and opportunities for
18 terrorists and terrorist weapons to enter the United States would remain. Over
19 time, the number of crimes committed by smugglers and some illegal border
20 crossers would increase, and an increase in property damage would also be
21 expected. If the No Action Alternative was implemented, short-term local
22 employment benefits from the purchase of construction materials and the
23 temporary increase in construction jobs would not occur. Furthermore, money
24 from construction payrolls that would circulate within the local economy would not
25 be available.
26 Because the types of jobs obtained by illegal border crossers are low-skilled and
27 pay at or below minimum wage, American workers have been displaced by
28 undocumented workers willing to work for less pay and fewer benefits. This has
29 resulted in depressed wage rates. U.S.-born children of illegal border crossers
30 are entitled to public assistance programs and education at a substantial cost to
31 the American taxpayer. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would see
32 these trends continue. One potential benefit of the No Action Alternative might
33 be that cheap labor would be available to area farmers during harvesting (DHS
34 2004).

36 Socioeconomic Resources. Construction of proposed tactical infrastructure
37 (Route A and B) would have minor beneficial direct and indirect impacts on
38 socioeconomics through increased employment and the purchase of goods and
39 services. Project impacts related to employment, temporary housing, public
40 services, and material supplies would be minor, temporary, and easily absorbed
41 within the existing San Diego Sector regional resource and socioeconomics
4-27
FME000334
1 infrastructure. Construction would occur over approximately nine months in

2 2008, with a construction workforce peaking at about 200 workers. No
3 permanent workers would be needed to maintain the access roads and fence
4 segments.
5 Construction costs associated with the Proposed Action have not been defined.
6 As stated in Section 2.2.2, if approved, completive design/build contracts would
7 be issued to construct the fence. However, for this analysis, estimated
8 construction costs are based on USACE studies for other similar projects.
9 [[Preparer’s Note: Estimated construction costs for pedestrian fence per

10 mile are requested.]]
11 Short-term moderate increases to populations would be expected in construction

12 areas. Construction is expected to be drawn primarily from the regional
13 workforce. Due to the temporary nature of the Proposed Action, there would be
14 no change in population size or distribution and a relatively small increase in
15 employment and contribution to the local economy. Therefore, demand for new
16 housing units and other social services would not be expected.
17 No permanent or long-term effects on employment, population, personal income,

18 or poverty levels; or other demographic or employment indicators would be
19 expected from construction and operation of the tactical infrastructure. Since the
20 Proposed Action would not measurably affect the local economy or workforce, no
21 social effects are expected. There would be a net short-term increase in income
22 to the region, as the funding for the project would come from outside the area,
23 and as a federal project, construction workers would be paid the “prevailing
24 wage” under the Davis-Bacon Act, which might be higher than the average wage
25 in the construction industry locally.
26 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. No effects are

27 expected on environmental justice populations or children. The construction area
28 is localized and does not have the potential to disproportionately affect low-
29 income, minority populations, or children. Although Otay Mesa and the zip code
30 containing Tecate (91980) have a higher Hispanic population than San Diego
31 County, potential impacts on low-income or minority populations would not be
32 disproportionate. The proposed impact area of Segment A-1 is along the
33 unpopulated OMW and Segment A-2 is along a remote area, therefore there is
34 little potential to affect environmental justice populations.
35 The proposed tactical infrastructure under this alternative (Route A and B) would
36 have short- to long-term indirect beneficial effects on children and safety in the
37 ROI and surrounding areas. The San Diego Sector features no natural barriers
38 to entry therefore illegal border crossers and smugglers are largely undeterred in
39 this area (CRS 2006). The addition of tactical infrastructure would increase the
40 safety of USBP agents in the San Diego Sector and would help to secure the
41 OMW for visitors. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal border

4-28
FME000335
1 crossings in the immediate area, which in turn could prevent drug smugglers,
2 terrorists, and illegal border crossers from entering the surrounding area.
3 Previous fencing segments built in 1994 under Operation Gatekeeper have
4 resulted in increased property values and new commercial growth in the San
5 Diego Sector.
6 However, indirect minor adverse impacts on human safety could result from the
7 Proposed Action. Previous fencing built in the San Diego Sector under
8 Operation Gatekeeper pushed illegal border crossers to adjacent areas while
9 many attempted to jump the fence and were injured in doing so. Hospitals in the
10 San Diego County routinely treat illegal border crossers that have sustained
11 minor injuries, such as broken bones. Hospitals in adjacent Imperial County had
12 an increase in the number of dehydration and exhaustion cases from
13 apprehended illegal border crossers who were forced to attempt crossing in the
14 San Diego Sector (Berestein 2004). Segments A-1 and A-2 could result in
15 similar effects as persons seeking to cross illegally could attempt to jump the
16 fence or attempt to cross in areas with rough terrain, which could result in injury.

18 Socioeconomic Resources. Effects under this alternative would be similar to
19 those under Alternative 2. Short-term moderate beneficial impacts are expected
20 under this alternative. This alternative includes the proposed construction of two
21 fence layers that would require double the amount of construction materials as
22 under Alternative 2. Constructing two layers of fence along the fence segment
23 corridors would increase the need for more construction workers and materials.
24 Therefore Alternative 3 is expected to have a larger temporary beneficial impact
25 compared to Alternative 2.
26 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Impacts under

27 this alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Indirect
28 beneficial effects on safety and the protection of children are expected as
29 Alternative 3 would be designed to include two layers of fence along each
30 segment. The additional layer of fencing would further deter drug smugglers,
31 terrorists, and illegal border crossers, and therefore provide for a generally safer
32 ROI.
33

4-29
FME000336

4-30
FME000337
1 5. MITIGATION
2 5.1 MITIGATION PLAN AND CEQA FINDINGS

3 USBP used design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts of the
4 Proposed Action, including selecting a location for tactical infrastructure that
5 would avoid or minimize impacts to environmental and cultural resources.
6 Nonetheless, USBP has determined that construction, maintenance, and
7 operation of tactical infrastructure in USBP San Diego Sector would result in
8 adverse environmental impacts. These impacts would be most significant during
9 the period of construction. USBP has concluded, however, that the Proposed
10 Action would be an environmentally acceptable action. Although many factors
11 were considered in this determination, the principal reasons are:
12 • BMPs would be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on

13 environmental resources and to cultural and historical resources.
14 • USBP would implement a Construction Mitigation and Restoration
15 (CM&R) Plan, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan,
16 Blasting Specifications, Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring (PRMM)
17 Plan, Dust Control Plan, Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan, and
18 Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect natural
19 and cultural resources and residential areas during construction and
20 operation of the Project
21 • USBP would complete appropriate consultations with the FWS, the CDFG,
22 the SHPOs, and Native American tribes before construction would begin
23 in any given area; and
24 • An environmental inspection and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP)
25 would be prepared to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures.
26 In addition, USBP developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the

27 environmental impact that would otherwise result from construction of the
28 Proposed Action.
29 Table 5.1-1 presents a summary of the Project’s potential environmental impacts

30 and the mitigation measures identified to avoid or reduce each impact. The
31 impacts are classified before and after mitigation in accordance with the CEQA
32 significance classifications. The recommended mitigation would reduce potential
33 environmental impacts on less than significant levels. Table 5.1-1 is the basis for
34 the mitigation and monitoring that would be implemented during construction and
35 operation of the San Diego Tactical Infrastructure Project.
36 [[Preparers Note: The mitigation strategies identified in Table 5.1-1 are

37 used as examples of potential mitigation strategies and will be refined as
38 more details of the project become available]

5-1
FME000338
Table 5.1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Program for the San Diego Tactical Infrastructure Project
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
ALTERNATIVES
Alt1 Construction of a Significant Alternate Route 2B was routed to avoid cultural and Less than USBP and BLM
portion of the tactical (California archeological resources. significant
infrastructure along Environmental (CEQA Class
Alternative 2, Route Quality Act III)
A could impact [CEQA] Class II)
cultural or
archeological
resources
GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Geo 1 Disturbances to the Significant After completion of construction, topographic Less than USBP and BLM
5-2
natural topography (CEQA Class II) contours and drainage conditions would be significant
along the restored as closely as practicable to their (CEQA Class
construction preconstruction condition. III)
easement will be
impacted by grading
activities.
Geo 2 Blasting may be Significant Alternate Route 2 B was developed to avoid Less than USBP and BLM
necessary along (CEQA Class II) geologic formations that would require blasting to significant
Segment A-1. the extent possible. (CEQA Class
Blasting could III)
adversely affect

geological
resources.
October 2007
FME000339
Geo 3 Construction of the Significant USBP would mitigate impacts on soils by Less than
tactical infrastructure (CEQA Class II) implementing its CM&R Plan developed in significant
could expose soils to consultation with the BLM, the USFWS, and the (CEQA Class
erosional forces, CDFG, and its Project-wide Dust Control Plan. III)
compact soils, affect Fugitive dust generated by construction activities
soil fertility, cause would be minimized by the implementation of
mixing of soil USBP’s Project-wide Dust Control Plan. The
horizons, and Project-wide Dust Control Plan includes control
facilitate the measures identified as BMPs by some of the
dispersal and regulating agencies. The measures that would be
establishment of implemented include: take every reasonable
weeds. precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from
construction activities; take every reasonable
measure to limit visible density (opacity) of
emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; apply
5-3
water one or more times per day to all affected

unpaved roads, and unpaved haul and access
roads; reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads,
and unpaved haul and access roads; clean up
track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road
access points at a minimum of once every 48
hours; if bulk transfer operations are required,
spray handling and transfer points with water at
least 15 minutes before use;

October 2007
FME000340
Geo 4 Contamination from Significant USBP would mitigate impacts on soils by Less than
spills or leaks of (CEQA Class II) implementing its Spill Prevention, Containment, and significant
fuels, lubricants, and Control Plan for Hazardous Materials and Wastes (CEQA Class
coolant from (SPCC Plan). III)
construction
equipment could
have an impact on
soils.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cul 1 Construction of Significant To address potential impacts on paleontological Less than
Tactical (CEQA Class II) resources resulting from the Proposed Action, significant
5-4
Infrastructure could USBP will developed a Paleontological Resource (CEQA Class

impact upon the Mitigation and Monitoring (PRMM) Plan. The III)
presence of PRMM Plan includes a summary of the literature
paleontological sites and museum archival review, field survey results,
and assessment of potential impacts on
paleontological resources; Project-wide and site-
specific mitigation and monitoring measures; and
curation and reporting procedures. In accordance
with the PRMM Plan, USBP would have a
paleontological monitor onsite in areas where
paleontological resources have been identified or

where field surveys have not been conducted.
Additional measures of the plan include: availability
of a qualified Project paleontologist to be called to
the Proposed project corridor to respond to
October 2007
construction-related issues: training of construction

personnel and Environmental Inspectors (EIs)
regarding the possibility that fossil resources may
be encountered during construction;
FME000341
WATER RESOURCES
Water 1 Refueling of vehicles Significant USBP would comply with its SPCC Plan. This Less than
and storage of fuel, (CEQA Class II) includes avoiding or minimizing potential impacts significant
oil, and other fluids by restricting the location of refueling activities and (CEQA Class
during the storage facilities and by requiring immediate III)
construction phase cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Additionally,
of the Project could the SPCC Plan identifies emergency response
create a potential procedures, equipment, and cleanup measures in
long-term the event of a spill.
contamination
hazard to
groundwater
resources. Spills or
leaks of hazardous
5-5
liquids could
contaminate
groundwater and
affect users of the
aquifer.
Water 2 Spoil placed in Significant USBP would manage spoil piles to avoid placement Less than
floodplains during (CEQA Class II) in floodplains. Dry washes are also regulated by significant
trenching or the SDRWQCB. USBP will leave gaps in the spoil (CEQA Class
excavation for piles in dry washes so the washes remain open III)
infrastructure during construction. USBP would prepare and
foundation submit an updated CM&R Plan to the Agency

construction could Staffs before construction if necessary to
cause an increase in incorporate any additional requirements of Federal,
flood levels or could State, and local permits.
October 2007
be washed
downstream or be
deleterious to
aquatic life.
FME000342
Water 3 Refueling of vehicles Significant USBP would comply with its SPCC Plan. This Less than
and storage of fuel, (CEQA Class II) includes avoiding or minimizing potential impacts significant
oil, or other by restricting the location of refueling activities and (CEQA Class
hazardous materials storage facilities and by requiring immediate III)
near surface waters cleanup in the event of a spill or leak. Additionally,
could create a the SPCC Plan identifies emergency response
potential for procedures, equipment, and cleanup measures in
contamination if a the event of a spill.
spill were to occur.
Immediate
downstream users of
the water could
experience
degradation in water
quality. Acute
5-6
chronic toxic effects

on aquatic
organisms could
result from such a
spill.

October 2007
FME000343
Water 4 The primary impact Significant USBP would adhere to its CM&R Plan, and comply Less than
of the Proposed (CEQA Class II) with the USACE’s Section 404 and the significant
Action on wetlands SDRWQCB’s Section 401 Water Quality (CEQA Class
would be the Certification permit conditions. Wetlands would be III)
temporary and restored to preconstruction contours. Construction
permanent alteration of the Project would result in “no net loss” of
of wetland wetlands because no wetlands would be
vegetation. Other permanently drained or filled. USBP states that it
impacts could does not plan to actively maintain the permanent
include temporary ROW. Some of the mitigation measures pertaining
changes in wetland to wetland crossings include: minimizing
hydrology and water construction time in wetland areas, requiring non-
quality, mixing of essential construction to avoid crossing wetland
topsoil and subsoil, areas, storing and returning the top foot of soil from
and compaction and wetland areas to preserve root stock for re-growth.
5-7
rutting of soils. A
10-foot-wide
maintained corridor
would result in the
permanent
conversion of

October 2007
FME000344
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio 1 The primary impact Significant USBP would minimize the area of new disturbance Less than
of the Proposed (CEQA Class II) and the impacts on vegetation. USBP would significant
Action on vegetation implement its CM&R Plan to reduce impacts on (CEQA Class
would be the cutting, vegetation within the construction and permanent III)
clearing, and/or rights-of-way and improve re-vegetation potential.
removal of existing Some of the measures that would be implemented
vegetation within the include: Crush or skim vegetation within the
construction work construction corridor in areas where grading is not
area. The removal of required, which would result in less soil
desert vegetation disturbance. The remaining root crowns would aid
would have longer- in soil stabilization, help retain organic matter in the
term impacts than in soil, aid in moisture retention, and have the
agricultural areas potential to re-sprout following construction.
5-8
where vegetation Preserve native vegetation removed during clearing

reestablishes operations. The cut vegetation would be
quickly. windrowed along the ROW during construction and
then re-spread over the disturbed areas as part of
restoration activities.

October 2007
FME000345
Bio 2 Removal of existing Significant USBP would reduce the potential to spread noxious Less than
vegetation and the (CEQA Class II) weeds and soil pests by implementing the significant
disturbances of soils measures included in its CM&R Plan. These (CEQA Class
during construction measures include, but are not limited to: survey by III)
could create a qualified noxious weed authority; flagging or
conditions for the treatment before construction; identification of
invasion and populations of plants listed as invasive exotics by
establishment of the California Invasive Plant Council and the BLM
exotic-nuisance National List of Invasive Weed Species of Concern;
species. not allowing for disposal of soil and plant materials
from non-native areas to native areas; washing all
construction equipment before beginning work on
the Project; use of gravel and/or fill material from
weed-free sources for relatively weed-free areas;
use of certified weed-free hay bales;
5-9
implementation of post-construction monitoring and

treatment of invasive weeds.
Bio 3 Fires inadvertently Significant USBP would implement its Fire Prevention and Less than
started by (CEQA Class II) Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for significant
construction wildfires. Some of the measures contained in the (CEQA Class
activities (e.g., plan include: requiring the contractor to train all III)
welding), equipment, personnel on fire prevention measures, restricting
or personnel could smoking and parking to cleared areas, requiring all
affect wildlife by combustion engines to be equipped with a spark
igniting vegetation arrestor, and requiring vehicles and equipment to

along the ROW. maintain a supply of fire suppression equipment
(e.g., shovels and fire extinguishers).
October 2007
FME000346
Some impact on USBP would attempt to schedule construction in
migratory birds could native habitats outside of the breeding season for
result from habitat migratory birds. If, however, construction activities
loss associated with are necessary during the bird breeding season, in
construction of the accordance with its CM&R Plan, USBP would
Project. Clearing of remove vegetation that could provide nesting
vegetation could substrate from the ROW before the breeding
also destroy nests season, thus eliminating the possibility that birds
Less than
and cause mortality could nest on the ROW. Qualified biologists would
Significant significant
Bio 4 of nestlings and conduct preconstruction surveys to confirm the
(CEQA Class II) (CEQA Class
nesting adults. absence of nesting birds before construction
III)
begins. USBP would, in consultation with the
USFWS, the BLM, and the CDFG, develop
Preclearing Plans to protect migratory bird species
5-10
during construction. These plans would include

specific details of the preclearing methods to be
implemented, the specific locations where
preclearing would occur, and the dates preclearing
would be initiated and completed
Bio 5 Construction would Significant USBP would limit disturbance of previously Less than
temporarily impact (CEQA Class II) unaffected areas to the narrowest extent significant
Quino Checkerspot practicable. Further, USBP would compensate for (CEQA Class
Butterfly critical the loss of critical habitat, III)
habitat at work
areas, temporary [Preparers Note: Additional Best Management

access roads, and Practices and Mitigation Strategies are being
along the
developed in conjunction with USFWS The above serve
construction
to illustrate the types of mitigation that may be
October 2007
corrridor
necessary]
FME000347
VISUAL RESOURCES
Visual 1 Installation of new Significant Less than
aboveground (CEQA Class II) significant
facilities would (CEQA Class
impact visual III)
resources.
SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Socio 1 Construction of the Less than No mitigation is proposed during construction. This Less than
Project could significant negligible short-term increase in population would significant
temporarily increase (CEQA Class III) not significantly affect housing availability or (CEQA Class
the population in the increase the demand for public services in excess III)
area by about 200 of existing and projected capabilities.
people.
5-11
EJ 1 The Project could Less than No mitigation is proposed. U.S. Bureau of Census Less than
result in a significant data show that minority and low-income significant
disproportionately (CEQA Class III) populations are present along the proposed (CEQA Class
high and adverse infrastructure routes, but there is no potential for III)
effect or impact on a disproportionate adverse impacts on these
minority or low- populations. USBP conducted open houses in the
income portion of Proposed project corridor in December 2007 to
the population. inform the public about the Project and provide an
opportunity for the public to ask questions and
express concerns. These public input opportunities
were announced in the local newspapers in English

and Spanish, and Spanish translators were
present.
October 2007
FME000348
AIR QUALITY
Air 1 The construction Significant Construction equipment would be operated on an Less than
activities that would (CEQA Class II) as-needed basis during daylight hours only and the significant
generate emissions emissions from gasoline and diesel engines would (CEQA Class
include land be minimized because the engines must be built to III)
clearing, ground meet the standards for mobile sources established
excavation, and cut by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and fill operations. mobile source emission regulations including those
The intermittent and in Title 40 CFR Part 85. Most of the construction
short-term emissions equipment would be powered by diesel engines
generated by these and would be equipped with typical control
activities would equipment (e.g., catalytic converters), and Project-
include dust from related vehicles and construction equipment would
soil disruption and be required to use the new low sulfur diesel fuel as
5-12
combustion soon as it is commercially available. In addition,

emissions from the USBP would implement the following measures to
construction minimize impacts on air resources. minimize idling
equipment. These time for diesel equipment whenever possible;
emissions could ensure that diesel-powered construction equipment
result in minor, is properly tuned and maintained, and shut off
temporary impacts when not in direct use; prohibit engine tampering to
on air quality in the increase horsepower; use California Air Resources
vicinity of pipeline Board-certified low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15
installation. ppm); and reduce construction-related trips as
feasible for workers and equipment, including

trucks.
October 2007
FME000349
Air 2 Construction of the Less than None of the proposed facilities would result in Less than
Proposed Action significant increased GHG emissions during operation; significant
would generate (CEQA III) however, increases in emissions of GHG would (CEQA III)
emissions of non- occur during construction. These emissions would
regulated be minimized by observing the equipment operation
greenhouse gas BMPs discussed in Air 1, and would be negligible.
(GHG). Carbon
dioxide would be
formed as a primary
product of
combustion of the
diesel and gas
engines used to
power construction
5-13
equipment and
vehicles.

October 2007
FME000350
Air 3 Construction of the Less than Fugitive dust generated by construction activities Less than
Proposed Action significant would be minimized by the implementation of significant
would generate (CEQA III) USBP’s Project-wide Dust Control Plan. The (CEQA III)
emissions of Project-wide Dust Control Plan includes control
Particulate Matter measures identified as BMPs by some of the
(PM10 ) regulating agencies. The measures that would be
implemented include: take every reasonable
precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from
construction activities; take every reasonable
measure to limit visible density (opacity) of
emissions to less than or equal to 20 percent; apply
water one or more times per day to all affected
unpaved roads, and unpaved haul and access
roads; reduce vehicle speeds on all unpaved roads,
5-14
and unpaved haul and access roads; clean up

track-out and/or carry-out areas at paved road
access points at a minimum of once every 48
hours; if bulk transfer operations are required,
spray handling and transfer points with water at
least 15 minutes before use;
NOISE
Noise 1 Individuals in the Significant Noise associated with construction activities would Less than
immediate vicinity of (CEQA Class II) be both temporary and intermittent. Equipment significant
the construction would be operated on an as-needed basis during (CEQA Class
activities could day light. A majority of the activities would occur III)

experience an away from population centers. The duration of
increase in noise. construction in the few populated areas would be
limited to a few days.
October 2007
FME000351
1 5.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS/STATEMENT OF

2 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
3 Effects on all resources were evaluated to determine any significant impact that
4 would remain so after mitigation. The USFWS and CDFG have not yet issued
5 conclusions regarding the impact of the Project on Federal and state listed
6 species.
7 5.3 IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES;

8 SHORT- AND LONG-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
9 The major nonrenewable resources that would be consumed by the proposed
10 Project are fossil fuels used to power construction vehicles and patrol vehicles
11 over the life of the Project. There would be a number of irretrievable resources
12 committed to the proposal. The primary resources irretrievably lost would
13 include:
14 • soils (water and wind erosion could occur in disturbed areas);

15 • wildlife habitat (construction activities would result in the long-term loss of
16 native desert habitats);
17 • land use (aboveground facilities and permanent access roads would
18 replace native desert vegetation and urban vegetation communities for the
19 life of the Project); and
20 • visual resources (the presence of the tactical infrastructure would
21 permanently affect viewsheds).
22 USBP has concluded that overall the proposed Project would result in limited
23 unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. While the losses described above
24 would occur, the majority would be minimized and compensated for by USBP’s
25 mitigation plans. For these reasons, the irreversible and irretrievable resource
26 commitments are considered acceptable.
27 USBP will not begin construction activities until:
28 • USFWS issues a BO on Federal listed species and issues incidental take

29 permits, if required;
30 • the CDFG makes a consistency determination on the USFWS’ BO
31 pursuant to Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code or
32 issues an Incidental Take Permit that covers both federally and State-
33 listed species that may be affected ;
34 • USBP obtains an Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the
35 California Fish and Game Code for all State-listed species that may be
36 affected, or receives concurrence from the CDFG that an Incidental Take
37 Permit is not required;
5-15
FME000352
1 • USBP prepares a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan;
2 USBP prepares a MMP consistent with the following identified mitigation

3 measures:

5-16
FME000353
1 6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
2 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment that result
3 from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
4 reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or
5 non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR 1508.7).
6 Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant
7 actions taking place over a period of time by various agencies (Federal, state,
8 and local) or individuals. Informed decisionmaking is served by consideration of
9 cumulative impacts resulting from projects that are proposed, under construction,
10 recently completed, or anticipated to be implemented in the reasonably
11 foreseeable future.
12 This cumulative impacts analysis summarizes expected environmental effects

13 from the combined impacts of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future
14 projects within the Proposed Action area. Projects that were considered for this
15 analysis were identified by reviewing USBP documents, news releases, and
16 published media reports, and through consultation with planning and engineering
17 departments of local governments, and state and Federal agencies. Projects
18 that do not occur in close proximity to the proposed infrastructure would not
19 contribute to a cumulative impact and are generally not evaluated further.
20 Cumulative Fencing, Southern Border. There are currently 62 miles of landing

21 mat fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border (CRS
22 2006); 14 miles of single, double, and triple fence in San Diego, California; 70
23 miles of new pedestrian fence approved and currently under construction; and
24 fence adjacent to POEs throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of
25 proposed fence (including the 5.6 miles proposed under the action considered in
26 this EIS). The proposed fence segments are being studied in Texas, New
27 Mexico, Arizona, and California.
28 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
29 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EIS. The effects of
30 these past actions are generally included in the affected environment described
31 in Section 3.
32 Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction

33 projects, USBP or other agency operations in close proximity to the proposed
34 fence locations, and current resource management programs and land use
35 activities within the cumulative effects analysis areas. Ongoing actions
36 considered in the cumulative effects analysis include extensive construction
37 activities in the East Otay Mesa area.
38 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future

39 actions consist of activities that have been approved and can be evaluated with

6-1
FME000354
1 respect to their effects. The following activities are reasonably foreseeable future
2 actions:
3 • SBInet is a comprehensive program focused on transforming border

4 control through technology and infrastructure. The goal of the program is
5 to field the most effective proven technology, infrastructure, staffing, and
6 response platforms, and integrate them into a single comprehensive
7 border security suite for USBP. Potential future SBInet projects include
8 deployment of sensor technology, communications equipment, command
9 and control equipment, fencing, barriers capable of stopping a vehicle,
10 and any required road or components such as lighting and all-weather
11 access roads (Boeing 2007). Within the next 2 years, 225 miles of
12 primary fence are proposed for construction (including the approximately
13 5.6 miles addressed in this EIS).
14 • Construction of Tactical Infrastructure. USBP is currently constructing a
15 border infrastructure system along the U.S./Mexico international border
16 within San Diego County. The infrastructure system project spans 14
17 miles and includes secondary and tertiary fences, patrol and maintenance
18 roads, lights, and integrated surveillance and intelligence system
19 resources. Approximately 9 miles of the 14-mile project have been
20 completed or are currently under construction. These projects were
21 addressed under individual EAs as pilot projects for the barrier system.
22 When completed, the infrastructure system would impact approximately
23 297 acres, consisting of disturbed/developed lands, coastal sage scrub,
24 maritime succulent scrub and grasslands.
25 Seven road and tactical infrastructure projects are proposed that include
26 construction, repair, maintenance and upgrading existing roads and infrastructure
27 within the Brown Field Station Area of Operations (AO).
28 In addition, ongoing maintenance of approximately 104 miles of patrol roads

29 throughout the Brown Field, El Cajon, and Campo Stations AOs is proposed.
30 The roads adjacent to or nearest the proposed project corridor are the Marron
31 Valley Road (6.6 miles) and Barrett Truck Trail (9.6 miles) (CBP 2007b).
32 The FY 2007 DHS Appropriations Act provided $1.2 billion for the installation of
33 fencing, infrastructure, and technology along the border (CRS 2006). USBP is
34 proposing to construct up to 225 miles of primary fence in the Rio Grande Valley,
35 Marfa, Del Rio, and El Paso, Texas; Tucson, and Yuma, Arizona; El Centro and
36 San Diego, California Sectors. Proposed Segment A-2 being evaluated in this
37 EIS would connect to existing fence at Brown Field and west of Tecate,
38 California.
39 • East Otay Mesa Specific Plan (EOMSP). San Diego County has
40 developed the EOMSP to promote development of the area into a
41 comprehensive industrial and business district. The plan calls for heavy
42 industrial (289 acres), light industrial (410 acres), a Technology Business
6-2
FME000355
1 Park (937 acres), conservation/limited use (241 acres), and regional

2 circulation corridors (130 acres) (San Diego County General Plan).
3 • South Coast Resource Management Plan Amendment for the San Diego
4 County Border Mountains. BLM is proposing to prepare an amendment to
5 the South Coast Resource Management Plan for BLM-administered public
6 lands in the Border Mountains area of San Diego County, including Otay
7 Mountain. The plan amendment proposes to establish management
8 guidelines for lands acquired since 1994 and designate a travel network.
9 • BLM upgrade of the Border Pack Trail. The trail runs east-west along the
10 border below the OMW. The wilderness boundary is actually 100 feet
11 north of the edge of the trail. The existing trail is mainly a hiking trail, but
12 all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) can access the trail at this time with some
13 difficulty. BLM is proposing to upgrade the trail to better accommodate
14 ATVs safely. This would include widening the trail and constructing
15 turnarounds and pull-outs. The primary obstacle with upgrading the trail is
16 that it supports the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly and habitat
17 (CBP 2007b).
18 • San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) transmission line. SDG&E has
19 proposed to construct a new 150-mile transmission line between the cities
20 of El Centro and San Diego. The stated purpose of the project is to bring
21 renewable energy sources into San Diego from Imperial County, reduce
22 energy costs, and improve reliability of electrical service in the San Diego
23 area. SDG&E has filed an application with the California Public Utilities
24 Commission (CPUC) to construct the Sunrise Powerlink Project (SRPL).
25 A joint EIS/EIR is being prepared (BLM 2007).
26 Table 6.0-1 presents the cumulative effects that might occur from implementation
27 of the Proposed Action.
28

6-3
FME000356
1 Table 6.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects
Current Known
Past Proposed Cumulative
Resource Background Future
Actions Action Effects
Activities Actions
State Existing TBD based on Proposed TBD based on
nonattainment emission A-1 road and new A-1 road and
for 8-hour O3; sources fence design construction fence design
Federal continue to and and business and
moderate adversely construction development construction
maintenance affect regional estimates. in East Otay estimates.
Air Quality for CO; State air quality. Mesa area
nonattainment would
for PM10 and contribute to
PM2.5. emissions
and adverse
regional air
quality.
Commercial Ships and oil Short-term None. Current
and residential and gas noise impacts activities
development, production are from would be the
vehicles dominant construction. dominant
dominate offshore noise noise source.
ambient noise. sources. Negligible
Noise Commercial cumulative
and residential impacts.
development,
vehicles are
dominant
onshore noise
sources.
Agricultural Development USBP Residential Moderate
lands and of natural purchase of and adverse
natural areas areas and land or commercial impacts on
developed for agricultural easements to development natural areas.
commercial lands. construct permanently
and residential tactical alters natural
uses. infrastructure. areas and
Natural areas agricultural
developed for lands.
Land Use and
tactical
Recreation
infrastructure.
Fragmentation
of OMW
habitat.
Development
inconsistent
with
Wilderness
Act.

6-4
FME000357
Current Known
Activities Actions
Intrusions by Continued Grading, Continued Grading,
illegal border illegal border excavating, illegal border excavating,
crossers have crossings and crossings and
Geology and modified soils. adversely recontouring adversely recontouring
Soils affect soils. would affect soils. would
significantly significantly
disturb disturb
geology. geology.
Degradation Continued TBD based on Minor to TBD based on
of aquifers degradation of A-1 road and moderate A-1 road and
due to aquifers from fence design short and fence design
Water pollution; pollution; and long tern and
Resources: changes in changes in construction impacts from construction
Hydrology and hydrology due hydrology due estimates. development estimates.
Groundwater to increased to increased and
impervious impervious increased
areas. areas. impervious
areas.
Surface water Increases in Construction Increases in Moderate
quality impervious erosion and impervious short- term
moderately surfaces, soil sediment surfaces, impacts from
impacted by disturbance, runoff, potential point and construction
development. point and oil spills and nonpoint activities.
nonpoint leaks. discharges,
discharges construction
Surface Waters/ erosion and
cause
Waters of the sediment
increases in
United States runoff,
runoff,
erosion, and potential oil
sedimentation; spills and
reduction in leaks.
water quality;
impacts on
wetlands.
Increase in Increase in None. Increase in None.
impervious impervious impervious
surfaces near surfaces near surfaces
Segment A-2 Segment A-2 near
Floodplains increase increase runoff Segment A-2
runoff flood and flood increase
hazards. hazards. runoff and
flood
hazards.

6-5
FME000358
Current Known
Activities Actions
Loss of native Continued Minor to Continued Moderate to
habitat due to development moderate loss urbanization major adverse
development, results in loss of native results in impacts on
degradation of native species and loss of native vegetation and
Vegetation habitat. species and habitats.
by disturbance species and
Resources habitat.
and habitat.
introduction of
invasive
species.
Loss of native Development Minor to Minor to Minor to
habitat due to continues to moderate loss moderate moderate loss
development; impact of habitat, loss of of habitat and
Wildlife and
loss of wildlife biological wildlife habitat and wildlife
Aquatic
corridors; resources and corridors and wildlife corridors.
Resources
impacted wildlife habitat. water access corridors.
habitat and for wildlife.
food sources.
Habitat loss Development Moderate to Development Fragmentation
and degraded continues to major loss of continues to of suitable
water quality adversely habitat due to adversely habitat might
impacted impact and fragmentation. impact, significantly
Special Status sensitive reduce reduce and reduce
Species species. potential fragment available
habitat. potential habitat for
habitat. certain
sensitive
species.
Possible Identification None. Proposed Long-term
destruction of and new adverse
unknown recordation of construction impacts from
artifacts. historic and and past
cultural expansion destruction of
Cultural
resources. into eastern unknown
Resources
San Diego artifacts.
County might
adversely
affect cultural
resources.
Degradation Continued Moderate to Continued Major adverse
of visual occurrence of severe impacts moderate to impacts
appeal due adverse severe
illegal foot impacts to impacts to
traffic causing visual quality Class I and
Visual Resources
extensive Class III
littering and Visual
other Resources
blemishes to
the landscape

6-6
FME000359
Current Known
Activities Actions
Urban Strong local Minor, Continued Minor
development economy and temporary strong local stimulation of
throughout high land contribution to economy, local
county. values. local high land economies
construction values, and from
Socioeconomics expansion construction
and into eastern activities. No
Environmental county. adverse
Justice affects on
environmental
justice issues,
children, or
human health
and safety
1
2 6.1 AIR QUALITY

3 Proposed construction and USBP patrolling along the new fence segment A-1
4 would combine with past actions (current severe nonattainment for PM10 and
5 moderate nonattainment for 8-hour O3), and ongoing or future construction
6 activities in the East Otay Mesa area to produce both temporary and long-term
7 adverse cumulative impacts on regional air quality. Temporary impacts from
8 construction would be [TBD based on road construction estimates]. USBP
9 operational activities along the patrol road would produce minor adverse impacts
10 on air quality due to increase vehicle emissions and PM10 emissions due to
11 driving on the dirt patrol road.
12 6.2 NOISE
13 Proposed construction and USBP operations and maintenance activities would
14 combine with existing noise sources to produce negligible cumulative effects
15 along Segment A-2.

17 USBP purchase of land or easements to construct tactical infrastructure, when
18 combined with past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future development
19 would result in long-term, adverse impacts on lands classified as “undeveloped”
20 or “natural.” Route B if might be inconsistent with the Wilderness Act.

22 Moderate impacts on geology and soils are expected from the additive effects of
23 current or ongoing actions, the Proposed Action, and other reasonably

6-7
FME000360
1 foreseeable future actions. Additive effects include changes in topography and

2 surface bedrock and increases in erosion. Potential impacts of the Proposed
3 Action would minor changes in topography and surface bedrock due to grading,
4 contouring, blasting, and trenching; minor soil disturbance; a minor increase in
5 erosion. However, the impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be
6 negligible in comparison to the impacts of current and future actions.

8 Moderate impacts on hydrology, groundwater, and surface water and waters of
9 the U.S. are expected from the additive effects of current or ongoing actions, the
10 Proposed Action, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additive
11 effects would include changes in hydrology due to increases in impervious
12 surfaces, reduction in the quantity and quality of groundwater in local aquifers,
13 soil disturbance, reduction in water quality, and indirect adverse impacts on
14 wetlands. Potential impacts of the Proposed Action would include minor changes
15 in hydrology due to changes in topography and a minor use of groundwater. All
16 impacts on wetlands as a result of the Proposed Action would be avoided, if
17 impacts on wetlands can not be avoided they would be minimized, mitigated,
18 and/or compensated. [Preparer’s Note: It still needs to be determined if
19 wetlands are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and if these wetlands would
20 be impacted by the Proposed Action.] However, the impact of the Proposed
21 Action would be negligible in comparison to the impact of current and future
22 actions.
23 6.6 FLOODPLAINS
24 Moderate impacts on floodplains are expected from the additive effects of current
25 or ongoing actions, the Proposed Action, and other reasonably foreseeable
26 future actions. Additive effects would include an increase in the quantity and
27 velocity of stormwater runoff caused by an increase in impervious surface, which
28 in turn causes an increase in flood hazards. Potential impacts of the Proposed
29 Action would include an increase in impervious surface in floodplain by placing a
30 portion of a fence across an intermittent wash in Segment A-1. This wash could
31 potentially be a floodplain. If it is determined that this area is a floodplain,
32 impacts would be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
33 However, the impacts associated with the Proposed Action would be negligible in
34 comparison to the impact of current and future actions.
35 6.7 VEGETATION
36 Conversion of land for development is reducing the areal extent of native
37 chamise chaparral and riparian communities in this portion of San Diego County.
38 These habitats and their component species become rarer with each acre lost to
39 development. Clearing for fence construction and long-term USBP operational
40 activities might combine with these activities to produce a long-term adverse
41 cumulative effect. Illegal border crossers have created a large number of
6-8
FME000361
1 footpaths through the chaparral shrublands on the OMW. Fence construction

2 might concentrate illegal border crossers into corridors which, if left unchecked,
3 would create wider unvegetated paths and produce a major adverse impact on
4 those areas. Closing the maze of footpaths in the interior of the OMW would
5 allow some land recovery outside of permanent maintenance roads and patrol
6 roads.
7 6.8 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

8 Minor to moderate impacts on wildlife and species are expected from the additive
9 effects of the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
10 Cumulative impacts would mainly result from habitat fragmentation, disturbance
11 and degradation, and construction traffic. Indirect impacts would result from
12 noise during construction, and loss of potential food web species. Species would
13 also be impacted by equipments spills and leaks.
14 6.9 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES

15 Moderate impacts on state and Federal threatened and endangered species are
16 expected from the additive effects of the past, present, and reasonably
17 foreseeable future actions. Cumulative impacts would mainly result from habitat
18 fragmentation, disturbance and degradation and construction traffic. Indirect
19 impacts would result from noise during construction and loss of potential food
20 web species. Species would also be impacted by equipments spills and leaks.

22 No cumulative impacts on known historic and cultural resources are expected
23 from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
24 actions. Planning and consultation with SHPOs would limit the possibility of
25 future impact to unknown historical and cultural resources.

27 Moderate to severe impacts on visual resources are expected from the additive
28 effects of current or ongoing actions, the Proposed Action, and other reasonably
29 foreseeable future actions. Although over time, the visual contrast of the
30 Proposed Action would diminish through re-establishment of vegetation and the
31 softening of edges, the encroachment of overall development of the area will
32 continue do degrade vistas from various vantage points.

34 Fence and road construction has the potential for minor beneficial effects from
35 temporary increase in construction jobs and purchase of goods and services.
36 Construction activities are negligible compared to substantial construction
37 activities in East Otay Mesa area. The proposed tactical infrastructure would
6-9
FME000362
1 have short- to long-term indirect beneficial effects on children and safety by

2 reducing the number of illegal border crossers, smugglers, terrorists and terrorist
3 weapons. Indirect minor adverse impacts on human safety from illegal border
4 crossers attempting to cross in a more remote or hazardous areas.

6-10
FME000363
1 7. REFERENCES
Berestein Berestein, Leslie. 2004. Tightened border in S.D. shifts strain

2004 to areas east. San Diego Union-Tribune. 1 August 2004.
BLM 1986a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1986. BLM Manual H-
8410-1, Visual Resource Inventory, Bureau of Land Management. 17
January 1986.
BLM 1986b BLM. 1986. BLM Manual 8431 Visual Resource Contrast Rating,
Bureau of Land Management. 17 January 1986.
BLM 1994 BLM. 1994. South Coast Resource Management Plan and
Record of Decision. USDI-BLM, California Desert District, Palm
Springs – South Coast Resource Area. June 1994.
BLM 2007 U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2007. Sunrise Powerlink Project.
Available online: <
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/sunrise.html>. Accessed 22
October 2007.
Boeing 2007 Boeing. 2007. Secure Border Initiative SBInet Background. March
2007.
CADWR 2003 California Department of Water Resources (CADWR). 2003.
California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Update 2003. Available
online:
<http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov/bulletin118/update2003/i
ndex.cfm>. Accessed 7 September 2007.
CARB 2007 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2007. Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Available online: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/
research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf>. Accessed 3 October 2007.
CBI 2004 Conservation Biology Institute (CBI). 2004. Las Californias
Binational Conservation Initiative: A Vision for Habitat
Conservation in the Border Region of California and Baja
California. September 2004.
CBP 2003 Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2003. U.S. Border
Patrol History. July 15, 2003. Available online:
<http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/hist
ory.xml>. Accessed 16 August 2007.
CBP 2006 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2006. CBP
Border Patrol Overview, January 11, 2006. Available online:
<www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/overview.x
m>. Accessed 16 August 2007.

7-1
FME000364
CBP 2007a CBP. 2007. San Diego Sector (California) Homepage.

Available online:
<http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/
border_patrol_sectors/sandiego_sector_ca/>. Accessed 2
October 2007.
CBP 2007b CBP. 2007. Environmental Assessment Brown Field Station
Monument 250 Road Improvement Project, San Diego Sector,
Brown Field Station, San Diego, California.
CDFG 2007 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007.
CNDDB County Species List. Available online:
<http://imaps.dfg.ca.gov/viewers/CNDDB_QuickViewer>.
Accessed 15 October 2007.
CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. “Report For
Congress.” Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S.
International Border. 12 December 2006.
Demere 2007 Demere, Thomas A., Ph.D. 2007. Geology of San Diego
County, California. San Diego Natural History Museum.
Available online:
<http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/sdgeol.html>.
Accessed 28 September 2007.
DHS 2004 U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2004. Environmental
Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande. April 2004.
e²M 2007 e²M, Inc. 2007. Biological Resources Report. Internal Working
Draft 23 October 2007.
ESRI 2007 ESRI. 2007. 2007 Zip Code Lookup Results for Zip Codes
91980 and 91917. Available online:
<http://redlandsarcweb.esri.com/services>. Accessed 10
October 2007.
FEMA 1997 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1997. Map
Service Center Viewer – Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Panel No. 06073C2250F for San Diego County, California.
Effective Date June 19, 1997. Available online:
<https://msc.fema.gov>. Accessed 15 October 2007.
FEMA 2006 FEMA. 2006. Map Service Center Viewer – Flood Insurance
Rate Map Panel No. 06073C2225F for San Diego County,
California. Effective Date September 29, 2006. Available
online: <https://msc.fema.gov>. Accessed 15 October 2007.
Landrum & Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2002. “Common Noise Sources.”
Brown 2002 Available online: <http://www.landrum-
brown.com/env/PVD/EIS/Jan%202002%20Chapter%204/4%20
1-1%20%20common_noise_sources.pdf>. Accessed 6 July
2004.

7-2
FME000365
NRCS 2007 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2007.

National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) Web Soil Survey
Version 1.1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS. Available
online: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>. Accessed
28 September 2007.
Otay Mesa Community of Otay Mesa. Undated. “About Otay Mesa.”
undated Available online: <http://www.otaymesa.org/ab-otay.html>.
SANDAG SANDAG. 2006. “Population and Housing Estimates Otay
2006 Mesa Community Planning Area City of San Diego.” Available
online: <http://profilewarehouse.sandag.org/>. Last updated
August 2006. Accessed 15 October 2007.
SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD).
2007 2007. Rule 11, Exemptions from Rule 10 Permit Requirements.
Available online: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/sd/curhtml/
R11.htm>. Accessed 17 October 2007.
SDSU 2007 San Diego State University (SDSU). 2007. Tijuana River
Watershed. Available online:
<http://trw.sdsu.edu/English/WshdOverw/wshOverwFrame.htm
>. Accessed 15 October 2007.
SeaWorld Inc. SeaWorld Inc. 2007. FY 2005-2006 Tijuana River Watershed
2007 Urban Runoff Management Program. Prepared by San Diego
County, City of San Diego, and City of Imperial Beach.
Available online:
<http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/wurmp/tj_2006_annual_r
eport.pdf>. Accessed 16 October 2007.
TopoZone.co TopoZone.com. 2007. USGS Otay Mountain and Tecate
m. 2007a topographic maps. Copyright TopoZone.com © 1999–2003
Maps a la carte, Inc. Available online:
<http://www.topozone.com>. Accessed 28 September 2007.
U.S. Census United States Census Bureau. 2007. State and County
Bureau 2007 Quickfacts. Available online:
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html>.
USACE 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands
Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, USACE
Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
USACE 1999 USACE. 1999. Draft Environmental Baseline Document ISO
the Supplemental Programmatic EIS for INS and JTF-6
Activities Along the U.S./Mexico Border. Volume 5: California
Study Area. March 1999.

7-3
FME000366
USACE 2000 USACE. 2000. Final Environmental Assessment for the

Proposed JTF-5 Levee Road Maintenance and Repair Project,
Brownsville, Texas. Prepared for Joint Task Force Six, Fort
Bliss, Texas. Prepared by USACE, Fort Worth District. April
2000.
USACE 2007 USACE. 2007. Draft Biological Survey Report: USBP San
Diego Sector, Brown Field Station. October 2007.
USBP 2004 U.S. Border Patrol. 2004. National Border Patrol Strategy,
September 2004. Available online:
<http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/border_security/border_p
atrol/border_patrol_ohs/national_bp_strategy.ctt/national_bp_st
rategy.pdf>. Accessed 21 October 2007.
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Undated. Visual
undated Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.
USEPA 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. “Noise
from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building
Equipment, and Home Appliances.” NTID 300-1.
USEPA 1974 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974.
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety. March 1974.
USEPA 2006a USEPA. 2006. “National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”
Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html>.
USEPA 2006b USEPA. 2006. AirData NET Tier Report for Southeast Desert
AQCR Available online:
<http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html>. Accessed 3
October 2007.
USEPA 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2007. Green
Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available
online: < http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk>. Accessed 3
October 2007.
Wikipedia Wikipedia. 2007. Tijuana River. Available online:
2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijuana_River>. Accessed 15
October 2007.
1

7-4
FME000367
8. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic EIR Environmental Impact

meter Report
°F degrees Fahrenheit EIS Environmental Impact
ADNL A-weighted day-night Statement
average sound level EO Executive Order
AO Area of Operations EOMSP East Otay Mesa Specific
AQCR air quality control region Plan
ATV all-terrain vehicles ESA Endangered Species Act
BLM Bureau of Land FEMA Federal Emergency
Management Management Agency
BMP Best Management FIRM Flood Insurance Rate
Practice Map
BO Biological Opinion FONSI Finding of No Significant
Impact
CAA Clean Air Act
FPPA Farmland Protection
Cal/EPA California Environmental Policy Act
Protection Agency
FY fiscal year
CARB California Air Resources
Board LWC low water crossings
CEQ Council on MD Management Directive
Environmental Quality mg/m3 milligrams per cubic
CEQA California Environmental meter
Quality Act MSL mean sea level
CFR Code of Federal NAAQS National Ambient Air
Regulations Quality Standards
CO carbon monoxide NEPA National Environmental
COC constituents of concern Policy Act
CPUC California Public Utilities NO2 nitrogen dioxide
Commission NOI Notice of Intent
CWA Clean Water Act NOP Notice of Preparation
CY calendar year NOx Nitrogen oxide
dBA A-weighted decibels NPDES National Pollutant
DHS U.S. Department of Discharge Elimination
Homeland Security System
EA Environmental NRCS Natural Resources
Assessment Conservation Services
ECSO Engineering Construction O3 ozone
Support Office

8-1
FME000368
OMW Otay Mountain SWRCB State Water Resources

Wilderness Control Board
OSHA Occupational Safety and TMDL Total Maximum Daily
Health Administration Loads
P.L. Public Law tpy tons per year
Pb lead TSS total suspended solids
PM10 particles equal to or less U.S.C. United States Code
than 10 microns in USACE U.S. Army Corps of
diameter Engineers
PM2.5 particles equal to or less USBP U.S. Border Patrol
than 2.5 microns in
diameter USEPA U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
POE Port of Entry
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife
ppm parts per million Service
PSD Prevention of Significant VOC volatile organic
Deterioration compound
ROW right-of-way
ROI Region of Influence
RWQCB Regional Water Quality
Control Board
SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality
Standards
SDCAPCD San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District
SDCAQCD San Diego County Air
Quality Control District
SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
SDIAQCR San Diego Interstate Air
Quality Control Region
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SHPO State Historic
Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation
Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SRPL Sunrise Powerlink
Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
8-2
FME000369
9. LIST OF PREPARERS
This EIS has been prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

(e²M) under the direction of USBP. The individuals that contributed to the
preparation of this document are listed below.
(b) (6) (b) (6)
B.A. Geography M.S. Biology
Years of Experience: 2 B.S. Environmental Studies
Years of Experience: 3
(b) (6)
M.P.A. Public Administration (b) (6)
B.S. Political Science Ph.D. Anthropology
Years of Experience: 7 B.A. Anthropology and Archaeology
(b) (6)
M.S. Natural Resources (b) (6)
B.S. Applied Biology B.A. Geography
Years of Experience: 31 GIS Professional Certificate
(b) (6)
M.S. Environmental Sciences and (b) (6)
Engineering M.S. Environmental Studies
B.S. Geology B.S. Earth Science and Geography
Certificate of Water Quality Years of Experience: 10
Management
(b) (6)
B.S. Environmental Science
(b) (6) Registered Environmental
B.S. Geology Professional
USACE Certified Wetland Delineator Years of Experience: 12
Certified Professional Soil Scientist
(b) (6)
M.A. Anthropology
(b) (6) Years of Experience: 15
Ph.D. Mass Communications
(b) (6)
B.A. Journalism
Years of Experience: 22 B.S. Biology
Certificate of Environmental
(b) (6) Management
B.S. Economics Years of Experience: 17
M.S. Economics
(b) (6)
M.A. Anthropology

9-1
FME000370
(b) (6) (b) (6)

B.S. Environmental Policy and B.S. Natural Resource Management
Planning J.D. with Certificate in Environmental
Years of Experience: 3 Law
(b) (6)
M.S. Environmental Science (b) (6)
M.A. Political Science/International B.S. Environmental Studies
Economics Years of Experience: 8
B.A. Political Science
(b) (6)
Sammons/Dutton LLC
(b) (6) B.S. Civil Engineering
M.B.A. Business Administration Graduate Studies, City and Regional
B.S. Forestry and Natural Resources Planning
Management Years of Experience: 43
(b) (6)
(b) (6) B.S. Biology
Ph.D. Biochemistry Years of Experience: 4
B.S. Chemistry
(b) (6)
Registered Environmental Manager
Years of Experience: 23 B.S. Biology
M.S. Biology
(b) (6) Ph.D. Biology
A.A.S. Nursing Years of Experience: 22
(b) (6)
(b) (6) B.S. Biology
M.S. Historic Preservation Ph.D. Botany
M.S. Anthropology Years of Experience: 24
B.S. Anthropology
(b) (6)
B.S. Geography
(b) (6) Years of Experience: 2
(b) (6)
B.A. Communications
Years of Experience: 6 Masters of Engineering
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
B.A. Environmental Science
B.A. Business Administration B.S. Biology
Years of Experience: 9 M.S. Environmental Science and
Education

9-2
FME000371
(b) (6)
Masters in Public Policy
B.A. Economics and Political
Science
(b) (6)
B.S. Environmental Studies
(b) (6)
B.S. Biology
M.S. Biology
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
M.S. Resource
Economics/Environmental
Management
B.A. Political Science
(b) (6)
M.S. Fisheries Science
B.S. Marine Science
(b) (6)

9-3
FME000372
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

9-4

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000227-FME000372 Draft EIS Oct 2007 (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME000227-FME000372 Draft EIS Oct 2007 (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FME000227

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PRELIMINARY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR

Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in San Diego County,

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction,

Report Designation: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Abstract: USBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately

Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering Construction Support

You may submit comments to CBP by contacting the SBInet, Tactical

(a) Electronically through the Web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com;

Your comments on this document are requested. Comments will normally be

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

17 PURPOSE AND NEED

29 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

14 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

21 Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of fence segments in areas

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

33 Route B would provide our alternative alignment to avoid or minimize

1 consultation with cooperating agencies to identify a route alternative with fewer

9 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

19 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts by Alternative

2 [[Preparer’s Note: This table will be populated once the analysis is

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Table ES-2. Mitigation Recommendations

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 Table ES-2. Mitigation Recommendations (continued)

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 3.5.2 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 3-12

1 4.9.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................. 4-24

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

31 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

33 • Prevention of terrorists and terrorist weapons, including weapons of mass

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS

Figure 1.1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

16 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

29 In many areas fences are a critical element of border security. To achieve

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 operational challenges in these areas, USBP needs to construct, maintain, and

4 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

13 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

21 1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act

33 The process for implementing NEPA is codified in 40 Code of Federal

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 An EIS is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potential

5 • The need for the Proposed Action

23 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

32 1.4.2 California Environmental Quality Act

15 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

35 In addition to the NOI published in the Federal Register, newspaper notices

San Diego Tactical Infrastructure EIS October 2007

1 environmental concerns such agencies might have regarding the Proposed

10 Anyone wishing to provide written comments, suggestions, or relevant

14 a. Electronically through the Web site at: www.BorderFenceNEPA.com

26 1.6 COOPERATING AGENCIES

20 The IBWC is an international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican