CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME002758-FME003135 El Centro DEA - 01.03.08 (Final)

FME002758
Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector, California
FME002759
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter CO2 carbon dioxide
°C degrees Celsius CPUC California Public Utilities
AACRP All-American Canal Relining Commission
Project CRS Congressional Research
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Service
Preservation CWA Clean Water Act
APE area of potential effect CY calendar year
AQCR air quality control region dBA A-weighted decibels
ARPA Archaeological Resources DDE dichlorodiphenyldichloroethyl
Protection Act ene
AST aboveground storage tank DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroetha
BLM Bureau of Land Management ne
BMP Best Management Practice DHS U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
C&D construction and demolition
DTSC Department of Toxic
CAA Clean Air Act
Substance Control
Cal/EPA California Environmental
EA Environmental Assessment
Protection Agency
EIS Environmental Impact
Caltrans California Department of
Statement
Transportation
EO Executive Order
CARB California Air Resources
Board ESA Endangered Species Act
CBP U.S. Customs and Border FAC Facultative
Protection FACU Facultative Upland
CCR California Code of FACW Facultative Wetland
Regulations FEMA Federal Emergency
CDFG California Department of Fish Management Agency
and Game FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
CEQ Council on Environmental FONSI Finding of No Significant
Quality Impact
CEQA California Environmental ft3/s cubic feet per second
Quality Act FTHL flat-tailed horned lizard
CERCLA Comprehensive FY fiscal year
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability IBWC International Boundary and
Act Water Commission
CESA California Endangered ICAPCD Imperial County Air Pollution
Species Act Control District
CFR Code of Federal Regulations MA Management Areas
CIWMB California Integrated Waste ICAQCD Imperial County Air Quality
Management Board Control District
CM&R Construction, Mitigation, and MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Restoration m meter
CO carbon monoxide continued on back cover →
FME002760
← continued from front cover RCRA Resource Conservation and

MD Management Directive Recovery Act
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter ROI Region of Influence
MSL mean sea level ROW right-of-way
NA No Agreement RWQCB Regional Water Quality
Control Board
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality
Standards SAAQS State Ambient Air Quality
Standards
NADB North American Data Base
SARA Superfund Amendments and
NAGPRA Native American Graves
Reauthorization Act
Protection and Repatriation
Act SDAQCR Southeast Desert Air Quality
Control Region
NEPA National Environmental
Policy Act SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric
ng/g nanograms per gram SHPO State Historic Preservation
Office
Ng/L nanograms per Liter
SIP State Implementation Plan
NHPA National Historic Preservation
Act SO2 sulfur dioxide
NRHP National Register of Historic SPCC Spill Prevention Control and
Places Countermeasure
NO No Occurrence SR State Route
NO2 nitrogen dioxide SWPPP Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
NOA Notice of Availability
SWRCB State Water Resources
NOx Nitrogen oxides
Control Board
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
Elimination System
U.S.C. United States Code
NRCS Natural Resources
Conservation Service UPL Obligate Upland
O3 ozone USACE U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
OHV off-highway vehicle
USBP U.S. Border Patrol
ORV off-road vehicle
USEPA U.S. Environmental
OSHA Occupational Safety and
Protection Agency
Health Administration
USIBWC United States Section,
P.L. Public Law
International Boundary and
Pb lead Water Commission
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
PM10 particles equal to or less than USGS U.S. Geological Survey
10 microns in diameter
UST underground storage tank
PM2.5 particles equal to or less than
VOC volatile organic compound
2.5 microns in diameter
VRM Visual Resource
POE Port of Entry
Management
ppm parts per million
RA Research Area
FME002761
FME002762
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FME002763
FME002764
COVER SHEET
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. BORDER PATROL EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP).
Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), El Centro Field

Office; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Los Angeles District; and the
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission
(USIBWC).
Affected Location: U.S./Mexico international border in Imperial County,

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

and maintenance of tactical infrastructure, to include primary pedestrian and
vehicle fence, patrol roads, lighting, and access roads along approximately 44.6
miles of the U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP El Centro Sector.
The Proposed Action would be implemented in six discrete sections. Individual
sections would range from approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length.
Report Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).
Abstract: CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate approximately

44.6 miles of tactical infrastructure, including five sections of fence, lighting, and
patrol roads; one section of lighting only; and access roads along the
U.S./Mexico international border in Imperial County, California. Individual
sections would range from approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length. The
proposed tactical infrastructure would encroach on multiple privately owned land
parcels and public lands managed by the BLM.
The EA will analyze and document potential environmental consequences

associated with the Proposed Action. If the analyses presented in the EA
indicate that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in significant
environmental or socioeconomic impacts, then a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) will be prepared. If potential environmental concerns arise that cannot
be mitigated to insignificance, a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) would be required.
Throughout the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, the public
may obtain information concerning the status and progress of the Proposed
Action and the EA via the project Web site at www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by
emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com; or by written request to Mr.
(b) (6) Environmental Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
FME002765
Worth District, Engineering and Construction Support Office, 814 Taylor Street,
Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX 76102, Fax: (757) 229-5585.
You may submit written comments on this Draft EA to CBP. 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 ECcomments@BorderFenceNEPA.com
(c) By mail to El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA, c/o e2M, 2751
Prosperity Avenue, Suite 200, Fairfax, Virginia 22031
(d) By fax to (757) 299-5585.
Privacy Notice
Your comments on this document are due by January 24, 2008. Comments will
be addressed in the Final EA and made available to the public. Any personal
information included in comments will therefore be publicly available.
FME002766
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE
U.S. BORDER PATROL EL CENTRO SECTOR,
CALIFORNIA
U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Border Patrol
DECEMBER 2007
This document printed on paper that contains at least 30 percent postconsumer fiber.
FME002767
FME002768
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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 (USBP) proposes to construct, maintain,
5 and operate approximately 44.6 miles of tactical infrastructure along the
6 U.S./Mexico international border near Calexico, Imperial County, California.
7 The mission of CBP is to prevent terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
8 the United States, while also facilitating the flow of legitimate trade and travel. In
9 supporting CBP’s mission, USBP is charged with establishing and maintaining
10 effective control of the border of the United States. USBP’s mission strategy
11 consists of five main objectives:
12 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their

13 weapons as they attempt to enter illegally between the Ports of Entry
14 (POEs)
15 • Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement
16 • Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other
17 contraband
18 • Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement
19 personnel
20 • Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of
21 life and economic vitality of targeted areas.
22 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared through coordination

23 with Federal and state agencies to identify and assess the potential impacts
24 associated with the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance of
25 tactical infrastructure. This EA is also being prepared to fulfill the requirements of
26 the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the California
27 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
28 PURPOSE AND NEED

29 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP
30 El Centro Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical
31 infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and
32 tactical assets. USBP El Centro Sector has identified six discrete areas along
33 the U.S./Mexico international border that experience high levels of illegal cross-
34 border activity. This activity occurs in areas that are remote and not easily
35 accessed by USBP agents, near POEs where concentrated populations might
36 live on either side of the border, or have quick access to U.S. transportation
37 routes.
Draft EA January 2008

ES-1
FME002769
1 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border

2 activity in the USBP El Centro Sector. The Proposed Action would provide
3 USBP agents with the tools necessary to strengthen their control of the U.S.
4 borders between POEs in USBP El Centro Sector. The Proposed Action would
5 help to deter illegal cross-border activities within the USBP El Centro Sector by
6 improving enforcement, preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering
7 the United States, reducing the flow of illegal drugs and other contraband, and
8 enhancing response time, while providing a safer work environment for USBP
9 agents.
10 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
11 CBP notified relevant Federal, state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action
12 and requested input regarding environmental concerns they might have. CBP
13 has coordinated with agencies such as the BLM; U.S. Environmental Protection
14 Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); California State
15 Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local
16 agencies. Input from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis
17 of potential environmental impacts.
18 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
19 in the Imperial Valley Press, to solicit comments on the Proposed Action and
20 involve the local community in the decisionmaking process. Comments from the
21 public and other Federal, state, and local agencies will be incorporated into the
22 Final EA.
23 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

24 CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
25 consisting of four discrete sections of primary pedestrian fence, lighting, and
26 patrol roads; one section of primary vehicle fence, lighting, and patrol roads; one
27 section of lighting; and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border
28 in the USBP El Centro Sector, California. Proposed tactical infrastructure
29 includes installation of fence sections in areas of the border that are not currently
30 fenced. The proposed locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP
31 El Centro Sector assessment of local operational requirements where such
32 infrastructure would assist USBP agents in reducing illegal cross-border
33 activities. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.]
34 109-295) provided (b) (4) under the Border Security Fencing,
35 Infrastructure, and Technology appropriation for the installation of fencing,
36 infrastructure, and technology along the border.

ES-2
FME002770
1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
2 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
3 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
4 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
5 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
6 within USBP El Centro Sector. The USBP El Centro Sector would continue to
7 use agents and technology to identify illegal cross-border activity, and deploy
8 agents to make apprehensions. Although USBP agents would continue to patrol
9 the U.S./Mexico international border within the USBP El Centro Sector and make
10 apprehensions, their response time and success rate in apprehensions would
11 continue to be impeded. The No Action Alternative is no longer an efficient use
12 of USBP resources and would not meet future USBP mission or operational
13 needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is prescribed by the
14 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and will be carried forward
15 for analysis in the EA. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline
16 against which to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.
17 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

18 Under this alternative, five discrete sections of primary pedestrian and vehicle
19 fence, lighting, and patrol roads; one section of lighting; and access roads would
20 be constructed along the U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP El Centro
21 Sector, Imperial County, California. Individual sections would range from
22 approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length.
23 In alignment with Federal mandates, each proposed tactical infrastructure section

24 would be an individual project and could proceed to completion independent of
25 the other sections. USBP has identified these areas where a fence would
26 contribute significantly to its priority homeland security mission.
27 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

28 Under this alternative, two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary
29 pedestrian fence, would be constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the
30 same alignment as Alternative 2. This alternative would be most closely aligned
31 with fence described in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, P.L. 109-367, 120 Stat.
32 2638, codified at 8 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1701.
33 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
34 patrol roads. The patrol roads would be constructed between the primary and
35 secondary pedestrian fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this
36 alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2.

ES-3
FME002771
1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

2 Table ES-1 provides an overview of potential impacts anticipated under each
3 alternative considered, broken down by resource area. Section 3 of this EA
4 addresses these impacts in more detail.
5 CBP would follow design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and
6 would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
7 environmental impacts. Design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts
8 include consulting with Federal and state agencies and other stakeholders to
9 avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and develop appropriate Best
10 Management Practices (BMPs), and avoiding physical disturbance and
11 construction of solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds. BMPs
12 would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration
13 (CM&R) Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; Dust
14 Control Plan; Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; and Unanticipated
15 Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect natural and cultural resources.
16

ES-4
FME002772
1 Table ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts, by Alternative
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Land Use Long-term minor to Long-term minor Adverse impacts
major adverse adverse and would be similar to,
impacts would be beneficial impacts but slightly greater
expected. would be expected. than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Geology and Long-term minor Short- and long-term Adverse impacts
Soils adverse impacts minor adverse would be similar to,
would be expected. impacts would be but slightly greater
expected. than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Hydrology and Long-term minor Short-term minor Adverse impacts
Groundwater adverse impacts adverse impacts would be similar to,
would be expected. would be expected. but slightly greater
than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Surface Waters Long-term minor Short-term minor Adverse impacts
and Waters of the adverse impacts adverse impacts to would be similar to,
U.S. would be expected. wetlands would be but slightly greater
described under
Alternative 2.
Floodplains No impacts would Short-term minor Adverse impacts
be expected. adverse effects would be similar to,
would be expected. but slightly greater
than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Vegetation Long-term minor to Short- and long-term Adverse impacts
Resources major adverse minor adverse would be similar to,
impacts would be impacts would be but slightly greater
expected. expected. than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Wildlife and Long-term minor Short- and long-term Adverse impacts
Aquatic adverse impacts negligible to would be similar to,
Resources would be expected. moderate adverse but slightly greater
and minor beneficial than, the impacts
impacts would be described under
expected. Alternative 2.

ES-5
FME002773
Alternative 3:
Alternative 1: No Alternative 2:
Resource Area Secure Fence Act
Action Alternative Proposed Action
Alignment
Threatened and Long-term minor to Short- and long-term Adverse impacts
Endangered moderate adverse minor adverse and would be similar to,
Species impacts would be long-term minor but slightly greater
expected. beneficial impacts than, the impacts
would be expected. described under
Alternative 2.
Cultural, Historic, Long-term No impacts would No impacts would
and Negligible adverse be expected. be expected.
Archeological impacts would be
Resources expected.
Air Quality No new impacts Major short-term Major short-term
would be expected.. adverse impacts adverse impacts
would be expected. would be expected.
Noise No new impacts Short-term Adverse impacts
would be expected. moderate adverse would be similar to,
impacts would be but slightly greater
described under
Alternative 2.
Visual Resources No new impacts Short- and long-term Adverse impacts
would be expected. minor to major would be similar to,
adverse impacts but slightly greater
would be expected. than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Solid and No new impacts Short-term Adverse impacts
Hazardous Waste would be expected. negligible adverse would be similar to,
and Hazardous impacts would be but slightly greater
Materials expected. than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.
Socioeconomics, Long-term minor to Short-term minor Adverse and
Environmental major adverse beneficial impacts beneficial impacts
Justice, and impacts would be would be expected. would be similar to,
Protection of expected. but slightly greater
Children than, the impacts
described under
Alternative 2.

ES-6
FME002774
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FME002775
FME002776
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

U.S. BORDER PATROL EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................. INSIDE FRONT AND BACK COVERS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ ES-1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 USBP BACKGROUND............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .............................................................................................. 1-3
1.3 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................ 1-3
1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 1-4
1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 1-5
1.6 COOPERATING AND COORDINATING AGENCIES ................................................ 1-7
1.7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ..................................................... 1-8
2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 2-1
2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES ........................................................ 2-1
2.2 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative .............................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ..................................................................... 2-2
2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative ................................ 2-6
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER
DETAILED ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 2-6
2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure............................. 2-6
2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure................................................. 2-8
2.4 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....................................... 2-9
2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED, LEAST-DAMAGING
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. 2-9
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................... 3-1
3.1 LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 3-2
3.1.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................... 3-2
3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3-3
3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................. 3-4
3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...................................................................... 3-5
3.3 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ...................................................................... 3-9
3.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-10
3.4 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES............................ 3-11
3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................. 3-13

i
FME002777

3.5 FLOODPLAINS ........................................................................................................ 3-24
3.6 VEGETATION RESOURCES .................................................................................. 3-26
3.7 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES................................................................ 3-30
3.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...................................................... 3-34
3.9 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................... 3-40
3.10 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 3-45
3.11 NOISE ...................................................................................................................... 3-55
3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES............................................................................................. 3-59
3.13 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................. 3-63
3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN............................................................................................................... 3-66
4. CUMULATIVE AND OTHER IMPACTS .............................................................................. 4-1
4.1 LAND USE ................................................................................................................. 4-4
4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................................. 4-4
4.3 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER ...................................................................... 4-4
4.4 SURFACE WATER AND WATERS OF THE U.S. ..................................................... 4-9
4.5 FLOODPLAINS .......................................................................................................... 4-9
4.6 VEGETATION RESOURCES .................................................................................... 4-9
4.7 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES.................................................................. 4-9
4.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES...................................................... 4-10
4.9 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................... 4-10
4.10 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................... 4-10
4.11 NOISE ...................................................................................................................... 4-10
4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES............................................................................................. 4-11
4.13 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................. 4-11
ii
FME002778
4.14 SOCIOECONOMIS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN............................................................................................................... 4-11
4.15 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ........ 4-12
4.16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ............................................ 4-13
5. MITIGATION PLAN AND CEQA FINDINGS ....................................................................... 5-1
6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 6-1
7. LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................................ 7-1
APPENDICES
A. Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure
B. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
C. Public Involvement and Agency Coordination
D. Biological Survey Report
E. Cultural Resources Survey
F. Air Quality Emissions Calculations

iii
FME002779
FIGURES
1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure.................................................................. 1-2
2-1. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2 ............................................................ 2-5
2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3 ............................................................ 2-7
3.11-1. Common Sound Levels .................................................................................................. 3-57
TABLES
ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts, by Alternative ............................................ 5

1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination ...................................................... 1-5
2-1. Proposed Tactical Infrastructure for USBP El Centro Sector ................................................. 2-3
2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives......................................................................................... 2-9
3.2-1. Properties of the Soil Types Found Throughout the Areas of the Proposed Action ............ 3-6
3.4-1. Wetland Indicator Status .................................................................................................. 3-18
3.8-1. State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Near Project Area in
Imperial County .............................................................................................................. 3-36
3.9-1. Recorded Sites Within or Adjacent to the APE by Section ............................................... 3-43
3.10-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ......................................................... 3-47
3.10-2. Conformity de minimis Emissions Thresholds ................................................................ 3-50
3.10-3. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates from the Proposed Action ............... 3-51
3.10-4. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions from Alternative 3 ....................... 3-54
3.11-1. Predicted Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ....................................................... 3-58
3.14-1. Employment Type of Residents in ROI, Imperial County, and the State of
California ........................................................................................................................ 3-68
3.14-2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the ROI, Imperial County, and the
State of California ........................................................................................................... 3-69
4.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects........................................................................... 4-5
5.0-1. Mitigation Monitoring Program for El Centro Tactical Infrastructure ................................... 5-2

iv
FME002780
SECTION 1
Introduction
FME002781
FME002782
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border
3 Protection (CBP), U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) proposes to construct, maintain,
4 and operate approximately 44.6 miles of tactical infrastructure along the
5 U.S./Mexico international border near Calexico, Imperial County, California.
6 Proposed tactical infrastructure would consist of five discrete sections of primary
7 pedestrian and vehicle fence, lighting, and patrol roads; one section of lighting;
8 and access roads within USBP’s El Centro Sector. Individual sections would
9 range from approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length (see Figure 1-1). The
10 locations of the individual tactical infrastructure sections were proposed based on
11 the situational and operational requirements of USBP El Centro Sector. Each
12 tactical infrastructure section represents an individual infrastructure project and
13 could proceed independent of the other sections. The proposed fence and
14 tactical infrastructure would cross multiple privately owned land parcels and
15 public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
16 This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is divided into seven sections plus
17 appendices. Section 1 provides background information on USBP missions,
18 identifies the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action, describes the area in
19 which the Proposed Action would occur, and explains the public involvement
20 process. Section 2 provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action,
21 alternatives considered, and the No Action Alternative. Section 3 describes, in
22 detail, the existing environmental conditions and potential environmental impacts
23 that could occur from each alternative. Section 4 discusses potential cumulative
24 and other impacts that might result from implementation of the Proposed Action,
25 combined with foreseeable future actions. Section 5 discusses potential
26 mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects. Sections 6 and 7 provide a list
27 of references and preparers for the EA, respectively.
28 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

34 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their

36 (POEs)
37 • Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement
38 • Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other
39 contraband
40
1-1
4
3
2
1
Proposed Action Route
Salton
Wilderness Area Los
Sea Calipatria
Draft EA
Angeles California
FME002783
r
U.S./Mexico
ve
i
International Border 30
do R
115 Salton
ra
Sea
Arizona
Ports of Entry San
Co lo
Phoenix
Diego
B-1 Fence Section Label 111
Tijuana
Miles
26
0 2.5 5 10 El Centro
Scale U n i t e d S t a t e s Sector
Projection: Albers
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic Pacific
North American Datum of 1983 Ocean Mex ico
Gulf
ver
Brawley of
r
California
e
iv
R
w
27
Ne
Alamo Ri
86
California
28
Rd
1-2
Imperial
H u ff
Ocotillo
80
El Centro
31 32
111 115
Hotville
30
8
Jacumba Mcc a
be Rd 33
Wilderness
Rd
H unt
Heber Rd
Hebe
r
r Rd
98
er R d
29 d
Bow ke
rR
s Co rn
K effe
Calexico 98
Bon d
B-5A
B-1 B-5B
B-2 B-3 8
Calexico West
Calexico East
(Service Port) B-4
M e x i c o
Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005
Figure 1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

January 2008
FME002784
1 • Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement

2 personnel
3 • Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of
5 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
6 Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel,
7 technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The
8 El Centro Sector is responsible for Imperial and Riverside counties in California.
9 The areas affected by the Proposed Action include the southernmost portion of
10 Imperial County. Within the USBP El Centro Sector, areas for tactical
11 infrastructure improvements have been identified that would help the Sector gain
12 more effective control of the border and significantly contribute to USBP’s priority
13 mission of homeland security.
14 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

15 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to increase border security within USBP
16 El Centro Sector through the construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical
17 infrastructure in the form of fences, roads, and supporting technological and
18 tactical assets. USBP El Centro Sector has identified six discrete areas along
19 the border that experience high levels of illegal cross-border activity. This activity
20 occurs in areas that are remote and not easily accessed by USBP agents, near
21 POEs where concentrated populations might live on either side of the border, or
22 have quick access to U.S. transportation routes.
23 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border

24 activity in the USBP El Centro Sector. The Proposed Action would provide
25 USBP agents with the tools necessary to strengthen their control of the U.S.
26 borders between POEs in the USBP El Centro Sector. The Proposed Action
27 would help to deter illegal cross-border activities within the USBP El Centro
28 Sector by improving enforcement, preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons
29 from entering the United States, reducing the flow of illegal drugs and other
30 contraband, and enhancing response time, while providing a safer work
31 environment for USBP agents.
32 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

33 CBP proposes to construct, operate, and maintain tactical infrastructure
35 roads; one section of primary vehicle fence, lighting, and roads; one section of
36 lighting; and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border in the
37 USBP El Centro Sector, California (examples of primary pedestrian fence are
38 included in Appendix A). Proposed tactical infrastructure includes installation of
39 fence sections in areas of the border that are not currently fenced. The proposed
40 locations of tactical infrastructure are based on a USBP El Centro Sector

1-3
FME002785
1 assessment of local operational requirements where such infrastructure would

2 assist USBP agents in reducing illegal cross-border activities. The Fiscal Year
3 (FY) 2007 DHS Appropriations Act (Public Law [P.L.] 109-295) provided
4 $1,187,565,000 under the Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and
5 Technology appropriation for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and
6 technology along the border (CRS 2006). Figure 1-1 illustrates the location of
7 the proposed tactical infrastructure within the El Centro Sector. Details of the
8 Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2. CBP has identified the Proposed
9 Action as its Preferred Alternative.
10 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

11 The process for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is
12 codified in Code of Federal Regulations 40 (CFR) Parts 1500–1508, Regulations
13 for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy
14 Act, and DHS’s related Management Directive (MD) 5100.1, Environmental
15 Planning Program. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) was
16 established under NEPA to implement and oversee Federal policy in this
17 process.
18 An EA is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potentially

19 “significant” environmental impacts, or a proposed action is environmentally
20 controversial. CEQ regulations specify that the following must be accomplished
21 when preparing an EA:
22 • Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare

23 an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant
24 Impact (FONSI)
25 • Aid in an agency’s compliance with NEPA when an EIS is unnecessary
26 • Facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.
27 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
28 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
29 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
30 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
31 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which
32 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major
33 environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action.
34 According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated
35 “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by
36 agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
37 Within the framework of environmental impact analysis under NEPA, additional

38 authorities that may be applicable include the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water
39 Act (CWA) (including a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
40 [NPDES] storm water discharge permit and Section 404 permit), Section 10 of

1-4
FME002786
1 the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Noise Control Act, Endangered Species Act
2 (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), National Historic Preservation Act
3 (NHPA), Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), Resource
4 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
5 and various Executive Orders (EOs). A summary of laws, regulations, and EOs
6 that might be applicable to the Proposed Action are shown in Appendix B.
7 Table 1-1 lists major Federal and state permits, approvals, and interagency
8 coordination required to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed tactical
9 infrastructure.
10 Table 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination
Agency Permit/Approval/Coordination
- Section 7 ESA consultation
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. - MBTA coordination
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Special Use Permits for access to National
Wildlife Refuge areas
U.S. Environmental Protection
- CWA NPDES permit
Agency (USEPA)
- CWA Section 404 permit Rivers and Harbors
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Act of 1899, Section 10
San Diego Regional Water Quality - CWA Section 401 State Water Quality
Control Board Certification
San Diego Air Pollution Control
- CAA permit consultation
District
California Department of Fish and - California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
Game (CDFG) coordination
California State Historic Preservation
- NHPA Section 106 consultation
Office (SHPO)
Federally recognized American Indian - Consultation regarding potential effects on
Tribes cultural resources
Advisory Council on Historic
- NHPA Section 106 consultation
Preservation (ACHP)
11 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

12 Agency and public involvement in the NEPA process promotes open
13 communication between the public and the government and enhances the
14 decisionmaking process. All persons or organizations having a potential interest
15 in the Proposed Action are encouraged to participate in the decisionmaking
16 process.
17 NEPA and implementing regulations from the President’s CEQ and DHS direct
18 agencies to make their EAs and EISs available to the public during the
1-5
FME002787
1 decisionmaking process and prior to actions being taken. The premise of NEPA
2 is that the quality of Federal decisions will be enhanced if proponents provide
3 information to the public and involve the public in the planning process.
4 Through the public involvement process, CBP notified relevant Federal, state,
5 and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input regarding
6 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
7 public involvement process provides CBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
8 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
9 Federal proposal. As part of the EA process, CBP has coordinated with
10 agencies such as the BLM; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA);
11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); California State Historic Preservation
12 Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix C).
13 Input from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential
14 environmental impacts.
15 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
16 in the Imperial Valley Press. This is done to solicit comments on the Proposed
17 Action and involve the local community in the decisionmaking process.
18 Comments from the public and other Federal, state, and local agencies will be
19 incorporated into the Final EA and included in Appendix C.
20 This Draft EA also serves as a public notice regarding impacts on floodplains.

21 EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains unless the agency
22 determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable
23 alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific process must be followed to comply
24 with EO 11988. This eight-step process is detailed in the Federal Emergency
25 Management Agency (FEMA) document “Further Advice on EO 11988
26 Floodplain Management.” The eight steps are as follows:
27 1. Determine whether the action will occur in, or stimulate development in, a
28 floodplain.
29 2. Receive public review/input of the Proposed Action.
30 3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the floodplain.
31 4. Identify the impacts of the Proposed Action (when it occurs in a
32 floodplain).
33 5. Minimize threats to life, property, and natural and beneficial floodplain
34 values, and restore and preserve natural and beneficial floodplain values.
35 6. Reevaluate alternatives in light of any new information that might have
36 become available.
37 7. Issue findings and a public explanation.
38 8. Implement the action.

1-6
FME002788
1 Steps 1, 3, and 4 have been undertaken as part of this Draft EA and are further
2 discussed in Section 3.5. Steps 2 and 6 through 8 are being conducted
3 simultaneously with the EA development process, including public review of the
4 Draft EA. Step 5 relates to mitigation and is currently undergoing development.
5 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
6 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
7 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
8 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
9 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth District, Engineering and
10 Construction Support Office, 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX
11 76102, and Fax: (757) 299-5585.
12 1.6 COOPERATING AND COORDINATING AGENCIES

13 The USACE-Los Angeles District, BLM El Centro Field Office, and the United
14 States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) as
15 cooperating agencies, and the USFWS as a coordinating agency, also have
16 decisionmaking authority for components of the Proposed Action and intend for
17 this EA to fulfill their requirements for compliance with NEPA. The CEQ
18 regulations implementing NEPA instruct agencies to combine environmental
19 documents to reduce duplication and paperwork (40 CFR 1506.4).
20 The USACE-Los Angeles District Engineer has the authority to authorize actions
21 under Section 404 of the CWA. Applications for work involving the discharge of
22 fill material into waters of the United States will be submitted to the USACE-Los
23 Angeles District Regulatory Program Branch for review and a decision on
24 issuance of a permit will be reached.
25 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
26 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
27 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
28 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
29 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
30 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed
31 or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical
32 habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action, to streamline the
33 Section 7 consultation process, to identify the nature and extent of potential
34 effects, and to jointly develop measures that would avoid or reduce potential
35 effects on any species of concern. The USFWS will issue their Biological
36 Opinion of the potential for jeopardy. If their opinion is that the project is not
37 likely to jeopardize any listed species, they can also issue an incidental take
38 statement as an exception to the prohibitions in Section 9 of the ESA.
39 Along some of the proposed fence sections the tactical infrastructure would
40 follow rights-of-ways (ROWs) administered by the USIBWC. The IBWC is an
41 international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each

1-7
FME002789
1 headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president.

2 Each Section is administered independently of the other. The USIBWC is a
3 Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and operates
4 under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State (IBWC 2007). The
5 USIBWC would provide access and ROWs to construct proposed tactical
6 infrastructure within the El Centro Sector. It will also ensure that design and
7 placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not impact flood control
8 process and does not violate treaty obligations between the United States and
9 Mexico.
10 1.7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

11 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as promulgated in the
12 California Public Resources Code §§21000-21177, was adopted in 1970 by the
13 State of California to inform governmental decisionmakers and the public about
14 the potential environmental effects of a project, identify ways to reduce adverse
15 impacts, offer alternatives to the project, and disclose to the public why a project
16 was approved. CEQA applies to projects undertaken, funded, or requiring an
17 issuance of a permit by a public agency. For this project, CEQA is applicable
18 because under Section 401 of the CWA (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1341),
19 states and tribes are delegated authority to approve, condition, or deny all
20 Federal permits of licenses that might result in a discharge to state or tribal
21 waters, including wetlands. Projects that have a potential for resulting in physical
22 change to the environment, and or that might be subject to several discretionary
23 approvals by governmental agencies including construction activities, clearing or
24 grading of land, improvements to existing structures, and activities or equipment
25 involving the issuance of a permit, are required to go through the CEQA process.
26 The California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Section 15063, allow the use
27 of a NEPA document to meet the requirements for an Initial Study under CEQA.
28 A CEQA Initial Study Environmental Checklist has also been prepared to support
29 the Section 401 Application.

1-8
FME002790
SECTION 2
Proposed Action and Alternatives
FME002791
FME002792
1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2 This section provides detailed information on CBP’s proposal to construct,

3 maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure along the U.S./Mexico international
4 border in the El Centro Sector, California. The range of reasonable alternatives
5 considered in this EA is constrained to those that would meet the purpose and
6 need described in Section 1 to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary to
7 achieve effective control of the border in the El Centro Sector. Such alternatives
8 must also meet essential technical, engineering, and economic threshold
9 requirements to ensure that each is environmentally sound, economically viable,
10 and complies with governing standards and regulations.
11 2.1 SCREENING CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES

12 The following screening criteria were used to develop the Proposed Action and
13 evaluate potential alternatives. The USBP El Centro Sector is working to
14 develop the right combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure to
15 meet its objective to gain effective control of the border in the El Centro Sector.
16 • USBP Operational Requirements. The alternative must support USBP

17 mission needs to hinder or delay individuals crossing the border illegally.
18 Once individuals have entered an urban area or suburban neighborhood,
19 it is much more difficult for USBP agents to identify and apprehend
20 suspects engaged in unlawful border entry. In addition, around populated
21 areas it is relatively easy for cross-border violators to find transportation
22 into the interior of the United States.
23 • Threatened or Endangered Species and Critical Habitat. The alternative
24 would be designed to minimize adverse impacts on threatened or
25 endangered species and their critical habitat to the maximum extent
26 practical. CBP is working with the USFWS to identify potential
27 conservation and mitigation measures.
28 • Wetlands and Floodplains. The alternative would be designed to avoid
29 and minimize impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplain
30 resources to the maximum extent practicable. CBP is working with the
31 USACE-Los Angeles District and USIBWC to avoid, minimize, and
32 mitigate potential impacts on wetlands, surface waters, and floodplains.
33 • Cultural and Historic Resources. The alternative would be designed to
34 minimize impacts on cultural and historic resources to the maximum
35 extent practical. CBP is working with the California SHPO to identify
36 potential conservation and mitigation measures.
37 • Suitable Landscape. Some areas of the border have steep topography,

38 highly erodible soils, are in a floodway, or have other characteristics that
39 could compromise the integrity of fence or other tactical infrastructure. For
40 example, in areas susceptible to flash flooding, fence and other tactical
2-1
FME002793
1 infrastructure might be prone to erosion that could undermine the fence’s

2 integrity. Areas with suitable landscape conditions would be prioritized.
3 CBP evaluated a range of possible alternatives to be considered for the

4 Proposed Action, including route alternatives and alternative fence designs.
5 Section 2.2.1 presents the No Action Alternative. Section 2.2.2 provides
6 specific details of the Proposed Action, Section 2.2.3 discusses the Secure
7 Fence Act Alignment Alternative, and Section 2.3 discusses alternatives
8 considered but not analyzed in detail.
9 2.2 ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS

10 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
14 within USBP El Centro Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP
15 mission or operational needs. However, inclusion of the No Action Alternative is
16 prescribed by the CEQ regulations and will be carried forward for analysis in the
17 EA. The No Action Alternative also serves as a baseline against which to
18 evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action.
19 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

20 CBP proposes to construct, maintain, and operate tactical infrastructure
22 patrol roads; one section of primary vehicle fence, lighting, and roads; one
23 section of lighting; and access roads along the U.S./Mexico international border
24 in the El Centro Sector, California. Congress has appropriated funds for the
25 construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure. Construction of additional
26 tactical infrastructure might be required in the future as mission and operational
27 requirements are continually reassessed.
28 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be installed at six distinct sections

29 along the border within USBP El Centro Sector near Calexico, Imperial County,
30 California. These six sections of tactical infrastructure are designated as
31 sections B-1, B-2, B-3 (lighting only)1, B-4, B-5A, and B-5B on Figure 1-1. Table
32 2-1 presents general information for each of the six proposed sections.
33 Individual sections would range from approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length.
34 In alignment with Federal mandates, each proposed tactical infrastructure section
35 would be an individual project and could proceed to completion independent of
1
In January 2004, USBP approved construction of approximately 5 miles of pedestrian fence along the
U.S./Mexico international border starting approximately 2 miles west of the Calexico POE. In August 2007
USBP approved the installation of an additional 2.62 miles of pedestrian fence. This fence is designated
as Section B-3 in this EA.

2-2
FME002794
1 the other sections. USBP has identified these areas where a fence would
2 contribute significantly to its priority homeland security mission.
3 Table 2-1. Proposed Tactical Infrastructure for USBP El Centro Sector
Border Length of
Section General Land Type of Tactical
Patrol New Fence
Number Location Ownership Infrastructure
Station Section
Primary vehicle fence,
El West of Public: BLM-
B-1 lighting, patrol road, 11.3 miles
Centro Pinto managed
access roads
Monument
Primary pedestrian
El 224 to Public: BLM-
B-2 fence, lighting, patrol 2.4 miles
Centro West of managed
road, access roads
Calexico
West of Public: BLM-
B-3 Calexico Lighting (7.4 miles) NA
Calexico managed
Public: BLM-
and Bureau Primary pedestrian
Calexico
B-4 Calexico of fence, lighting, patrol 8.6 miles
East
Reclamation- road, access roads
managed
Public: BLM-
and Bureau Primary pedestrian
Calexico
B-5A Calexico of fence, lighting, patrol 19.3 miles
East
Reclamation- road, access roads
managed
East of
Primary pedestrian
Calexico to Public: BLM-
B-5B Calexico fence, lighting, patrol 3.0 miles
Monument managed
road, access roads
210
Total 44.6 miles
Note: Lighting would be spaced approximately 50 yards apart.
4 Design criteria that have been established based on USBP operational needs
5 require that, at a minimum, any fencing must meet the following requirements:
6 • Built 15 to 18 feet high and extend below ground

7 • Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle
8 traveling at 40 miles per hour
9 • Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration
10 • Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need
11 • Designed to survive extreme climate changes
12 • Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements
2-3
FME002795
1 • Engineered to not impede the natural flow of surface water

2 • Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.
3 Typical primary pedestrian fence designs that could be used are included in
4 Appendix A. The combined preliminary estimate to construct the proposed
5 individual tactical infrastructure sections is approximately $135 million.
6 The proposed tactical infrastructure would be installed approximately 3 feet north

7 of the U.S./Mexico international border within the Roosevelt Reservation.2 The
8 proposed fence would be constructed around IBWC monuments and locked
9 gates would be installed at each monument to allow for access to the
10 monuments. The tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate 60-foot-
11 wide corridor along each fence section. This corridor would include fences,
12 patrol roads, and lighting; and construction staging areas. Access roads would
13 be 30 to 60 feet wide (total disturbance). Vegetation would be cleared and
14 grading could occur where needed. The area that would be permanently
15 impacted by construction of tactical infrastructure would total approximately 324
16 acres. Impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands,
17 would be mitigated.
18 Wherever possible, existing roads and previously disturbed areas would be used
19 for construction access and staging areas. If fill material was needed, the
20 construction contractor would use clean material from commercially available
21 sources that do not pose an adverse impact on biological or cultural resources.
22 Figure 2-1 shows a typical schematic of temporary and permanent impact areas
23 for tactical infrastructure.
24 There would be no overall change in USBP El Centro Sector operations. The

25 USBP El Centro Sector activities routinely adapt to operational requirements, and
26 would continue to do so under this alternative. Overall, USBP El Centro Sector
27 operations would retain the same flexibility to most effectively provide a law
28 enforcement resolution to illegal cross-border activity. Fence maintenance would
29 initially be performed by USBP El Centro Sector personnel, but would eventually
30 become a contractor performed activity.
31 If approved, construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would begin in

32 Spring 2008 and continue through December 31, 2008. Installation of lighting
33 would occur after December 31, 2007.
34
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).

2-4
FME002796
NOT TO SCALE
57
NCE
S RIAN
P
OA
PA RO
3'
60 P RMAN NT I PAC A A
t e
Unite
2 Figure 2-1. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 2

2-5
FME002797
1 Construction of other tactical infrastructure might be required in the future as

2 mission and operational requirements are continually reassessed. To the extent
3 that additional actions are known, they are discussed in Section 4, Cumulative
4 and Other Impacts, of this EA.
5 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

6 An alternative of two layers of fence, known as primary and secondary
7 pedestrian fence, is analyzed in this EA. Under this alternative, the two layers of
8 fence would be constructed approximately 130 feet apart along the same
9 alignment as Alternative 2 and would be most closely aligned with the fence
10 description in the Secure Fence Act of 2006, P.L. 109-367, 120 Stat. 2638,
11 codified at 8 U.S.C. 1701. This alternative would also include construction and
12 maintenance of lighting, patrol roads, and access roads. The lighting and patrol
13 roads would be between the primary and secondary pedestrian fences.
14 Figure 2-2 shows a schematic of typical project corridor areas for this alternative.
15 The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be similar to that
16 of Alternative 2.
17 Construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would impact an approximate

18 150-foot-wide corridor for approximately 44.6 miles along the five fence sections.
19 This construction corridor would accommodate fencing, lighting, patrol roads, and
20 access roads. Vegetation would be cleared and grading would occur where
21 needed. Impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including
22 wetlands, would be mitigated. Wherever possible, existing roads would be used
23 for construction access. This is a viable alternative and is carried forward for
24 detailed analysis in this EA.
25 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER

26 DETAILED ANALYSIS
27 CBP evaluated possible alternatives to be considered as the Proposed Action.
28 This section addresses options that were reviewed but not carried forward for
29 detailed analysis.
30 2.3.1 Additional USBP Agents in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

31 CBP considered the alternative of increasing the number of USBP agents
32 assigned to the U.S./Mexico international border as a means of gaining effective
33 control of the U.S./Mexico international border. Under this alternative, USBP
34 would hire and deploy a significantly larger number of agents than are currently
35 deployed along the U.S./Mexico international border and increase patrols to
36 apprehend cross-border violators. USBP would deploy additional agents as
37 determined by operational needs, but patrols might include 4-wheel drive
38 vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, helicopters, or fixed-wing aircraft. Currently, USBP
39

2-6
FME002798
NOT TO SCALE
FENCE
R MAR FENCE
SE ONDA
OA
PA RO
1 0 P RMAN N IMPAC AR A
t te
Un te
Me
2 Figure 2-2. Schematic of Proposed Impact Areas – Alternative 3
3
2-7
FME002799
1 maintains an aggressive hiring program and a cadre of well-trained disciplined

2 agents.
3 This alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP
4 operational requirements. The physical presence of an increased number of
5 agents could provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into
6 the United States, but the use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed
7 tactical infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective
8 control of the border in the El Centro Sector. The use of physical barriers has
9 been demonstrated to slow cross-border violators and provide USBP agents with
10 additional time to make apprehensions (USACE 2000). Additionally, as tactical
11 infrastructure is built, agents could be more effectively redeployed to secure
12 other areas. A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report (CRS 2006)
13 concluded that USBP border security initiatives within the USBP San Diego
14 Sector such as the 1994 “Operation Gatekeeper” required a 150 percent
15 increase in USBP manpower, lighting, and other equipment. The report states
16 that “It soon became apparent to immigration officials and lawmakers that the
17 USBP needed, among other things, a ‘rigid’ enforcement system that could
18 integrate infrastructure (i.e., multi-tiered fence and roads), manpower, and new
19 technologies to further control the border region” (CRS 2006).
20 Tactical infrastructure, such as a primary pedestrian fence, is a force multiplier to

21 allow USBP to deploy agents efficiently and effectively. As tactical infrastructure
22 is built, some agents would be redeployed to other areas of the border within the
23 sector. Increased patrols would aid in interdiction activities, but not to the extent
24 anticipated under the Proposed Action. As such, this alternative is not practical
25 in the USBP El Centro Sector and will not be carried forward for further detailed
26 analysis.
27 2.3.2 Technology in Lieu of Tactical Infrastructure

28 CBP does and would continue to use various forms of technology to identify
29 cross-border violators. The use of technology in certain sparsely populated
30 areas is a critical component of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) and an
31 effective force multiplier that allows USBP to monitor large areas and deploy
32 agents to where they will be most effective. However, the apprehension of cross-
33 border violators is still performed by USBP agents and other law enforcement
34 agents. In the more densely populated areas within the El Centro Sector,
35 physical barriers represent the most effective means to control illegal entry into
36 the United States, as noted above. The use of technology alone would not
37 provide a practical solution to achieving effective control of the border in the El
38 Centro Sector. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need
39 as described in Section 1.2 and will not be carried forward for further detailed
40 analysis.

2-8
FME002800
1 2.4 SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES

2 Table 2-2 presents a summary comparison of the action alternatives carried
3 forward for analysis in the EA.
4 Table 2-2. Comparison of Action Alternatives
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Description Five individual tactical Five individual tactical
infrastructure sections infrastructure sections composed
composed of primary of primary and secondary
pedestrian, vehicle fence, pedestrian fence constructed 130
lighting, and patrol roads; feet apart, vehicle fence, lighting,
one section of lighting; and and patrol roads between fences;
access roads one section of lighting; and
access roads
Proposed Total
44.6 miles 44.6 miles
Route Length
Proposed Project
60 feet 150 feet
Corridor
Acreage of Proposed
324 acres 810 acres
Project Corridor
5
6 2.5 IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREFERRED, LEAST-DAMAGING

7 PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE
8 CEQ’s implementing regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(c) instructs EA preparers to
9 “Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists,
10 in the draft statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless
11 another law prohibits the expression of such a preference.” CBP has identified
12 the Proposed Action as the environmentally preferred, least-damaging
13 practicable alternative.
14 Implementation of the Proposed Action would meet USBP’s purpose and need
15 described in Section 1.2. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP’s
16 purpose and need. Alternative 3 would meet USBP’s purpose and need
17 described in Section 1.2 but would have greater environmental impacts (e.g.,
18 higher air emissions) compared to the Preferred Alternative. USBP might need
19 to implement this alternative at some point in the future depending on future
20 USBP operational requirements. While USBP believes that this level of tactical
21 infrastructure is not required at this time, it is a viable alternative and will be
22 carried forward for detailed analysis.
23

2-9
FME002801
1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2-10
FME002802
SECTION 3
Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences
FME002803
FME002804
1 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

2 CONSEQUENCES
3 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EA. Some
4 were eliminated from detailed examination because of their inapplicability to this
5 proposal. General descriptions of the eliminated resources and the basis for
6 elimination are described below.
7 In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and DHS MD 5100.1, the
8 following evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and
9 conditions potentially subject to impacts, on potentially significant environmental
10 issues deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some
11 environmental resources and conditions that are often analyzed in an EA have
12 been omitted from detailed analysis. The following provides the basis for such
13 exclusions:
14 Climate. The Proposed Action would neither affect nor be affected by the
15 climate. Emissions and their impact on air quality are discussed in Section 3.10.
16 Utilities and infrastructure. The Proposed Action would not be located in any
17 utility corridors, and would not impact utilities or similar infrastructure. Operation
18 and maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be connected
19 to any utilities.
20 Roadways/Traffic. The Proposed Action is located in remote areas not

21 accessible from public roadways. Construction traffic would have negligible
22 impacts on local traffic patterns. As a result, the Proposed Action would have
23 negligible impacts on transportation and transportation corridors.
24 Sustainability and Greening. EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental,

25 Energy, and Transportation Management (January 24, 2007) promotes
26 environmental practices, including acquisition of biobased, environmentally
27 preferable, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and recycled-content products, and
28 maintenance of cost-effective waste prevention and recycling programs in their
29 facilities. The Proposed Action would use minimal amounts of resources during
30 construction and maintenance and there would be minimal changes in USBP
31 operations. Therefore, the Proposed Action would have negligible impacts on
32 sustainability and greening.
33 Human Health and Safety. Construction site safety is largely a matter of

34 adherence to regulatory requirements imposed for the benefit of employees and
35 implementation of operational practices that reduce risks of illness, injury, death,
36 and property damage. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
37 (OSHA) and the USEPA issue standards that specify the amount and type of
38 training required for industrial workers, the use of protective equipment and

3-1
FME002805
1 clothing, engineering controls, and maximum exposure limits with respect to

2 workplace stressors.
3 Construction workers are exposed to safety risks from the inherent dangers at
4 any construction site. Contractors would be required to establish and maintain
5 safety programs at the construction site. The proposed construction would not
6 expose members of the general public to increased safety risks. Therefore,
7 because the proposed construction would not introduce new or unusual safety
8 risks, and assuming carefully followed construction protocols, detailed
9 examination of safety is not included in this EA.
10 3.1 LAND USE

11 Definition of the Resource
12 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either
13 natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many
14 cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however,
15 no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land
16 use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions,
17 “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions.
18 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
19 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Tools supporting
20 land use planning include master plans/management plans and zoning
21 regulations. Land use constraints due to sound are described in Section 3.11.
22 3.1.1 Affected Environment

23 Land uses in and adjacent to the proposed construction corridor, as categorized
24 by Imperial County, include General Agriculture, Heavy Agriculture, Government
25 Special Use, and BLM Land. General Agriculture Zones are areas that are
26 suitable and intended primarily for agricultural-related compatible uses. Heavy
27 Agricultural Zones are areas suitable for agricultural that prevent the
28 encroachment of incompatible uses onto and within agricultural lands and
29 prohibit the premature conversion of such lands to nonagricultural uses. This
30 land use category is intended to promote the heaviest of agricultural uses in the
31 most suitable land areas of Imperial County. Facilities which are necessary or
32 advantageous to the general welfare of the community are permitted in both the
33 General Agriculture and Heavy Agriculture Zones. These uses are subject to
34 securing a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with standards and procedures
35 in the Imperial County General Plan, Title 9, Division 5 (ICDP 1998).
36 Government Special Public Use Zones are areas for the construction,
37 development, and operation of governmental facilities and special public
38 facilities, such as security facilities, jails, solid and hazardous wastes facilities,
39 and other similar special public benefit uses (ICDP 1998).

3-2
FME002806
1 The remainder of the land is managed by the BLM El Centro Field Office under
2 the California Desert Conservation Act (BLM Undated). The eastern end of the
3 proposed construction corridor ends at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation
4 Area, which is also managed by the BLM.
5 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences

7 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing land uses
8 and their associated impacts, as discussed in Section 3.1.1. No additional
9 effects on land use would be expected as a result of the Proposed Action not
10 being implemented.
12 Long-term, minor, adverse and beneficial direct and indirect effects on land use
13 would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Direct effects would occur in
14 areas characterized as General Agriculture and Heavy Agriculture Zones
15 because small areas would be permanently converted to Government Special
16 Use Zones. These areas are currently near the U.S./Mexico international border
17 and it is likely that the proposed land use change would not result in the loss of
18 agricultural lands. The proposed land use change is permitted within these two
19 land use zones and would be compatible with the adjacent land use (ICPD
20 1998). However, a Conditional Use Permit from Imperial County might be
21 required prior to implementation of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action
22 would have no direct effect on the Government Special Use land use category.
23 Long-term, minor, adverse direct effects on land use would occur on BLM-
24 managed lands in the area of the Proposed Action. It is the mission of the BLM
25 to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use
26 and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Proposed Action would
27 occur in a rural area that is managed by BLM, including an area near the Imperial
28 Sand Dunes Recreation Area at the eastern end of the proposed construction
29 corridor. However, these areas are remote areas along the U.S./Mexico
30 international border. The Proposed Action would not result in a loss of BLM-
31 managed lands. Therefore, the effects would be minor.
32 Indirect beneficial effects could occur as a result of decreased illegal traffic within
33 the areas adjacent to the Proposed Action.
35 Alternative 3 would have similar impacts as Alternative 2, but approximately 2.5

36 times more land would be affected.

3-3
FME002807
1 3.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3 Geological resources consist of the earth’s surface and subsurface materials.

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

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

15 materials and their inherent properties. Principal factors influencing the ability of
16 geological resources to support structural development are seismic properties
17 (i.e., potential for subsurface shifting, faulting, or crustal disturbance),
18 topography, and soil stability.
19 Soils are the unconsolidated materials overlying bedrock or other parent material.
20 They develop from weathering processes on mineral and organic materials and
21 are typically described in terms of their landscape position, slope, and physical
22 and chemical characteristics. Soil types differ in structure, elasticity, strength,
23 shrink-swell potential, drainage characteristics, and erosion potential, which can
24 affect their ability to support certain applications or uses. In appropriate cases,
25 soil properties must be examined for compatibility with particular construction
26 activities or types of land use.
27 Prime farmland is protected under the Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981.
28 Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination of physical and
29 chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed
30 crops, and is also available for these uses. The land could be cropland, pasture,
31 rangeland, or other land, but not urban. The act also ensures that Federal
32 programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, will be
33 compatible with private, state, and local government programs and policies to
34 protect farmland.

36 Physiography and Topography. The USBP El Centro Sector is in the
37 southwestern corner of the Basin and Range physiographic province which is
38 characterized by linear north and south trending valleys and normal fault-block
39 mountain ranges resulting from extension of the Earth's crust. The topographic

3-4
FME002808
1 profile of the USBP El Centro Sector is characterized by gently rolling lands with
2 a few steep slopes. Elevations in the USBP El Centro Sector range from about
3 15 to 65 feet above mean sea level (MSL) along the western section of the
4 proposed fence and about 145 to 200 feet above MSL along the eastern section
5 of the proposed fence (TopoZone.com 2007).
6 Geology. The USBP El Centro Sector is within the Salton Trough, a structural
7 and topographic depression that lies within the Basin and Range physiographic
8 province. The Salton Trough which is an extension of the East Pacific Rise,
9 emerges from a 1,000-mile-long trough occupied by the Gulf of California and
10 continues northward to Palm Springs. Underlying the Salton Trough are
11 thousands of feet of marine and nonmarine sediments (Morton 1977, Hunt 1974).
12 The depth to basement rock ranges from 11,000 to 15,400 feet, though
13 metamorphism of sedimentary deposits is known to occur at depths as shallow
14 as 4,000 feet as a result of high heat flows associated with crustal spreading.
15 High heat flows also give rise to geothermal steam; several “known geothermal
16 resources areas” have been delineated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in
17 the Imperial Valley (Morton 1977).
18 Soils. The soils of the USBP El Centro Sector are all well-drained to some
19 extent, have varying permeability, and occur on 0–2 percent slopes with the
20 exception of the Badland soil map unit (30–75 percent slopes). Twelve soil map
21 units were identified in the USBP El Centro Sector. The soil map units at the site
22 are all classified as nonhydric soils (USDA-NRCS 2007a). Hydric soils are soils
23 that are saturated, flooded, or ponded for long enough during the growing season
24 to develop anaerobic (oxygen-deficient) conditions in their upper part. The
25 presence of hydric soil is one of the three criteria (hydric soils, hydrophytic
26 vegetation, and wetland hydrology) used to determine that an area is a wetland
27 based on the USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1
28 (USACE 1987). The soils in the area of the American canal extension have been
29 previously disturbed with canal development and associated activities.
30 The properties of soils identified in the USBP El Centro Sector are described in
31 Table 3.2-1.

34 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing conditions

35 of geological resources. In the areas of the proposed tactical infrastructure
36 sections, cross-border violators tend to trample footpaths, leading to a minor
37 long-term adverse impact on soils. This condition would continue under the No
38 Action Alternative.
39

3-5
FME002809
1 Table 3.2-1. Properties of the Soil Types Found Throughout

2 the Areas of the Proposed Action
Farmland
Name Type Slope Drainage Hydric* Properties
Importance
Alluvium
30–75 derived from
Badland NA NA NA NA
percent mixed
sources.
Found on
Silty Moderately
0–2 basin floors.
Holtville clay, Well- No Prime
percent Permeability is
wet Drained
slow.
Found on
Silty Moderately
0–2 basin floors.
Imperial clay, Well- No Statewide
wet Drained
very slow.
Found on
Silty
Moderately basin floors.
Imperial- clay 0–2
Well- No Statewide Permeability is
Glenbar loam, percent
Drained moderately to
wet
very slow.
Found on
basin floors.
Indio-Vint 0–2 Well- Permeability is
NA No Prime
Complex percent Drained moderate to
moderately
rapid.
Very
Found on
fine Moderately
0–2 basin floors.
Meloland sandy Well- No Prime
loam, Drained
slow.
wet
Found on
Moderately
Meloland 0–2 basin floors.
Loam Well- No Prime
and Holtville percent Permeability is
Drained
slow.
Found on
Somewhat
Fine 0–2 basin floors.
Rositas Excessively No Statewide
sand percent Permeability is
Drained
rapid.
Found on
Loamy Somewhat
0–2 basin floors.
Rositas fine Excessively No Statewide
sand Drained
rapid.

3-6
FME002810
Farmland
Name Type Slope Drainage Hydric* Properties
Importance
Found on
Loamy Somewhat
0–2 basin floors.
Superstition fine Excessively No Prime
sand Drained
rapid.
Loamy Found on
very Moderately basin floors.
0–2
Vint fine Well- No Prime Permeability is
percent
sand, Drained moderately
wet rapid.
Found on
Very
basin floors.
fine Moderately
Vint and 0–2 Permeability is
sandy Well- No Prime
Indio percent moderate to
loams, Drained
moderately
wet
rapid.
Source: USDA-NRCS 2007a
Notes*: No = Not listed as a hydric soil for Imperial County, CA
Yes = Listed as a hydric soil for Imperial County, CA
NA = not applicable.
2 Physiography and Topography. Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts

3 on the natural topography of the USBP El Centro Sector could occur as a result
4 of implementing the Proposed Action. Minor grading, contouring, and trenching
5 associated with the installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads, and
6 utilities for lights and other tactical infrastructure would impact approximately 324
7 acres and could alter the existing topography.
8 Geology. Short- and long-term, negligible adverse impacts on geologic

9 resources could occur at locations where bedrock is at the surface and blasting
10 would be necessary to grade for fence placement or patrol and access road
11 development. Geologic resources could affect the placement of the fence or
12 patrol and access roads due to the occurrence of bedrock at the surface, or as a
13 result of structural instability. In most cases, it is expected that project design
14 and engineering practices could be implemented to mitigate geologic limitations
15 to site development.
16 Soils. Short-term, minor, direct, adverse impacts on soils in the USBP El Centro
17 Sector would be expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. Soil
18 disturbance and compaction due to grading, contouring, and trenching
19 associated with the installation of the fence, patrol roads, access roads, and
20 utilities for lights and other tactical infrastructure would impact approximately 324
21 acres. However, much of the soils in the area of the All-American Canal
22 extension have been disturbed, therefore reducing the amount of potential impact
23 to undisturbed soils.
3-7
FME002811
1 The proposed construction activities would be expected to result in an increase in

2 soil erosion, especially in the areas covered by the Badland soil map unit. This
3 map unit is commonly found on 30–75 percent slopes, though the area where
4 this soil type was mapped by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
5 (NRCS) did not exhibit especially steep topographic relief (TopoZone.com 2007,
6 USDA-NRCS 2007a). Soil disturbance on steep slopes has the potential to
7 result in excessive erosion due to instability of the disturbed soils and high runoff
8 energy and velocity. In addition, wind erosion has the potential to impact
9 disturbed soils where vegetation has been removed due to the arid
10 characteristics of the region. Construction activities would be expected to directly
11 impact the existing soils as a result of grading, excavating, placement of fill,
12 compaction, and mixing or augmentation necessary to prepare the site for
13 development of the fence, patrol and access roads, and associated utility lines.
14 Because proposed construction would result in a soil disturbance of greater than
15 5 acres, authorization under the California Environmental Protection Agency
16 (Cal/EPA) State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) General Permit for
17 Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction
18 General Permit, 99-08-DWQ) would be required. Construction activities subject
19 to this permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as
20 stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities
21 performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
22 The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation

23 of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should
24 contain a site map that shows the construction site perimeter, existing and
25 proposed buildings, lots, roadways, storm water collection and discharge points,
26 general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns
27 across the project. The SWPPP must list Best Management Practices (BMPs)
28 the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff along with the locations of
29 those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring
30 program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to be
31 implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if the
32 site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
33 Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must
34 be contained in a SWPPP. If a single project traverses more than one Regional
35 Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdiction, a complete Notice of Intent
36 package (Notice of Intent, site map, and fee) and Notice of Termination (upon
37 completion of each section), must be filed for each RWQCB.
38 Additional soil disturbance in the form of compaction would occur as a result of

39 USBP patrols. Compaction of soils could decrease vegetation cover and soil
40 permeability.
41 The Holtsville silty clay (0–2 percent slopes), Indio-Vint complex (0–2 percent
42 slopes), Meloland very fine sandy loam (0–2 percent slopes), Meloland very fine
43 sandy loam (0–2 percent slopes), Meloland and Holtville loams (0–2 percent
44 slopes), Superstition loamy fine sand (0–2 percent slopes), Vint loamy very fine
3-8
FME002812
1 sand (0–2 percent slopes), and Vint and Indio very fine sandy loams (0–2
2 percent slopes) are designated as prime farmland soils. None of the areas in the
3 fence corridor on the U.S. side of the border is being used for agricultural
4 purposes. The corridor necessary for border fence and patrol road development
5 would be linear and limited in extent, therefore any impacts as a result of the
6 Proposed Action to these areas would be considered negligible to minor.
7 Imperial silty clay (0–2 percent slopes), Imperial-Glenbar silty clay loam (0–2
8 percent slopes), Rositas fine sand (0–2 percent slopes), and Rositas loamy fine
9 sand (0–2 percent slopes) are designated as farmland soils of statewide
10 importance. None of the areas in the fence corridor on the U.S. side of the
11 border is being used for agricultural purposes. The corridor necessary for border
12 fence and patrol road development would be linear and limited in extent,
13 therefore any impacts as a result of the Proposed Action to these areas would be
14 considered negligible to minor.
16 Alternative 3 would result in similar environmental impacts on physiographic,

17 topographic, geologic, and soils resources as described for Alternative 2.
18 However, the magnitude of the impacts would affect a larger area, due to the
19 additional fence and overall wider corridor. Approximately 810 acres would be
20 impacted.
21 3.3 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER

23 Water resources include groundwater and surface water. Evaluation of water

24 resources examines the quantity and quality of the resource and its demand for
25 various purposes. Groundwater consists of subsurface hydrologic resources. It
26 is an essential resource that functions to recharge surface water and is used for
27 drinking, irrigation, and industrial processes. Groundwater typically can be
28 described in terms of its depth from the surface, aquifer or well capacity, water
29 quality, recharge rate, and surrounding geologic formations.

31 Groundwater. The USBP El Centro Sector is in the Imperial Valley
32 Groundwater Basin which has a total surface area of 1,200,000 acres. The basin
33 lies within the southern part of the Colorado Desert Hydrologic Region, south of
34 the Salton Sea. The Sand Hills form the eastern boundary and the impermeable
35 rocks of the Fish Creek and Coyote Mountains form the western boundary. The
36 Salton Sea, the discharge point for groundwater in the basin, forms the northern
37 boundary. The physical groundwater basin extends across the border into Baja
38 California where it underlies a contiguous part of the Mexicali Valley. Major
39 hydrologic features include the New and Alamo Rivers, which flow north towards

3-9
FME002813
1 the Salton Sea. The rivers were formed in the mid to late 1800s when the
2 Colorado River occasionally escaped the normal channel and flowed northward
3 towards the present day Salton Sea. The All-American Canal (three branches)
4 and the Coachella Canal also cross over the basin (CADWR 2003).
5 The basin has two major aquifers, separated at depth by a semi-permeable

6 aquitard that averages 60 feet in thickness and reaches a maximum thickness of
7 280 feet. The aquifers consist mostly of alluvial deposits of late Tertiary and
8 Quaternary age. Average thickness of the upper aquifer is 200 feet with a
9 maximum thickness of 450 feet. The lower aquifer averages 380 feet in
10 thickness with a maximum thickness of 1,500 feet. As much as 80 feet of fine-
11 grained, low permeability prehistoric lake deposits have accumulated on the
12 nearly flat valley floor and cause locally confined aquifer conditions. The basin
13 could have saturated sedimentary deposits as thick as 20,000 feet (CADWR
14 2003).
15 The San Andreas, Algodones, and Imperial faults are present within the basin,
16 but data on whether these faults control groundwater movement are lacking. The
17 only known barriers to groundwater flow are the lake deposits of clay that
18 obstruct downward seepage of surface waters in the central and western part of
19 the basin. Recharge is primarily from irrigation return. Other recharge sources
20 are deep percolation of rainfall and surface runoff, underflow into the basin, and
21 seepage from unlined canals which traverse the valley. The basin might have
22 saturated sedimentary deposits as thick as 20,000 feet. The total storage
23 capacity for this basin is estimated to be 14,000,000 acre-feet. In general,
24 groundwater beneath the basin is unusable for domestic and irrigation purposes
25 without treatment because of high total dissolved solids concentrations.
26 Groundwater in areas of the basin has higher than recommended levels of
27 fluoride and boron (CADWR 2003).

30 Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not be implemented
31 and there would be no change from baseline conditions. Impacts on water
32 resources could continue to occur, such as the impacts of regional drought or
33 other natural events affecting precipitation patterns. In addition, adverse impacts
34 associated with water contamination due to cross-border violators would
35 continue.
37 Groundwater. Short-term, minor, direct, adverse impacts on groundwater

38 resources in the USBP El Centro Sector would be expected as a result of
39 implementing the Proposed Action. Under the Proposed Action Alternative,
40 substantial quantities of water would be required for watering of road and ground

3-10
FME002814
1 surfaces for dust suppression during construction. Water use for construction
2 would be temporary (approximately 9 months). Additionally, this amount is
3 minimal in comparison to the volume used annually in the area for municipal,
4 agricultural, and industrial purposes. Water not lost to evaporation from watering
5 of surfaces during construction would potentially contribute to aquifer recharge
6 through downward seepage.
7 Implementation of storm water and spill prevention BMPs developed consistent

8 with the SWPPP and other applicable plans and regulations would minimize
9 potential runoff or spill-related impacts on groundwater quality during
10 construction.
12 Impacts on hydrology under Alternative 3 would be similar, but approximately 2.5

13 times greater than the impacts described under Alternative 2 because the area of
14 surface disturbance would be greater under this alternative. Disturbance at the
15 ground surface would not affect groundwater aquifers directly, and post-
16 construction runoff patterns could result in minor groundwater recharge.
17 3.4 SURFACE WATERS AND WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

19 Surface water resources generally consist of wetlands, lakes, rivers, and

20 streams. Surface water is important for its contributions to the economic,
21 ecological, recreational, and human health of a community or locale.
22 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA, as amended, and
23 jurisdiction is addressed by the USEPA and the USACE. These agencies assert
24 jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to
25 navigable waters, (3) non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that
26 are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-around or have
27 continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months), and (4) wetlands
28 that directly abut such tributaries (USDOJ 2007).
29 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
30 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States (USEPA 2007a).
31 The CWA objective is restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and
32 biological integrity of the Nation’s waters (USDOJ 2007). To achieve this
33 objective several goals were enacted, including (1) discharge of pollutants into
34 navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; (2) water quality which provides for the
35 protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
36 recreation in and on the water be achieved by 1983; (3) the discharge of toxic
37 pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; (4) Federal financial assistance be
38 provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works; (5) the national
39 policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes be

3-11
FME002815
1 developed and implemented to ensure adequate control of sources of pollutants

2 in each state; (6) the national policy that a major research and demonstration
3 effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of
4 pollutants into navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans;
5 and (7) the national policy that programs be developed and implemented in an
6 expeditious manner so as to enable the goals to be met through the control of
7 both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The USACE regulates the
8 discharge of dredged and fill material (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil, cement block,
9 gravel, sand) into waters of the United States including adjacent wetlands under
10 Section 404 of the CWA and work on/or structures in or affecting navigable
11 waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
12 1899.
13 Wetlands and riparian habitats represent some of the most ecologically important
14 and rare vegetation communities on desert landscapes. They provide keystone
15 habitat for a wide array of plant and animal species including resident and
16 migrating birds, amphibian and fish species, mammals, and insects. Vegetation
17 production and diversity are usually very high in and around these mesic to
18 aquatic sites, with many plant species adapted only to these unique
19 environments. In addition, wetlands and riparian zones provide a variety of
20 hydrologic functions vital to ecosystem integrity. These include water filtration of
21 sediment, groundwater recharge, and nutrient/chemical capture (USFS 1995).
22 Development and conversion of wetlands and riparian zones affects wildlife
23 diversity, carrying capacity, and hydrologic regime. Changes to and removal of
24 wetlands can cause effects that are proportionally greater than elsewhere in an
25 ecosystem (Graber 1996).
26 Wetlands are a protected resource under EO 11990, issued in 1977 “to avoid to
27 the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
28 destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of
29 new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.”
30 Wetlands have been defined by agencies responsible for their management. The
31 term “wetland” used herein, is defined using USACE conventions. The USACE
32 has jurisdiction to protect wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA using the
33 following definition:
34 . . . areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a

35 frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
36 circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
37 saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3[b]). Wetlands generally include swamps,
38 marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands have three diagnostic characteristics
39 that include: (1) over 50 percent of the dominant species present must be
40 classified as obligate, facultative wetland, or facultative, (2) the soils must be
41 classified as hydric, and (3) the area is either permanently or seasonally
42 inundated, or saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season of
43 the prevalent vegetation (USACE 1987).

3-12
FME002816
1 Wetlands are protected as a subset of “the waters of the United States” under
2 Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad
3 meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and
4 special aquatic habitats (including wetlands).
5 Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
6 Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials
7 into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, Section 404
8 of the CWA also grants states with sufficient resources the right to assume these
9 responsibilities.
10 Section 401 of the CWA gives the state board and regional boards the authority
11 to regulate through water quality certification any proposed federally permitted
12 activity that could result in a discharge to water bodies, including wetlands. The
13 state may issue certification, with or without conditions, or deny certification for
14 activities that might result in a discharge to water bodies.

16 Surface Water
17 The Alamo River, All-American Canal, and Pinto Wash occur in the Salton Sea
18 watershed, which is bordered on the northwest by the San Gorgonio Mountains,
19 on the west by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Peninsular
20 Range, and on the east by the Little San Bernardino and Chocolate Mountains.
21 On the south the watershed includes the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys through
22 which the Alamo and New Rivers flow from Mexico (USBR 2001).
23 Alamo River. The Alamo River begins as a small stream near the U.S./Mexico
24 international border near and perpendicular to the All-American Canal and flows
25 northward approximately 60 miles to its discharge point into the Salton Sea.
26 Flows consist of a high percentage of irrigation runoff or wastewater. Daily mean
27 flows over a 40-year period ranged from 45 to 1,140 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)
28 (LeBlanc et al. 2004). The flow is initially formed and sustained by return
29 irrigation water from the Mexicali Valley where approximately 700,000 acre-feet
30 of pumped ground water and 1.5 million acre-feet of New Alamo Canal water
31 diverted from the Colorado River at Morales Dam is used to irrigate crops
32 annually (USBR 2005). Pumping of groundwater for irrigation from thick sand
33 and gravel aquifers of the eastern portion of the Mexicali Valley began during the
34 1950s. Presently, approximately 300,000 acres of irrigated farmland occur in this
35 region of Mexico.
36 Wetlands are present on the banks of the Alamo River in the proposed project
37 corridor, supported by surface flows and seepage into the groundwater table.
38 Described in more detail below, the wetlands consist predominantly of stands of
39 arrow weed short shrubs and common reed, a tall grass. Tamarisk or salt-cedar,

3-13
FME002817
1 an invasive shrub, has also become established on Alamo River wetland

2 margins.
3 Alamo River water was sampled at the international boundary and analyzed for
4 various parameters in the early 2000s (LeBlanc et al. 2004). Suspended
5 sediment concentration was determined from a point sample and bottom
6 sediment sampling was conducted by compositing five grab samples. At Harris
7 Road, downstream from the international border, the Alamo River discharge was
8 440 ft3/s. The water temperature at this site was 19.1 degrees Celsius (oC),
9 specific conductivity measured 2,660 microsiemens per centimeter (cm), and the
10 dissolved oxygen was 9.8 parts per million (ppm). The composition of
11 suspended solids of Alamo River water at the international border measured 53
12 percent fines and 47 percent sand and the concentration of suspended solids
13 measured 27 ppm.
14 During 2003, the dissolved concentrations of current-use pesticides were

15 analyzed at the international boundary site (LeBlanc et al. 2004). Only Eptam
16 was detected at a concentration of 28.7 nanograms per liter (ng/L). Eptam
17 (carbamothioic acid, dipropyl-, S-ethyl ester) is an herbicide used to control
18 annual grasses and forbs and some perennial forbs in agricultural fields
19 (Spectrum Undated). It is released directly into the environment through its
20 application on agricultural fields and can be transported by water to rivers and
21 lakes. Both microbial degradation and volatilization to the atmosphere reduce
22 the amount of herbicide potentially transported by water.
23 Organic carbon was determined to be 14 percent in suspended sediments and

24 0.2 percent in bed sediments where the Alamo River flows across the
25 international boundary (LeBlanc et al. 2004). Fines at this site ranged from 53
26 percent in suspended sediments to 9 percent in bed sediments. Pesticide
27 concentration measured 40.5 nanograms per gram (ng/g) of p p’–DDE in the
28 suspended sediments and 6.2 ng/g of p p’–DDE in the bed sediments. DDE
29 (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene) enters the environment as a breakdown
30 product of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), a pesticide once widely used to
31 control insects in agriculture and insect disease vectors (ATSDR 2002). DDE
32 builds up in the tissues of plants and in the fatty tissues of fish, birds, and
33 mammals; it does not dissolve easily in water.
34 All-American Canal. The Imperial Irrigation District covers a management area

35 of approximately 1,061,637 acres and provides agricultural and
36 domestic/industrial water via the All-American Canal to irrigate approximately
37 433,226-acres of farmland in the Imperial Valley (USBR 2001, IID 2005). The
38 All-American Canal was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act (P.L. 70-
39 642), constructed during the decade of the 1930s, and delivered water by the
40 1940s (USBR 2005). It is apportioned to deliver 3,100,000 acre-feet of water
41 annually to the Imperial Irrigation District agricultural service area. Its diversion
42 capacity is 15,155 ft3/s, the water depth is 21 feet, and the average bottom width
43 is 160 feet (Stene Undated). Electricity is also generated in the Imperial Irrigation

3-14
FME002818
1 District system by directing canal flows through electric utility plant turbines
2 located at (1) Brawley, (2) Coachella, (3) Double Weir, (4) Drop 1, (5) Drop 2,
3 (6) Drop 3, (7) Drop 4, (8) Drop 5, (9) East Highline, (10) El Centro, (11) Pilot
4 Knob, (12) Rockwood, and (13) Turnip (EIA 2000).
5 In the Imperial Valley, only surface water from the All-American Canal is applied
6 to agricultural fields. Water is distributed via a network of canals and ditches to
7 irrigate fields where a portion is consumed by plants, while the remainder
8 percolates through the soil and is captured by tile drains at about 6 to 10 feet
9 deep. This unused water contains dissolved salts and agricultural chemicals and
10 is discharged directly to the Alamo and New rivers which flow to the Salton Sea
11 or further north it is discharged directly from field drains into the Salton Sea
12 (USBR 2001).
13 Of the 2,519,078 acre-feet of water transported during 2005 by Imperial Irrigation

14 District via diversion at the Imperial Dam, 97 percent was used for irrigation
15 (433,321 acres) and 3 percent was used for residential and industrial
16 applications. Imperial Valley irrigated agriculture is a $1,286,066,000 industry
17 entirely dependent on Colorado River water (IID 2005). The most important
18 crops grown in terms of acres planted and irrigated are alfalfa, Bermuda grass,
19 Sudan grass, wheat, lettuce, sugar beets, carrots, Klein grass, broccoli, onions,
20 and cotton. Water delivered to the Imperial Valley for agriculture in 2005 totaled
21 2,465,013 acre-feet. Conservation savings using canal lining, reservoirs, lateral
22 interceptors, 12-hour deliveries, system automation and non-leak gates, and
23 irrigation water management totaled 101,940 acre-feet (IID 2005).
24 In 2003, the Imperial Irrigation District entered into a package of decisions and
25 agreements known collectively as the Quantification Settlement Agreement and
26 Related Agreements, which include long-term transfer of water to the San Diego
27 County Water Authority and the Coachella Valley Water District (IID 2007). By
28 2026, the Imperial Irrigation District must conserve and transfer 303,000 acre-
29 feet of Colorado River water annually, approximately 10 percent of the total
30 annual diversion. Transferred water is to be generated through efficiency
31 conservation, which includes both improvements in the Imperial Irrigation
32 District’s delivery system and improvements in on-farm irrigation practices.
33 Within the proposed El Centro Section B-2, an irrigation ditch carries water from
34 the All-American Canal westward for about ½ mile and in Section B-4, surface
35 water flows northward in the Alamo River (originating from Mexico) and westward
36 in the All-American Canal. Wetlands are associated with the surface flows and
37 underground seepage from the river, the riprap-lined earthen canal, and the
38 irrigation ditch. Flows in the Alamo River are conveyed under the All-American
39 Canal via a concrete box culvert constructed in the United States to the
40 international boundary. Within proposed Section B-1, Pinto Wash has an
41 identified 100-year floodplain but carries only ephemeral flows.

3-15
FME002819
1 The All-American Canal surface flows can be a dangerous barrier for cross-
2 border violators and they represent somewhat of an “attractive nuisance” in that
3 flowing water within this desert environment is unusual. The canal system is
4 posted on both sides of the border with danger signs warning of the deep, fast-
5 flowing water and with “No Trespassing” signs.
6 Wetlands have become established on the banks of the All-American Canal and
7 between the canal and the international border in the proposed project corridor,
8 supported by surface flows and underground seepage. Described in more detail
9 below, they consist predominantly of stands of arrow weed, common reed,
10 Bermuda grass, and tamarisk.
11 Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is California’s largest lake with a surface area of
12 243,718 acres (381 square miles) and a surface elevation of 229 feet below sea
13 level (SSA 1997, IID 2005). Its average depth is 31 feet and its maximum depth
14 is 51 feet. It is a federally designated repository to receive and store agricultural,
15 surface, and subsurface drainage waters from the Imperial and Coachella
16 Valleys (IID 2005). The annual inflow is estimated at approximately 1,300,000
17 acre-feet of water carrying approximately 4,000,000 tons of dissolved salt.
18 Salinity within the Salton Sea is approximately 46,000 ppm, compared to ocean
19 waters, which average approximately 35,000 ppm (USBR 2001, IID 2005). High
20 salinity levels, when combined with nutrients from agricultural return flows that
21 cause eutrophic conditions, have reduced the wildlife habitat and recreational
22 values of the Salton Sea.
23 Pinto Wash. Pinto Wash is approximately 2,500 feet wide where the proposed
24 Section B-1 crossing occurs. The wash drains into the United States. towards
25 the northeast and is mapped as a 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency
26 Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Pinto
27 Wash is normally dry and is subject to flash flooding when torrential rainstorms
28 occur in the drainage area. There are no wetlands associated with Pinto Wash;
29 rather it supports sparse tall shrubs of creosotebush, honey mesquite, and
30 ironwood.
31 Wetland and Riparian Types
32 Wetland and riparian habitats occur within the eastern one-fourth of Section B-2
33 and the western two-thirds of Section B-4 as proposed and are supported by
34 surface flows and underground seepage from the Alamo River, the All-American
35 Canal, and an irrigation ditch. Surface water occurs only in the river channel,
36 canal, and ditch because Pinto Wash only intermittently carries surface flows.
37 Underground seepage occurs at depth, however the depth to saturated soil or
38 the groundwater aquifer in the vicinity of the proposed border fence project is
39 unknown. All wetland and riparian vegetation in the Sections B-2 and B-4 have
40 been disturbed historically by construction and maintenance of the All-American
41 Canal and the irrigation ditch including vegetation removal from the banks,
42 access road construction and use, berm construction, international boundary

3-16
FME002820
1 monument placement, bridge and structure development, and access for security
2 purposes. Presently, these wetland and riparian communities are subject to
3 nearly daily human foot traffic from cross-border violators attempting to find work,
4 smuggling of contraband, swimming or wading in the canal/ditch, and fishing in
5 the canal, resulting in a labyrinth of paths. Trash has accumulated in most
6 vegetated stands and the stands are used regularly as human latrines.
7 Wetland soils that support the wetland and riparian vegetation alliances and plant
8 associations described below are discussed more fully under Section 3.2
9 Geology and Soils. Within the project corridor as proposed, soils include
10 (1) Badland; (2) Holtville Silty Clay, wet; (3) Imperial – Glenbar Silty Clay Loams,
11 wet; (4) Indio Loam, wet; (5) Meloland Very Fine Sandy Loam, wet; (6) Meloland
12 and Holtville Loams, wet; (7) Rositas Sand; (8) Vint Loamy Very Fine Sand, wet;
13 and (9) Vint and Indio Very Fine Sandy Loams, wet.
14 Wetland and riparian habitats and vegetation stands sampled in the field are
15 discussed in this section and they are also presented as plant associations under
16 the Section 3.6. Only a few trees of Fremont cottonwood (FACW), Goodding
17 willow (OBL), Athel tamarisk (FACW-), and date palms were observed within and
18 near the proposed project corridor in Sections B-2 and B-4 and these were
19 mostly in Mexico. Individual wetland plant species named in this report were
20 provided a wetland indicator code appropriate for California (USDA-NRCS
21 2007b), as described in Table 3.4-1.
22 Vegetation alliances and plant associations (NatureServe 2007) that have been
23 identified within the proposed project vicinity include aquatic bed, herbaceous
24 graminoids, and shrublands, as follows:
25 • (Spiral Ditchgrass, Beaked Ditchgrass) Permanently Flooded Herbaceous

26 Vegetation [CEGL003119]
27 • Common Reed Temporarily Flooded Herbaceous Alliance [A.1196]
28 • Bermuda Grass Herbaceous Alliance [A.1279]
29 • Arrow Weed Seasonally Flooded Shrubland [CEGL003080]
30 • Salt-cedar species Semi-natural Temporarily Flooded Shrubland Alliance
31 [A.842].
32 One stand of unclassified alkali mallow also occurs within the wetland/riparian
33 habitats of the proposed Section B-4. It is described under the Herbaceous
34 Wetlands and Riparian Types.
35 Aquatic Wetlands. Submerged beds of ditchgrass (OBL) and water milfoil

36 (OBL) occur within the All-American Canal along its south bank. The beds are
37 dense, up to 100 percent cover, submerged to within 0.25 meters (m) of the
38 water surface, and provide habitat for many aquatic insects and small fish.
39

3-17
FME002821
1 Table 3.4-1. Wetland Indicator Status
Wetland Species Indicator

Definition of Indicator Code
Type Code
Occurs almost always (estimated probability
Obligate Wetland OBL
99%), under natural conditions, in wetlands.
Usually occurs in wetlands (estimated
Facultative Wetland FACW probability 67%–99%), but occasionally found
in nonwetlands.
Equally likely to occur in wetlands or
Facultative FAC
nonwetlands (estimated probability 34%–66%).
Usually occurs in non-wetlands (estimated
Facultative Upland FACU probability 67%–99%), but occasionally found
in wetlands (estimated probability 1%–33%).
Occurs in wetlands in another region, but
occurs almost always (estimated probability
99%), under natural conditions, in non-
Obligate Upland UPL
wetlands in the regions specified. If a species
does not occur in wetlands in any region, it is
not on the National List.
The regional panel was not able to reach a
No Agreement NA
unanimous decision on this species.
Insufficient information was available to
No Indicator NI
determine an indicator status.
No Occurrence NO The species does not occur in that region.
(+) - indicates a frequency toward the higher
end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands).
(-) – indicates a frequency toward the lower
FAC modifiers:
--- end of the category (less frequently found in
+, -, *
wetlands).
(*) - identifies tentative assignments based on
limited information from which to determine the
indicator status.
2 Source: USDA-NRCS 2007b
3 Regionally, this wetland type occurs in systems with saline soils and in areas of
4 low precipitation; it has very specific water chemistry requirements (NatureServe
5 2007).
6 Herbaceous Wetlands and Riparian Types. The tall grass, common reed
7 (FACW) and the short grass, Bermuda grass (FAC) have become established on
8 the banks of the All-American Canal, in the ditch between the canal bank and the
9 berm that demarcates the international border, and in the irrigation ditch in
10 Section B-2. Common reed also occurs along both banks of the Alamo River

3-18
FME002822
1 south of the international border in Mexico. The forb alkali mallow (FAC*) occurs
2 as one small stand between the canal bank and the international border berm of
3 Section B-4.
4 Common reed is a tallgrass that has colonized reaches of the canal and ditch
5 banks where it is sometimes codominant with the short shrub arrow weed
6 (FACW). At a few canal-bank sites, common reed stands also support small
7 patches of the graminoid, broad-leafed cattail (OBL). Within Section B-4,
8 common reed stands are the second most common wetland and riparian
9 vegetation type in terms of area occupied, next to more extensive stands of
10 arrow weed. The stands are usually monotypic, however patches of Bermuda
11 grass or heliotrope could occasionally occur along the margins of the tall grass.
12 Stands are dense (up to 80 percent cover on the more mesic canal bank) to
13 moderate in terms of cover (up to 45 percent) in the drier landscape of the
14 adjacent ditch. It is likely that common reed became established on the
15 permanently saturated canal banks (above ordinary high water) historically, then
16 spread vegetatively under the canal bank road into the adjacent ditch via deep,
17 stout rhizomes. It is unclear whether the principal water source currently is the
18 permanently saturated canal bank or if the common reed plants within the ditch
19 have independently established groundwater contact.
20 Bermuda grass is a nonnative/introduced shortgrass that has become

21 established in the ditch between the canal bank and the international border
22 berm and along the ditch in Section B-2. Two moderately large stands with up to
23 15 percent cover occur just west of the Alamo River, where they occupy the
24 canal bank and ditch up to the berm on the international border. These stands
25 possibly became established due to transfer of soil containing seeds or rhizomes,
26 directly from seed blown onto the site which sprouted during a moist period, or
27 plants on the moist soil of the canal banks that spread under the canal bank road
28 into the adjacent ditch via rhizomes. Extensive burrowing activity by small
29 mammals, possibly pocket gophers, occurs within this wetland type. Within the
30 Imperial Irrigation District, Bermuda grass/hay is the second most commonly
31 irrigated agricultural crop in terms of acreage.
32 A small stand of sparse alkali mallow providing up to 6 percent cover, occupies

33 approximately 1 acre within the ditch between the canal bank and berm that
34 demarcates the international boundary of Section B-4. A few stems of arrow
35 weed provide < 1 percent cover within this stand. The method of stand
36 establishment is unknown. This sparse forb-dominated type has not been
37 described in the classification literature, to date.
38 Shrub-Scrub Wetland and Riparian Types. The native short (1–3 meters tall)
39 shrub arrow weed (FACW) and the nonnative, invasive tall (2–6 meters tall)
40 shrub tamarisk or salt-cedar (FAC) represent the most common woody species
41 within Section B-4, as proposed. They occur on the banks of the All-American
42 Canal and Alamo River and they occupy the ditch and berms between the canal
43 and the international border. Together, they provide the most common wetland

3-19
FME002823
1 and riparian cover in the proposed project area. West of the Alamo River,
2 wetland shrub stands are almost entirely composed of arrow weed. East of the
3 Alamo River, stands of tamarisk become more common, but they typically
4 support an understory of arrow weed.
5 Arrow weed short shrubs from 1–3 meters tall line the entire north bank of the All-
6 American Canal and most of the south bank, providing up to 80 percent cover
7 and sometimes more in this mesic habitat. On the south canal bank, arrow weed
8 shrubs are occasionally replaced by narrow linear stands of common reed and
9 the two species occasionally intermingle in variably sized ecotones. Arrow weed
10 commonly occurs in the broad ditch between the canal bank and the berm on the
11 international border where the shrubs are of shorter stature (1–1.5 meters tall)
12 and cover values range from 10–45 percent and up to 75 percent.
13 Wherever arrow weed stands occur they are monotypic probably because of the
14 amount of shade cast on the ground surface which precludes establishment of
15 other plant species. When other species occur (common reed, tamarisk, alkali
16 mallow) they provide less than 1 percent cover. On the eastern portion of
17 proposed Section B-4 within this shrubs’ distribution, it becomes understory to
18 codominant with tamarisk shrubs and forms a narrow ecotone with creosotebush
19 and fourwing saltbush where the desert uplands and riparian lowlands meet.
20 This ecotone and transition to creosotebush–dominated desert uplands occurs
21 where the All-American Canal diverges to the north and underground seepage
22 no longer influences vegetation distribution.
23 It is likely that arrow weed became established on the saturated canal banks
24 from seed then spread to the drier habitats south of the canal via underground
25 rhizomes. It is unknown if the majority of water supporting arrow weed stands is
26 provided directly from plants along the canal bank or if individual shrubs within
27 the drier ditch have tapped the groundwater table resulting from seepage through
28 the riprap-lined earth canal.
29 Tamarisk or salt-cedar tall shrubs up to 5 meters tall have become established

30 east of the Alamo River possibly as a result of seed germination following
31 significant precipitation events that resulted in standing water and saturated soils
32 for a sufficient period of time to extend their root system. The soils occupied by
33 tamarisk tall shrubs appear to be more alkaline or saline than those occupied by
34 arrow weed short shrubs. However, there is considerable mixing of the two
35 vegetation types and most stands of tamarisk, which provide from 50–80 percent
36 cover, also have low understory cover by arrow weed ranging from 5–15 percent
37 cover. When a rare tree of Athel tamarisk, date palm, Fremont cottonwood, or
38 Goodding willow is present in this tall shrub type, the most diverse wildlife habitat
39 structure within proposed Section B-4 occurs.
40 Near the terminus of the wetland and riparian vegetation distribution in proposed
41 Section B-4, a moderately large playa has formed on the international boundary.
42 Although mostly devoid of vegetation across the playa bottom, tamarisk,

3-20
FME002824
1 including a stand of Athel tamarisk, has become established around the playa
2 margin. Some of these tall shrubs have attained heights up to 6–7 meters tall.

5 Surface Waters. Under the No Action Alternative there would be insignificant

6 short- and long-term effects on surface water of the All-American Canal in terms
7 of flow volume or duration, and the canal water quality would reflect conditions
8 within the Colorado River Basin prior to delivery.
9 There would be no effect to the Section B-1 Pinto Wash under the No Action
10 Alternative; it would remain dry until torrential rains occur in its watershed. There
11 would be no effect to the Section B-4 playa under the No Action Alternative. It
12 would fill rarely when natural precipitation events produced enough moisture for
13 run-in to occur then dry through evaporation.
14 Waters of the United States. Under the No Action Alternative there would be
15 no effect on submerged aquatic wetlands within the All-American Canal.
16 Herbaceous and shrub-scrub wetlands on the canal and ditch banks of Sections
17 B-1 and B-4 would continue to receive insignificant to low adverse effects from
18 humans accessing the canal bank and trampling plants; however, this effect
19 could be raised to moderate or high and adverse if the Imperial Irrigation District
20 maintains the canal bank wetland vegetation by mowing or dredging to reduce
21 water loss through evapotranspiration.
22 There would be continued minor, long-term, adverse effects on shrub-scrub

23 wetlands that have become established in ditches and on berms, due to human
24 foot traffic trampling plants and creating trails, vehicle travel through the
25 vegetation (trucks, motorbikes, bicycles), and an accumulation of trash, both
26 discarded and blown-in. These activities/conditions tend to decrease stand
27 density on some sites, which reduce the wildlife habitat value resulting in low,
28 adverse, long-term effects.
29 There would be no effect on shrub-scrub wetlands that occur on the banks of the
30 Alamo River under the No Action Alternative. These wetlands would continue to
31 be subject to low to moderate, short-term, adverse effects when maintenance
32 activities are required to clean debris from the mouth of the culvert, clear the
33 channel at the culvert mouth to improve flow, or otherwise repair the culvert.
35 Surface Waters. Under the Proposed Action, primary pedestrian and vehicle
36 fence construction would occur on the international border up to 200 feet or more
37 south of the All-American Canal, resulting in insignificant short- and long-term
38 adverse effects on surface water of the canal in terms of flow volume or duration,

3-21
FME002825
1 and the canal water quality would reflect conditions within the Colorado River
2 Basin prior to delivery.
3 Fences installed in washes/arroyos would be designed and constructed in a

4 manner to ensure that water flow during excessive rain events would not be
5 impeded or ponded. Primary pedestrian fence construction across the Alamo
6 River at the international border would be designed to accommodate cleaning
7 and maintenance to include removal of debris after flood events. Therefore,
8 construction of the proposed tactical infrastructure would have insignificant
9 effects on surface water flow volume, duration, and water quality.
10 Approximately ½ mile of Pinto Wash would be crossed by pedestrian fencing,

11 however there would be insignificant effects on surface water flow volume,
12 duration, and water quality in this ephemeral drainage. Fence construction
13 across Pinto Wash would result in short- and long-term, insignificant to low
14 adverse effects on long-term maintenance when debris collects behind the
15 primary pedestrian fence following floods.
16 Primary pedestrian fence construction would bisect the playa east of the Alamo
17 River in Section B-4 resulting in intermittent, insignificant to low, adverse effects
18 on ponded water when present. If sufficiently bermed, primary pedestrian fence
19 construction could fill the northern edge of this playa, reducing it in overall size.
20 Implementation of the Proposed Action would be expected to have insignificant

21 short-term, adverse effects on surface water quality as a result of potential
22 erosion and associated transport of sediments into adjacent surface waters.
23 Because proposed construction would result in a soil disturbance of greater than
24 5 acres, authorization under the Cal/EPA SWRCB General Permit for Discharges
25 of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General
26 Permit, 99-08-DWQ) would be required. Construction activities subject to this
27 permit include clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as
28 stockpiling, or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the
29 development and implementation of an SWPPP. The SWPPP requires inclusion
30 of BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff along with the
31 locations of those BMPs. Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual
32 monitoring program, a chemical monitoring program for nonvisible pollutants to
33 be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs, and a sediment monitoring plan if
34 the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
35 Proper engineering practices, erosion and sediment control, and storm water
36 BMPs would be implemented during and after construction and would be
37 consistent with the Construction General Permit reducing potential for adverse
38 impacts on water quality associated with erosion and sedimentation during and
39 following implementation of the Proposed Action.
40 Waters of the United States. Under the Proposed Action there would be no
41 effect on submerged aquatic wetlands within the All-American Canal. An
42 insignificant to low, long-term, beneficial effect on canal bank wetland

3-22
FME002826
1 communities would result from eliminating or reducing significantly the human

2 access of the canal bank and resultant trampling of plants. However this effect
3 could be raised to moderate or high and adverse if the Imperial Irrigation District
4 maintains the canal bank wetland vegetation by mowing or dredging to reduce
5 water loss through evapotranspiration.
6 Herbaceous and shrub-scrub wetland vegetation and wildlife habitat would be

7 permanently removed as a result of the Proposed Action resulting in long-term,
8 moderate, adverse effects. A formal delineation and jurisdictional determination
9 of the extent of the wetlands that are likely to be impacted by implementation of
10 the Proposed Action has not been conducted. The acreage of wetlands or other
11 waters of the United States that occur in the project area will be determined
12 following a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination from USACE. The
13 affected wetland habitats are predominantly shrub-scrub stands of arrow weed
14 and salt-cedar or tamarisk.
15 Primary pedestrian fence construction across the Alamo River at the international
16 border would be designed to accommodate cleaning and maintenance of the
17 culvert mouth resulting in long-term, low to moderate adverse effects due to
18 permanent shrub-scrub wetland removal to accommodate the fence, access
19 road, and maintenance activities. A formal delineation and jurisdictional
20 determination of the extent of the scrub-shrub wetlands that are likely to be
21 impacted by implementation of the Proposed Action has not been conducted.
22 The acreage of wetlands or other waters of the United States that occur in the
23 project area will be determined following a formal delineation and jurisdictional
24 determination from USACE.
25 A formal delineation and jurisdictional determination of the extent of waters of the

26 United States that are likely to be impacted by implementation of the Proposed
27 Action will be conducted. The extent of jurisdictional wetlands, washes, or other
28 waters of the United States that occur in the project area will be determined
29 following a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination from USACE
30 scheduled for January 2008.
31 Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, adverse effects on jurisdictional wetlands,

32 washes, and other waters of the United States would be minimized to the
33 maximum extent practicable. CWA Section 404 and Section 401(a)
34 authorizations would be obtained, as required, for unavoidable impacts on
35 jurisdictional waters of the United States. A wetlands mitigation and restoration
36 plan to compensate for unavoidable impacts will be developed by the applicant
37 and submitted to the USACE-Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch for
38 approval prior to implementation. Appropriate mitigation would be developed to
39 compensate for unavoidable impacts.

3-23
FME002827
2 Alternative 3 would result in impacts on surface waters and waters of the United
3 States similar to those described for Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of
4 the impacts would affect a larger area due to the additional fence and wider
5 corridor. Approximately 810 acres of soils would be disturbed by construction. A
6 Construction General Permit would be required to address the development and
7 implementation of SWPPPs with BMPs to reduce the impacts of storm water
8 runoff. A larger area of wetlands would also be impacted under this alternative.
9 Additionally, CWA Section 404 and Section 401(a) authorizations would be
10 obtained, as required, for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the
11 United States. A wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to compensate for
12 unavoidable impacts will be developed by the applicant and submitted to the
13 USACE-Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch for approval prior to
14 implementation. Appropriate mitigation would be developed to compensate for
15 unavoidable impacts.
16 3.5 FLOODPLAINS
18 Floodplains are areas of low-level ground present along rivers, stream channels,
19 or coastal waters. The living and nonliving parts of natural floodplains interact
20 with each other to create dynamic systems in which each component helps to
21 maintain the characteristics of the environment that supports it. Floodplain
22 ecosystem functions include natural moderation of floods, flood storage and
23 conveyance, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, water quality maintenance,
24 and a diversity of plants and animals. Floodplains provide a broad area to
25 spread out and temporarily store floodwaters. This reduces flood peaks and
26 velocities and the potential for erosion. In their natural vegetated state,
27 floodplains slow the rate at which the incoming overland flow reaches the main
28 water body (FEMA 1986).
29 Floodplains are subject to periodic or infrequent inundation due to rain or melting

30 snow. Risk of flooding typically hinges on local topography, the frequency of
31 precipitation events, and the size of the watershed above the floodplain. Flood
32 potential is evaluated by FEMA, which defines the 100-year floodplain. The 100-
33 year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent chance of inundation by a flood
34 event in a given year. Certain facilities inherently pose too great a risk to be in
35 either the 100- or 500-year floodplain, such as hospitals, schools, or storage
36 buildings for irreplaceable records. Federal, state, and local regulations often
37 limit floodplain development to passive uses, such as recreational and
38 preservation activities, to reduce the risks to human health and safety.
39 EO 11988, Floodplain Management, requires Federal agencies to determine

40 whether a proposed action would occur within a floodplain. This determination
41 typically involves consultation of appropriate FEMA FIRMs, which contain

3-24
FME002828
1 enough general information to determine the relationship of the project area to

2 nearby floodplains. EO 11988 directs Federal agencies to avoid floodplains
3 unless the agency determines that there is no practicable alternative. Where the
4 only practicable alternative is to site in a floodplain, a specific step-by-step
5 process must be followed to comply with EO 11988 outlined in the FEMA
6 document Further Advice on EO 11988 Floodplain Management. As a planning
7 tool, the NEPA process incorporates floodplain management through analysis
8 and public coordination of the EA.

10 According to the March 15, 1984, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 0600651025B for
11 Imperial County, California; a small portion of the proposed project corridor for B-
12 4 is within the 100-year floodplain associated with the banks of the Alamo River
13 where it emerges from a culvert under the northern side of the All-American
14 Canal and continues its flow north to the Salton Sea (FEMA 1984). Based on
15 review of the FIRM for the project area, the All-American Canal and areas south
16 to the United States border are outside of the 100-year floodplain.

19 The No Action Alternative would have no impact on floodplains or floodplain

20 resources.
22 Negligible adverse impacts on floodplain resources would occur as a result of the

23 Proposed Action. According to the FEMA FIRM Panel No. 0600651025B, it
24 would be possible to avoid adverse impacts on the 100-year floodplain
25 associated with the Alamo River by limiting construction activities to the south of
26 the All-American Canal and north of the U.S./Mexico international border in this
27 portion of the USBP El Centro Sector. However, in accordance with the FEMA
28 Document, Further Advice on EO 11988, Floodplain Management, USBP has
29 determined that due to the proximity of the All-American Canal and the south-to-
30 north-flowing Alamo River on the Mexican side of the border, proposed tactical
31 infrastructure a small portion of Section B-4 cannot be practicably located outside
32 the floodplain. USBP would mitigate unavoidable impacts associated with
33 floodplains using planning guidance developed by the USACE. Properly
34 designed erosion and sediment controls and storm water management practices
35 would be implemented to minimize potential for adverse impacts.
37 Impacts on floodplains for Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than those

38 described under Alternative 2 since a larger area would be impacted. Due to the

3-25
FME002829
1 proximity of the All-American Canal and the south-to-north-flowing Alamo River;

2 there is a higher potential for minor adverse effects associated with erosion and
3 sedimentation in the event of a high-volume storm event or flooding during site
4 construction. Properly designed erosion and sediment controls and storm water
5 management practices would be implemented during construction activities to
6 minimize potential for adverse impacts.
7 3.6 VEGETATION RESOURCES

9 Vegetation resources include native or naturalized plants and serve as habitat for
10 a variety of animal species. Wetlands are discussed in Section 3.4. This
11 section describes the affected environment for native and nonnative vegetation
12 followed by potential impacts on those resources from each alternative. This
13 analysis is based on site surveys conducted in September and October 2007.
14 More detailed information on vegetation resources, including vegetation
15 classification, species observed, and the survey methodology is contained in the
16 Biological Survey Report (see Appendix D).

18 The vegetation in the El Centro Sector of southern California has generally been
19 classified under the Dry Domain (300), Tropical / Subtropical Desert Division
20 (320) of Bailey (1995). The project area is more finely classified as the American
21 Semidesert and Desert Province (322). The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1996)
22 describes vegetation geography using combined features of the natural
23 landscape including natural vegetation types and plant communities, and
24 geologic, topographic, and climatic variation. This geographic system places the
25 project area in the Desert Province and Sonoran Desert Region (also referred to
26 locally and regionally as the Colorado Desert).
27 Occurring within the Salton Trough, the drainage of the project area in general
28 and the Alamo River located within Section B-4, flows from south-to-north to the
29 Salton Sea. Overall, the project area is located on an extensive plain of arid
30 desert that is gently undulating. Bailey (1995) describes the vegetation pattern
31 as dry-desert, a class of xerophytic plants that are widely dispersed and provide
32 negligible ground cover. The climate is continental desert, is of extreme aridity,
33 and results in high air and soil temperatures. Summers are long and hot
34 however the brief winter is moderate in terms of temperature. There are typically
35 no summer rains and the average annual precipitation of the area is
36 approximately 2.6 inches. The evaporation rate during the summer season is
37 very high, even more so due to light to moderate winds.
38 NatureServe (2007) has defined ecological systems to represent recurring

39 groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments
40 and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such as fire or

3-26
FME002830
1 flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are readily

2 identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. The ensuing
3 vegetation description for the project area was prepared in the framework of
4 ecological systems that include (1) Sonora – Mojave Creosotebush – White
5 Bursage Desert Scrub (CES302.756), (2) North American Warm Desert Active
6 and Stabilized Dune (CES302.744), (3) North American Warm Desert Pavement
7 (CES302.750), (4) North American Warm Desert Playa (CES302.751), (5) North
8 American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland (CES302.753), (6)
9 North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque (CES302.752), (7)
10 North American Warm Desert Wash (CES302.755), and (8) North American Arid
11 West Emergent Marsh (CES300.729).
12 Habitats observed, sampled, and photographed within the project corridor range
13 from active sand dunes of the Imperial Dune system, Signal Mountain toeslopes,
14 the ephemeral Pinto Wash, and saturated and aquatic types of the All-American
15 Canal. Habitats of the easternmost portion of the project receive some form of
16 regular or intermittent disturbance that ranges from camping and all-terrain
17 vehicle use in the desert upland types of Sections B-5A and B-5B to berm
18 construction and canal bank clearing between the border and the canal in
19 Section B-4. Much of the habitat of Sections B-4 and B-5A and B-5B is strewn
20 with trash left by aliens making border crossings and by seasonal recreationists.
21 Several areas of the proposed El Centro Sector corridor are unvegetated due to
22 development and disturbance. Unvegetated sites included access roads within
23 all sections, power line and tower access roads and construction sites (Section
24 B-5B), a large area cleared by the Imperial Irrigation District to reclaim canal
25 seepage on Section B-5B, a natural-appearing playa on Section B-4, and
26 excavations and berms along Sections B-2 and B-4. On the eastern terminus of
27 Section B-5B, active sand flats and dunes support no to < 1 percent vegetative
28 cover. An unvegetated playa approximately midway along Section B-4, east of
29 the Alamo River, is devoid of vegetation due to seasonal flooding and
30 accumulation of salts. Berms and ditches along the western portion of Section
31 B-4 are often unvegetated and the soil appears compacted. The Imperial
32 Irrigation District is currently undertaking canal seepage recovery resulting in
33 many acres of complete surface disturbance resulting in vegetation removal and
34 precluding the establishment of vegetation at this time. Agricultural fields occur
35 along the eastern terminus of Section B-2.
36 An access road is usually present adjacent to the international border of Sections

37 B-1 (east and west portions), B-2 (eastern one-half), B-4, and B-5A and B-5B
38 and along the All-American Canal, in addition to electrical power transmission
39 line access and maintenance roads constructed within Section B-5B. For the
40 length of Sections B-5A and B-5B, unlimited camping and all-terrain vehicle
41 access is permitted, typically during the cooler months of the year, resulting in
42 and maintaining additional unvegetated landscape. The BLM estimated that
43 recreation visits to the Buttercup Campground adjacent to Section B-4 as
44 proposed exceeds 108,000 annually (BLM 2003a).
3-27
FME002831
1 Vegetation of the proposed El Centro Sector corridor consists of sparse sand

2 plains, desert washes, sand dune, and creosotebush scrub communities on
3 Section B-1, the western two-thirds of Section B-2, the eastern one-third of
4 Section B-4 and for the entirety of Sections B-5A and B-5B. Denser wetland and
5 riparian communities occur on the eastern end of Section B-2 and the western
6 two-thirds of Section B-4. Project-related effects on wetland and riparian plant
7 communities of Sections B-2 and B-4 are presented under Section 3.4.2, Waters
8 of the United States, and are not discussed further here.
9 The western end of Section B-1, west of Pinto Wash, supports sparse
10 creosotebush scrub flats or plains. Pinto Wash contains sparse woodlands of
11 creosotebush, honey mesquite, and ironwood tall shrubs and small trees.
12 Section B-1 east of Pinto Wash represents diverse topography of flats, slopes,
13 rock outcrops, small desert washes, and small sand dunes dominated by sparse
14 creosotebush, white bursage, and shrubby coldenia. The west end of Section
15 B-2 is located on the toeslope of Signal Mountain and is characterized by sparse
16 creosotebush and white bursage shrubs on the uplands and a mixed shrub and
17 herbaceous community in a wash that occurs at the base of the mountain and
18 supports honey mesquite, ocotillo, white bursage, and creosotebush. The
19 eastern portion of Section B-2 is heavily disturbed by road maintenance or
20 supports ditchbank wetlands and agricultural crops. The eastern one-third of
21 Section B-4 supports sparse creosotebush shrubs associated with fourwing
22 saltbush, longleaf jointfir, and white bursage where sandier soils occur.
23 Scattered areas of gravel-armored desert pavement are interspersed and
24 support sparse creosotebush shrubs with herbaceous desert annuals in years
25 with sufficient precipitation for the seeds to germinate.
26 Section B-5A and the western three-fourths of Section B-5B support sparse
27 creosotebush shrubs associated with longleaf jointfir where sandier soils occur.
28 Scattered areas of gravel-armored desert pavement are interspersed and
29 support sparse creosotebush shrubs with herbaceous desert annuals in years
30 with sufficient precipitation for the seeds to germinate. The eastern one-fourth of
31 Section B-5B occupies active sand dunes located on the edge of the Imperial
32 Sand Dune system that are devoid of vegetation; support sparse longleaf jointfir
33 shrubs; or support sparse creosotebush, longleaf jointfir, and desert buckwheat
34 shrubs. Sections B-5A and B-5B in their entirety lie within the BLM’s Buttercup
35 Recreation Management Area, designated Multiple-use Class I “Intensive” and is
36 used for camping, off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, sightseeing, commercial
37 vending, education, filming, and ROWs (BLM 2003a). A detailed description of
38 vegetation resources can be found in the Biological Survey Report (see
39 Appendix D).

3-28
FME002832

3 Under the No Action Alternative, Colorado Desert vegetation of proposed Section

4 B-4 (and to a lesser extent of B-1 and B-2), consisting of sparse creosotebush
5 shrublands would continue to be affected by human foot traffic trampling plants
6 and creating trails, vehicle travel through the vegetation (predominantly trucks
7 and sports utility vehicles), and trash accumulation resulting in low, adverse, and
8 long-term effects. Dust generated from the existing international border access
9 road, where present, would continue to result in insignificant to low, adverse,
10 long-term effects on sparse creosotebush and associated shrubs and herbs due
11 to interference with pollination and photosynthesis.
12 Colorado Desert vegetation that has become established in Pinto Wash and
13 small washes within the corridor would continue to be periodically disturbed by
14 floodwater following torrential rains resulting in low to moderate, short- and long-
15 term, adverse and beneficial effects on smoketree, ironwood, honey mesquite,
16 and creosotebush tall shrublands, These vegetation stands would be subject to
17 toppling or mechanical injury during floods, but would also respond to the water
18 provided to the system.
19 Colorado Desert vegetation of proposed Sections B-5A and B-5B consisting of

20 sparse creosotebush shrublands and active sand dunes would continue to be
21 affected by recreational pursuits in the form of intensive OHV riding through the
22 vegetation, camping, power transmission line maintenance, human foot traffic,
23 and trash accumulation resulting in moderate to high, adverse, and long-term
24 effects due to vegetation crushing and loss of sand mounds at the vegetation
25 base that help to collect moisture. Dust generated from OHV activity and from
26 the existing international border access road would continue to result in low to
27 moderate, adverse, long-term effects on sparse creosotebush, desert buckwheat,
28 and longleaf jointfir shrubs due to interference with pollination and
29 photosynthesis. A portion of the sparse creosotebush shrublands adjacent to the
30 western end of Section B-5B have been removed by the Imperial Irrigation
31 District using heavy equipment to support retrieval of water seeping from the All-
32 American Canal into the Mexicali Valley, resulting in high, adverse, long-term
33 effects on this vegetation type due to permanent vegetation removal on
34 maintenance roads and structure sites and due to the many decades required for
35 recovery of areas temporarily affected from vegetation removal.
37 Under the Proposed Action new boundary roads and construction access would
38 occur and the existing international border access road segments would be
39 widened from approximately 16 feet to approximately 20 feet resulting in the loss
40 of approximately 5.3 acres of sparse creosotebush shrub communities corridor-
41 wide; approximately 3.4 acres of desert wash vegetation in Pinto Wash of

3-29
FME002833
1 Section B-1; and approximately 8.3 acres of active sand dune communities
2 adjacent to proposed Sections B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. Additional loss of habitat
3 resulting from clearing of lay-down areas for construction materials and
4 maintenance and storage areas for heavy equipment would be minimal as
5 previously disturbed areas would be selected for these functions to the extent
6 practicable. Effects of Colorado Desert vegetation removal would be low to
7 moderate, adverse, and long-term due to the large amount of similar vegetation
8 regionally, other construction projects in the area cumulatively resulting in
9 vegetation removal, and the highly disturbed condition of the entire B-5A and B-
10 5B corridor due to previous and ongoing recreational activities. Sites within the
11 proposed corridors that are disturbed temporarily during construction could re-
12 vegetate to annual plant species (seasonally and during moist precipitation
13 cycles) resulting in insignificant to low, beneficial and adverse, short- and long-
14 term effects due to provision of food sources and ground cover for wildlife and
15 due to the potential spread of nonnative species including Mediterranean grass
16 and crane’s-bill, among others.
17 Revegetation would be considered unlikely to occur due to the around-the-clock

18 international border security patrol access needs, the tremendous seasonal
19 presence of recreational vehicles, and low annual precipitation. Therefore
20 vegetation impacts related to fence installation would be considered long-term to
21 permanent. The proposed primary pedestrian fence in Section B-5B would be
22 designed to account for the unique conditions of the active dunes. Portions of
23 the proposed primary pedestrian fence constructed into the active dune field
24 would require periodic maintenance to remove the sand deposited at the base of
25 the fence to prevent its eventual burial, thus preventing vegetation re-
26 establishment. Effects on sparse Colorado Desert vegetation communities due
27 to elimination of human foot traffic and some vehicle travel following construction
28 of the primary pedestrian fence as proposed would be insignificant, beneficial,
29 and long-term.

31 Under this alternative, the impact corridor would increase to 130 feet (slightly
32 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on vegetative
33 habitat would be similar to those described for the proposed action, but more
34 extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated
35 with the larger footprint of this alternative, moderate to major short- and long-term
36 adverse impacts would be anticipated. These impacts would be offset by long-
37 term beneficial impacts due to reduction of foot and vehicular traffic through
38 habitat north of the corridor.
39 3.7 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

40 Wildlife and aquatic resources include native or naturalized mammals, birds
41 (including migratory birds), reptiles, amphibians, fish, mollusks, and crustaceans.
42 Identification of the species potentially occurring in the project area was
3-30
FME002834
1 accomplished through literature reviews, coordination with appropriate Federal

2 and state resource managers, other knowledgeable experts, and field surveys.
3 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the
4 protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing
5 migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186,
6 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has
7 the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions
8 of the MBTA, which include responsibility for population management (e.g.,
9 monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification),
10 international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The
11 MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which includes
12 nearly every native bird in North America.
13 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
14 on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
15 Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds,
16 EO 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and
17 CDFG and obtain a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.
18 This analysis is based on site surveys conducted in September, October, and

19 November 2007. More detailed information on wildlife and aquatic resources,
20 including species observed and the survey methodology is contained in the
21 Biological Survey Report in Appendix D.

23 The Imperial Desert occurs within the Colorado Desert Bioregion and supports
24 more than 15 species of amphibians including the common bullfrog (Rana
25 catesbeiana) and Couch’s spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus couchi); more than 60
26 species of mammals including the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), kit fox
27 (Vulpes macrotis), roundtail ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus), and
28 black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); more than 430 species of birds
29 including neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl; and 70
30 species of reptiles including desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra-tailed
31 lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), and western whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis tigris).
32 The majority of the bird species are present in the spring and fall, when migrants
33 on the Pacific Flyway pass through on their way to either summer breeding or
34 wintering grounds, and during winter when summer residents from the north
35 arrive to spend the winter.
36 The most common fish in the All-American Canal and associated laterals is the
37 triploid grass carp, a sterile form of the nonnative grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
38 idella) from Asia. This sterile form is actively raised and introduced to the canal
39 system by the Imperial Irrigation District to control hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata),
40 an invasive nonnative species of aquatic vascular plant.

3-31
FME002835
1 Mammals and birds observed during the September, October, and November
2 2007 surveys included ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.), black-tailed jackrabbit
3 (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus
4 audubonii), red-tailed hawk (Buteo lineatus), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambeli),
5 American coot (Fulica Americana), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), greater road
6 runner (Geococcyx californianus), Inca dove (Columbina inca), mourning dove
7 (Zenaida macroura), common ground dove (Columbina passerina), rock dove
8 (Columba livia), great tailed grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus), cliff swallow
9 (Hirundo pyrrhonota), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), and zebra-
10 tailed lizard (Callisaurus draconoides). A complete list of wildlife observed is
11 provided in the Biological Survey Report (see Appendix D).

14 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and
15 there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the
16 U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the
17 USBP El Centro Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in cross-
18 border violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on
19 wildlife and aquatic resources of the region. These impacts are anticipated to be
20 short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse.
22 Under the Proposed Action, existing border access roads would be widened from
23 approximately 16 feet to approximately 20 feet resulting in the loss of
24 approximately 5.3 acres of habitat. Additional loss of habitat resulting from
25 clearing of lay-down areas for construction materials and maintenance and
26 storage areas for heavy equipment would be minimal as previously disturbed
27 areas would be selected for these functions to the extent practicable. Potential
28 impacts on wildlife and aquatic life include habitat loss, noise and physical
29 disturbance associated with construction and subsequent maintenance activities,
30 impacts of lights on nocturnal species, and beneficial impacts due to reduced
31 cross-border violator traffic.
32 The effects on wildlife of habitat loss due to construction would be short-term

33 moderate and long-term minor adverse. No impacts on aquatic species are
34 anticipated from construction, assuming implementation of standard BMPs such
35 as use of silt fencing and other mechanisms to control erosion and runoff.
36 Impacts of construction and subsequent maintenance activities, including noise

37 and physical disturbance, are anticipated to be short-term moderate and long-
38 term minor adverse, respectively. These adverse impacts would be offset by the
39 beneficial impact of reduced cross-border violator traffic through remaining
40 habitat.

3-32
FME002836
1 Lights along the fence corridor may behaviorally exclude nocturnal wildlife such
2 as the kit fox from the illuminated zone, while potentially providing additional food
3 sources for insectivorous bats such as the big brown bat. As such, lights would
4 have minor to moderate, adverse and beneficial impacts on nocturnal wildlife
5 depending on the species examined.
6 Impacts on migratory birds could occur, given the potential timing of fence
7 construction. However, implementation of BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse
8 impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is a list of BMPs
9 recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory birds:
10 • Any groundbreaking construction activities should be performed before

11 migratory birds return to the area (approximately 1 March) or after all
12 young have fledged (approximately 31 July) to avoid incidental take.
13 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period in which migratory
14 bird species are present, steps should be taken to prevent migratory birds
15 from establishing nests in the potential impact area. These steps could
16 include covering equipment and structures, and use of various excluders
17 (e.g., noise). Birds can be harassed to prevent them from nesting on the
18 site. Once a nest is established, they cannot be harassed until all young
19 have fledged and left the nest site.
20 • If construction is scheduled to start during the period when migratory birds
21 are present, a supplemental site-specific survey for nesting migratory birds
22 should be performed immediately prior to site clearing.
23 • If nesting birds are found during the supplemental survey, construction
24 should be deferred until the birds have left the nest. Confirmation that all
25 young have fledged should be made by a competent biologist.
26 Because not all of the above BMPs can be fully implemented due to time
27 constraints of fence construction, a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit would be
28 obtained from USFWS.
29 Assuming implementation of the above BMPs to the fullest extent feasible,

30 impacts of the Proposed Action on migratory birds is anticipated to be short- and
31 long-term, minor, and adverse due to construction disturbance and associated
32 loss of habitat, and long-term, minor, and beneficial due to reduction of cross-
33 border violator traffic through migratory bird habitat north of the impact corridor.

36 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on wildlife,
37 aquatic species, and migratory birds would be similar to those described for the
38 Proposed Action, but more extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat
39 disturbance and loss associated with the larger footprint of this alternative,
40 moderate to major short- and long-term adverse impacts would be anticipated.
3-33
FME002837
1 These impacts would be offset by long-term beneficial impacts due to reduction

2 of foot and vehicular traffic through habitat north of the corridor.
3 3.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

4 Federal and state threatened and endangered species are addressed in this EA.
5 In addition, one BLM sensitive species which is the subject of a multi-agency
6 management strategy is also addressed as the project location occurs within a
7 designated management area. Each group has its own definitions, and
8 legislative and regulatory drivers for consideration during the NEPA process;
9 these are briefly described below.
10 The ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544 et seq.), provides broad

11 protection for species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are listed as threatened or
12 endangered in the United States or elsewhere. Provisions are made for listing
13 species, as well as for recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for
14 listed species. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for Federal agencies to
15 follow when taking actions that might jeopardize listed species, and contains
16 exceptions and exemptions. Criminal and civil penalties are provided for
17 violations of the ESA.
18 Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities
19 to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the
20 USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy
21 or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to management of Federal
22 lands as well as other Federal actions that might affect listed species, such as
23 approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal permits, licenses, or
24 other actions.
25 Under the ESA, a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which
26 is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
27 ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
28 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
29 significant portion of its range.
30 The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) states that all native species of
31 fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their
32 habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline
33 which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will
34 be protected or preserved.
35 Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits “take” of any
36 species that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a
37 threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as
38 “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or
39 kill.” CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects.
40 CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare,

3-34
FME002838
1 endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation

2 planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their
3 essential habitats.
4 Through permits or memorandums of understanding, the California Department

5 of Fish and Game (CDFG) also may authorize individuals, public agencies,
6 universities, zoological gardens, and scientific or educational institutions to
7 import, export, take, or possess any endangered species, threatened species, or
8 candidate species of plants and animals for scientific, educational, or
9 management purposes.

11 There are four state-listed taxa that have the potential to occur within or proximal
12 to the proposed fence corridors in Imperial County: two endangered plants, one
13 endangered bird, and one threatened bird (see Table 3.8-1). Of those, three are
14 also federally listed species: one threatened plant and two endangered birds.
15 No state threatened or endangered species were observed during the
16 September, October, or November 2007 surveys (see Appendix D).
17 The riparian vegetation occurring along the All-American Canal and smaller
18 irrigation canals and ditches of the area does not appear to provide suitable
19 habitat for the Yuma clapper rail. Most such areas contain dense stands of
20 common reed extending into open water with little other emergent wetland
21 vegetation or sandbars or other substrate features for foraging areas.
22 Trees associated with wet areas south of the All-American Canal, and which
23 probably established and survive based on seepage water from that canal, are a
24 mixture dominated by salt cedar. Density and distribution of these trees is not
25 perceived to provide suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher.
26 Potential habitat for the Algodones Dunes sunflower and Peirson’s milkvetch
27 occurs along the proposed fence alignment in Section B-5B which enters into the
28 west side of the Algodones Dunes. Further details on the natural history of these
29 two species are provided in Appendix D. Two proposed fence sections occur
30 within designated management areas for the flat-tailed horned lizard (FTHL).
31 Sections B-1 and B-5A are within the Yuha Desert and East Mesa FTHL
32 management areas, respectively.
33

3-35
FME002839
1 Table 3.8-1. State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species Near
2 Project Area in Imperial County
Common Federal State

Scientific Name General Habitat
Name Status Status
PLANTS
Algodones Helianthus Found in sandy desert area
dunes niveus ssp. -- E of Algodones Sand Dunes
sunflower Tephrodes in CA and southwestern AZ.
Only known occurrence in
Astragalus the U.S. is in Algodones
Peirson's
magdalenae var. T E Sand Dunes. Found at
milk-vetch
peirsonii elevations of 55–250
meters.
BIRDS
Southwestern Inhabits thickets, brushy
Empidonax traillii
willow E E areas, and riparian
extimus
flycatcher woodlands.
Inhabits freshwater or
brackish streamsides and
Rallus
Yuma clapper marshlands. Forages in
longirostris E T
rail higher marsh vegetation,
yumanensis
mudflat interface, and along
tidal creeks.
REPTILES
Inhabits sandy flats or areas
Flat-tailed Phrynosoma --
SSC with a veneer of fine,
horned lizard* mcallii (Proposed)
windblown sand.
Note: T = threatened, E = endangered, SSC = Special Status Species
* Although not listed as threatened or endangered, the flat-tailed horned lizard is included
here because it is a BLM-sensitive species for which a multi-agency management
strategy has been developed and the USFWS is a signatory on that plan (BLM 2003b).


8 within USBP El Centro Sector. While this alternative would not result in impacts
9 to listed species due to construction, operation, and maintenance of fence and
10 associated facilities, it also would leave areas supporting listed species
11 susceptible to disturbance associated with illegal pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

3-36
FME002840
2 Under the Proposed Action, new boundary roads and construction access would
3 occur and the existing international border access road segments would be
4 widened from approximately 16 feet to approximately 20 feet resulting in the loss
5 of approximately 5.3 acres of sparse creosotebush shrub communities corridor-
6 wide; approximately 3.4 acres of desert wash vegetation in Pinto Wash of
7 Section B-1; and approximately 8.3 acres of active sand dune communities
8 adjacent to proposed Sections B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. Additional loss of habitat
9 resulting from clearing of lay-down areas for construction materials and
10 maintenance and storage areas for heavy equipment would be minimal as
11 previously disturbed areas would be selected for these functions to the extent
12 practicable. Potential impacts on listed species include habitat loss, noise and
13 physical disturbance associated with construction and subsequent maintenance
14 activities, and beneficial impacts due to reduced cross-border violator traffic.
15 Algodones dune sunflower and Peirson’s milkvetch. Section B-5B extends

16 into potential habitat for Algodones dune sunflower and Peirson’s milkvetch.
17 Surveys of this section, conducted in September 2007, revealed no plants of
18 these species. However, 2007 was a very dry year and the survey time was not
19 optimal for these species. Therefore, the prudent approach is to assume that
20 individuals or propagules of these species might be present within the impact
21 corridor for Section B-5B. Proposed BMPs have been identified and provided to
22 the USFWS Carlsbad Office for Peirson’s milkvetch pursuant to the Section 7
23 consultation process. Final BMPs will be included in the BO.
24 Flat-tailed horned lizard. The following conservation measures are identified in

25 the FTHL Management Strategy (BLM 2003b) and would be implemented under
26 the Proposed Action to the fullest extent applicable and practicable.
27 1. To the extent possible, surface-disturbing projects would be located

28 outside of Management Areas (MAs) and the Research Area (RA), and
29 would be timed to minimize mortality. If a project must be located within a
30 MA or RA, effort would be made to locate the project in a previously
31 disturbed area or in an area where habitat quality is poor. A survey of the
32 project site would be conducted prior to construction in order to assist in
33 locating the project.
34 2. Prior to project initiation, an individual would be designated as a field

35 contact representative. The field contact representative would have the
36 authority to ensure compliance with protective measures for the FTHL and
37 will be the primary agency contact dealing with these measures. The field
38 contact representative would have the authority and responsibility to halt
39 activities that are in violation of these terms and conditions.
40 3. All project work areas would be clearly flagged or similarly marked at the
41 outer boundaries to define the limit of work activities. All construction and

3-37
FME002841
1 restoration workers would restrict their activities and vehicles to areas that
2 have been flagged to eliminate adverse impacts to the FTHL and its
3 habitat. All workers would be instructed that their activities are restricted to
4 flagged and cleared areas.
5 4. Within FTHL habitat, the area of disturbance of vegetation and soils would
6 be the minimum required for the project. If possible, specify a maximum
7 disturbance allowable based on the specifics of the project. Clearing of
8 vegetation and grading would be minimized. Wherever possible, rather
9 than clearing vegetation and grading the ROW, equipment and vehicles
10 would use existing surfaces or previously disturbed areas. Where grading
11 is necessary, surface soils would be stockpiled and replaced following
12 construction to facilitate habitat restoration. To the extent possible,
13 disturbance of shrubs and surface soils due to stockpiling would be
14 minimized.
15 5. Existing roads would be used for travel and equipment storage whenever
16 possible.
17 6. Where feasible and desirable, in the judgment of the lead agency, newly
18 created access routes would be restricted by constructing barricades,
19 erecting fences with locked gates at road intersections, or by posting
20 signs. In these cases, CBP would maintain, including monitoring, all
21 control structures and facilities for the life of the project and until habitat
22 restoration is completed.
23 7. A biological monitor would be present in each area of active surface

24 disturbance throughout the work day from initial clearing through habitat
25 restoration, except where the project is completely fenced and cleared of
26 FTHLs by a biologist (see Measure 8). The biological monitors would meet
27 the requirements set in Appendix 6 of the Management Strategy (BLM
28 2003b).
29 The monitor(s) would perform the following functions:
30 a. Develop and implement a worker education program. Wallet-cards

31 summarizing this information would be provided to all construction and
32 maintenance personnel.
33 The education program would include the following aspects at a

34 minimum:
35 - Biology and status of the FTHL

36 - Protection measures designed to reduce potential impacts on the
37 species
38 - Function of flagging designating authorized work areas

3-38
FME002842
1 - Reporting procedures to be used if a FTHL is encountered in the

2 field
3 - Importance of exercising care when commuting to and from the
4 project area to reduce mortality of FTHLs on roads.
5 b. Ensure that all project-related activities comply with these measures.

6 The biological monitor would have the authority and responsibility to
7 halt activities that are in violation of these terms and conditions.
8 c. Examine areas of active surface disturbance periodically (at least

9 hourly when surface temperatures exceed 85 ºF) for the presence of
10 FTHLs. In addition, all hazardous sites (e.g., open pipeline trenches,
11 holes, or other deep excavations) would be inspected for the presence
12 of FTHLs prior to backfilling.
13 d. Work with the project supervisor to take steps, as necessary, to avoid

14 disturbance to FTHLs and their habitat. If avoiding disturbance to a
15 FTHL is not possible or if an FTHL is found trapped in an excavation,
16 the affected lizard would be captured by hand and relocated.
17 8. Sites of permanent or long-term (greater than one year) projects in MAs

18 where continuing activities are planned and where FTHL mortality could
19 occur can be enclosed with FTHL barrier fencing to prevent lizards from
20 wandering onto the project site where they could be subject to collection,
21 death, or injury. Barrier fencing should be in accordance with the
22 standards outlined in Appendix 7 of the Management Strategy. After
23 clearing the area of FTHLs (also see Appendix 7 [BLM 2003b]), no on-site
24 monitor is required (see Measure 7).
25 9. CBP would develop a project-specific habitat restoration plan under

26 approval by the lead agency. The plan would consider and include, as
27 appropriate, the following methods: replacement of topsoil, seedbed
28 preparation, fertilization, seeding of species native to the project area,
29 noxious weed control, and additional erosion control (see Habitat
30 Rehabilitation, p. 67). Generally, the restoration objective would be to
31 return the disturbed area to a condition that will perpetuate previous land
32 use. CBP would conduct periodic inspection of the restored area.
33 Restoration would include eliminating any hazards to FTHLs created by
34 construction, such as holes and trenches in which lizards might become
35 entrapped. Disturbance of existing perennial shrubs during restoration
36 would be minimized, even if such shrubs have been crushed by
37 construction activities.
38 10. Construction of new paved roads would include a lizard barrier fence on
39 each side of the road that is exposed to occupied FTHL habitat.
40 Exceptions might occur in accordance with the following evaluation, to be

3-39
FME002843
1 applied separately to each side of the road. This prescription can also be
2 applied to canals or other fragmenting projects.
3 If the side is made nonviable for FTHLs even if connected to the other
4 side:
5 - Compensate for the entirety of the fragmented parcel.
6 If the side is viable only if connected to the other side:
7 - Compensate for the entirety of the fragmented parcel

8 - Provide fencing and effective culverts or underpasses that will maintain
9 connectivity.
10 If the side is viable even if not connected to the other side:
11 - Provide fencing (no culverts).
12 Specifications for barrier fences are provided in Appendix 7 of the Management

13 Strategy (BLM 2003b). The FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee will
14 make the determination of FTHL population viability based on the size,
15 configuration, and habitat condition of the isolated parcel; threats from adjacent
16 lands; and existing scientific evidence of edge effects on FTHL. Culvert design
17 will be provided by the FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee.
18 Assuming implementation of applicable and practicable BMPs, impacts of

19 construction and subsequent maintenance activities on Peirson’s milkvetch and
20 FTHL, including noise and physical disturbance, are anticipated to be short-term
21 moderate and long-term minor adverse, respectively. These adverse impacts
22 would be offset by the beneficial impact of reduced cross-border violator traffic
23 through remaining habitat.

26 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on listed
27 species would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action, but more
28 extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated
29 with the larger footprint of this alternative, moderate to major short- and long-term
30 adverse impacts would be anticipated. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts
31 due to reduction of cross-border violator traffic through habitat north of the
32 corridor would be anticipated.
33 3.9 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

34 Cultural resources is an umbrella term for many heritage-related resources. The
35 NHPA focuses on historic properties, specifically, prehistoric or historic districts,

3-40
FME002844
1 sites, buildings, or structures included in, or eligible for, the National Register of
2 Historic Places (NRHP), including related artifacts, records, and material
3 remains. Traditional, religious, and cultural properties holding significance for
4 Native American tribes, and Native Alaskan and Native Hawaiian organizations
5 can also be considered NRHP-eligible. Depending on the condition and historic
6 use, such resources might provide insight into living conditions in previous
7 civilizations or might retain cultural and religious significance to modern groups.
8 Several Federal laws and regulations govern protection of cultural resources,

9 including the NHPA (1966), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act
10 (1974), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978), the Archaeological
11 ARPA (1979), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
12 (NAGPRA) (1990).
13 Typically, cultural resources are subdivided into archaeological resources

14 (prehistoric or historic sites where human activity has left physical evidence of
15 that activity but no structures remain standing); architectural resources (buildings
16 or other structures or groups of structures, or designed landscapes that are of
17 historic or aesthetic significance); or resources of traditional, religious, or cultural
18 significance to Native American tribes. Archaeological resources are locations
19 containing evidence of human activity. In southern California, archaeological
20 resources dating to the prehistoric period (prior to European contact) typically
21 consist of deposits of artifacts, such as flaked and ground stone tools; bone or
22 shell ornaments or tools; dietary refuse such as bone, shells, or burned seeds;
23 and occasionally features such as house floors, hearths, bedrock milling
24 elements, or human remains. Archaeological resources dating to the historic
25 period might consist of structural remains such as foundations, cisterns, or
26 privies; features such as roads, railroad grades, or water canals; or deposits of
27 artifacts representing domestic, commercial, or other activities.
28 Architectural resources include standing structures such as buildings, dams,

29 canals, bridges, transmission lines, and other structures of historic or aesthetic
30 value. Although architectural resources generally must be more than 50 years old
31 to be considered for protection, exceptions can be made where the structures are
32 likely to gain value in the future.
33 Resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native American

34 tribes are those that relate to the traditional practices, beliefs, and religions of a
35 living community, and are considered essential to maintaining the identity of that
36 culture. Traditional cultural resources might include the locations of historical or
37 mythological events, traditional hunting or gathering areas, sacred areas, or any
38 other location of traditional cultural importance.
39 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for cultural resources consists of the
40 approximately 44.6-mile corridor of proposed tactical infrastructure along the
41 U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP El Centro Sector including any
42 construction related areas. The project is entirely within California, near Calexico,

3-41
FME002845
1 in Imperial County. The proposed tactical infrastructure would consist of primary

2 pedestrian and vehicle fence, and supporting patrol roads and other protection
3 elements over four sections. Individual sections would range from approximately
4 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length. The APE for cultural resources concerns was
5 determined to be a corridor with a width of 300 feet to the north of the
6 U.S./Mexico international border, with the border as the southern limit. This
7 corridor was determined based on the construction needs and description
8 provided. The APE was defined to be sufficiently large to include all of the
9 anticipated activities for access, construction and ongoing maintenance of the
10 proposed infrastructure.

12 The Proposed Action would occur in Imperial County, California, along the
13 U.S./Mexico international border. The sections range from the western end of
14 the Imperial Valley to the eastern edge, near the border with Arizona. A project-
15 specific cultural resources survey was prepared in support of this project. The
16 APE for the proposed project includes lands owned or managed by the BLM,
17 Bureau of Reclamation, USIBWC, and private property. The results of the
18 archaeological survey assessment are summarized below and included in
19 Appendix E.
20 The cultural resources survey and associated research was completed in

21 accordance with the regulations and terminology appropriate for the regulations
22 associated with the NHPA of 1966 - Section 106 and 36 CFR 800: Protection of
23 Historic Properties, revised 2006. All cultural resources activities performed in
24 support of the proposed project meet the requirements of Archaeological
25 Resources Protection Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470aa – 470mm), as defined
26 in section 36 CFR 60.4.
27 An archeological site record and archival search was conducted at the

28 Southeastern Information Center in El Centro, California, in accordance with the
29 requirements of NHPA Section 106 (CFR 800.4 [2, 3, and 4]. The archaeological
30 site record and archival search were completed to identify and collect data
31 regarding cultural resources recorded within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed
32 project APE. Archaeological site records and archival information, including
33 information regarding recorded sites (CA-SDI) and Primary Numbers (P-37)
34 plotted on the Calexico, Bonds Corner, and Grays Well USGS Quadrangles was
35 reviewed. The record search area included proposed access roads and all areas
36 known to be part of the project as of October 2007.
37 The record search results indicate that there are 106 sites in the general study
38 area, 11 of which are plotted in or immediately adjacent to the proposed APE
39 (Table 3.9-1). While this is a large number of sites, the recorded resources are
40 generally characterized as isolated prehistoric artifacts (prehistoric pottery
41 sherds, flakes, flaked stone tools), features associated with the All-American
42 Canal, historic trash dumps, or artifacts associated with the historic Plank Road.

3-42
FME002846
1 A total of 21 of the recorded resources are categorized as isolated finds,

2 meaning there were fewer than three items found at the location. As the
3 definition of a cultural resources site by the BLM is three or more artifacts in a 50-
4 square-meter area, many of these sites represent the minimal number of items
5 needed to qualify as an archaeological site and, in fact, under other site
6 definitions would not have been recorded as sites.
7 None of the sites on Table 3.9-1 have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. In
8 2003 a survey by the BLM (Hangan 2003) was completed with the intent to
9 relocate sites CA-IMP-4479, -4481, -4758, -4760, and -4761; no evidence of the
10 sites was found within a 50-m radius of where they are plotted on the site
11 records. The status of the remaining sites is not known.
12 Table 3.9-1. Recorded Sites Within or Adjacent to the APE by Section
Site Number Site Number

Section Section
CA-IMP- CA-IMP-
4307 B-1 3813 B-5A
6174 B-1 4760 B-5A
4481 B-2 4761 B-5A
4829 B-2 4762 B-5B
4833 B-2 4763 B-5B
3811 B-5A
13 A search of the National Archaeological Data Base (NADB) was completed in an

14 effort to identify cultural resources management reports for previously completed
15 cultural resources management activities (archaeological survey and evaluation
16 excavations) over a 0.5-mile radius around the APE. Information provided in the
17 NADB indicates that a number of sections of the APE and vicinity have been
18 previously surveyed and several of the previously recorded sites have been
19 subjected to archaeological evaluation. There have been 37 cultural resources
20 studies conducted in the search area. These studies include large areas
21 associated with transmission line projects, private developments, and projects
22 associated with various border studies. The majority of the studies have been
23 negative for archaeological resources, and have resulted in the recording of
24 numerous resource isolates and fewer cultural resources sites.
25 An intensive pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted in October 2007 under
26 BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit CA-08-03 and a Fieldwork Authorization
27 Permit. The survey covered an area approximately 90 m (300 feet) in width
28 along the designated corridor of access and proposed construction. The survey
29 corridor was intensively examined using pedestrian transects that did not exceed
30 10 m between team members. Areas of substantial disturbance or alteration

3-43
FME002847
1 were spot-checked for evidence of archaeological materials. The ground surface

2 visibility was excellent and survey conditions were optimal.
3 None of the 11 previously recorded sites (see Table 3.9-1) were relocated within
4 the survey corridor. It is likely that none of these sites are in the precise locations
5 that are plotted on the original site records. It is also possible that the alteration
6 and dynamic conditions of the survey area could have buried or obscured these
7 sites since their original recording, or that the original surveyors could have
8 collected the materials visible on the surface, thereby leaving no discernable
9 evidence of the site behind.
10 The pedestrian survey resulted in the recording of two previously unknown

11 archaeological resources (one historic artifact scatter and one prehistoric stone
12 chipping station) and two prehistoric isolates (one prehistoric ceramic sherd and
13 one piece of chipping waste/debitage). Site information regarding the resources
14 was submitted to the Southeastern Information Center for assignment of
15 permanent trinomials. All four resources are immediately adjacent to the APE.
16 By definition, the two isolates are not eligible for NRHP consideration;
17 evaluations were not conducted on the two newly discovered archaeological
18 sites, although both appear to have limited research potential.
19 Historic Architectural Resources. There are no buildings or other standing

20 structures of historic or aesthetic value within or within the viewshed of the APE.
21 The area surveyed is generally void of built features, though land alteration is
22 common. Sections of the All-American Canal (feature determined to be NRHP-
23 eligible) are adjacent to the APE, but outside of the proposed project footprint.
24 Traditional Cultural Resources and Native American Issues. A letter

25 initiating consultation was sent by the USACE-Fort Worth District to 14 tribal
26 groups with cultural links to the project area. The concerns of these groups were
27 considered during the preparation of this document and information regarding
28 Traditional Cultural Properties has been considered as part of the impact
29 analysis.
30 There are no reported resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to

31 Native American tribes recorded within or adjacent to the APE. Consultation with
32 local Native American groups could result in information regarding areas of
33 specific concern.

36 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
37 built and there would be no change in fencing, lights, patrol roads, or other
38 facilities within the USBP El Centro Sector. Since there would be no tactical

3-44
FME002848
1 infrastructure built, cultural, historical, and archeological resources would

2 continue to be affected by cross-border violator activities.
4 There are no archaeological sites within the APE for the Proposed Action. Of the
5 archaeological resources adjacent to the APE, none have been assessed for
6 NRHP eligibility or are determined to be eligible to the NRHP. The two newly
7 discovered resources are adjacent to the APE and have not been evaluated for
8 NRHP eligibility. No historic architectural resources or resources of traditional,
9 religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes are known to be within
10 the APE.
11 Accordingly, the Proposed Action does not have the potential to impact
12 archaeological or architectural resources. Impacts on resources of traditional,
13 religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes cannot be assessed
14 until such time as replies are received from tribes having ancestral ties to the
15 lands within the APE. No additional archaeological survey work is recommended
16 prior to implementation of this project. Due to the low potential for inadvertent
17 discovery of previously unidentified, buried, or masked cultural resources within
18 the project, archaeological monitoring is not recommended for project-related
19 excavation or other ground-disturbing construction activities. A worker education
20 program would be developed and a clear delimitation of work areas would occur
21 to ensure that there are no inadvertent damages to cultural resources outside but
22 near the project areas.
24 Impacts under Alternative 3 would be the same as Alternative 2.
25 3.10 AIR QUALITY

27 In accordance with Federal CAA requirements, the air quality in a given region or
28 area is measured by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere.
29 The measurements of these “criteria pollutants” in ambient air are expressed in
30 units of ppm, micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), or milligrams per cubic meter
31 (mg/m3).
32 The CAA directed USEPA to develop National Ambient Air Quality Standards
33 (NAAQS) for pollutants that have been determined to affect human health and
34 the environment. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria air pollutants:
35 ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
36 respirable particulate matter (including particulates equal to or less than 10
37 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulates equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
38 diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS are ambient air quality

3-45
FME002849
1 standards of which maintenance is required to protect the public health, with an

2 adequate margin of safety. Secondary NAAQS specify levels of air quality of
3 which maintenance is required to protect the public welfare. This maintenance
4 includes effects on vegetation, crops, wildlife, economic values, and visibility.
5 The CAA requires states to designate any area that does not meet (or that
6 contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the
7 national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for a criteria pollutant
8 as a nonattainment area. For O3, the CAA requires that each designated
9 nonattainment area be classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
10 extreme, based on ambient O3 concentrations. The Cal/EPA, California Air
11 Resources Board (CARB) has delegated responsibility for implementation of the
12 Federal CAA and California CAA to local air pollution control agencies. The
13 Proposed Action is in the Imperial County Air Quality Control District (ICAQCD)
14 and is subject to rules and regulations developed by the Imperial County Air
15 Pollution Control District (ICAPCD).
16 The State of California adopted the NAAQS and promulgated additional State
17 Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The California
18 standards are more stringent than the Federal primary standards. Table 3.10-1
19 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS and SAAQS.
20 These programs are detailed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are
21 required to be developed by each state or local regulatory agency and approved
22 by USEPA. A SIP is a compilation of regulations, strategies, schedules, and
23 enforcement actions designed to move the state into compliance with all NAAQS.
24 Any changes to the compliance schedule or plan (e.g., new regulations,
25 emissions budgets, controls) must be incorporated into the SIP and approved by
26 USEPA. USEPA has delegated the authority for ensuring compliance with the
27 NAAQS to the CARB. Therefore, the Proposed Action is subject to rules and
28 regulations developed by the CAA.
29 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
30 subareas of an AQCR, according to whether the concentrations of criteria
31 pollutants in ambient air exceed the NAAQS. All areas within each AQCR are
32 therefore designated as either “attainment,” “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or
33 “unclassified” for each of the six criteria pollutants. Attainment means that the air
34 quality within an AQCR is better than the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that
35 criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS, maintenance indicates that an area was
36 previously designated nonattainment but is now attainment, and unclassified
37 means that there is not enough information to appropriately classify an AQCR, so
38 the area is considered attainment.
39 The General Conformity Rule applies to actions in nonattainment or maintenance

40 areas and considers both direct and indirect emissions. The rule applies only to
41

3-46
FME002850
1 Table 3.10-1. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging California Standard National Standard

Pollutant
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 Arithmetic Primary
20 µg/m3 ---- Standard
Mean d
No separate State
24 Hour f 35 µg/m3 Same as
Standard
PM2.5 Primary
Annual Arithmetic Standard
12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3
Mean e
9.0 ppm
8 Hour a 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3)
(10 mg/m3)
CO None
a 3 35 ppm
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m )
(40 mg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Mean (56 µg/m3) (100 µg/m3) Same as
NO2 Primary
0.18 ppm Standard
1 Hour ----
(338 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic 0.030 ppm
---- ----
Mean (80 µg/m3)
0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
24 Hour a ----
(105 µg/m3) (365 µg/m3)
SO2
0.5 ppm
3 hour a ---- ----
(1,300 µg/m3)
0.25 ppm
1 Hour ----
(655 µg/m3)
30 Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 ---- ----
Pb Same as
Calendar Year ---- 1.5 µg/m3 Primary
Standard
Extinction coefficient
of 0.23 per kilometer
Visibility visibility of 10 miles
Reducing 8 Hour or more due to No Federal Standards
Particles particles when
relative humidity is
less than 70 percent
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 No Federal Standards

3-47
FME002851
Averaging California Standard National Standard

Pollutant
Time Concentration Primary Secondary
Hydrogen 0.03 ppm
1 Hour No Federal Standards
Sulfide (42 µg/m3)
Vinyl
24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) No Federal Standards
Chloride
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 Federal actions that are considered “regionally significant” or where the total
2 emissions from the action meet or exceed 10 percent of the AQCR’s total
3 emissions inventory for that nonattainment pollutant.
4 Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse

5 gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When
6 sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as
7 infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and
8 trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the trapped heat results in the
9 phenomenon of global warming.
10 In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and
11 other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court declared
12 that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks
13 under the landmark environment law.
14 Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority
15 of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed
16 to by human activity. Additional information on sources of greenhouse gases is
17 included in Appendix F.

3-48
FME002852

2 The Proposed Action is within Imperial County, California, within the Southeast
3 Desert Air Quality Control Region (SDAQCR). The SDAQCR is composed of
4 Imperial County, and portions of Riverside County, California. Imperial County is
5 within a Federal marginal and state moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3,
6 Federal serious and state nonattainment area for PM10, and is in
7 attainment/unclassified for all other criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General
8 Conformity Rule applies to the Proposed Action (USEPA 2007b, CARB 2007).
9 Although O3 is considered a criteria air pollutant and is measurable in the
10 atmosphere, it is not often considered a regulated air pollutant when calculating
11 emissions because O3 is typically not emitted directly from most emissions
12 sources. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
13 involving sunlight and previously emitted pollutants or “O3 precursors.” These O3
14 precursors consist primarily of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
15 compounds (VOCs) that are directly emitted from a wide range of emissions
16 sources. For this reason, regulatory agencies attempt to limit atmospheric O3
17 concentrations by controlling VOC pollutants (also identified as reactive organic
18 gases) and NO2.
19 The Proposed Action is within the ICAPCD. The ICAPCD has established air
20 pollution control regulations in CCR Titles 13 and 17. The ICAPCD has also
21 promulgated rules regulating the emissions of toxic substances which are defined
22 as those chemicals listed in California Health and Safety Code, Division 26 Air
23 Resources, Part 2 State Air Resources Board, Chapter 3.5 Toxic Air
24 Contaminants plus any other air pollutant that is considered a health hazard, as
25 defined by OSHA.

27 The de minimis threshold emissions rates were established by USEPA in the
28 General Conformity Rule to focus analysis requirements on those Federal
29 actions with the potential to have significant air quality effects. Table 3.10-2
30 presents these thresholds, by regulated pollutant. These de minimis thresholds
31 are similar, in most cases, to the definitions for major stationary sources of
32 criteria and precursors to criteria pollutants under the CAA’s New Source Review
33 Program (CAA Title I). As shown in Table 3.10-2, de minimis thresholds vary
34 depending on the severity of the nonattainment area classification.
36 Under the No Action Alternative, no new fencing or access roads would be

37 constructed and operations and activities would remain unchanged. Therefore,
38 the No Action Alternative would have no adverse impact on air quality.
39

3-49
FME002853
1 Table 3.10-2. 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 Proposed Construction Projects. Imperial County is within a Federal marginal

4 and state moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3 and a Federal serious and
5 state nonattainment area for PM10, and is in attainment/unclassified for all other
6 criteria pollutants. Regulated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action
7 would not contribute to or affect local or regional attainment status with the
8 NAAQS. The Proposed Action would generate air pollutant emissions from the
9 proposed construction projects and the operation of generators to supply power
10 to construction equipment.
11 Minor, short-term adverse effects would be expected from construction emissions

12 and land disturbance as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. The
13 proposed project would result in impacts on regional air quality during
14 construction activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and operation of
15 construction equipment.
16 The construction projects would generate total suspended particulate and PM10
17 emissions as fugitive dust from ground-disturbing activities (e.g., minor grading
18 and trenching) and from combustion of fuels in construction equipment. Fugitive
19 dust emissions would be greatest during the initial site-preparation activities and
20 would vary from day to day depending on the construction phase, level of activity,
3-50
FME002854
1 and prevailing weather conditions. The quantity of uncontrolled fugitive dust

2 emissions from a construction site is proportional to the area of land being
3 worked and the level of construction activity. It is assumed that ground
4 disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would total approximately
5 324 acres but would occur in stages as sections are constructed. CBP would
6 obtain an approved Fugitive Dust Emissions Control Plan to the ICAPCD prior to
7 commencing construction activities.
8 Construction operations would also result in emissions of criteria pollutants as

9 combustion products from construction equipment. These emissions would be of
10 a temporary nature.
11 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
12 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2.2.2) was used to estimate
13 fugitive dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction
14 emissions presented in Table 3.10-3 include the estimated annual construction
15 PM10 emissions associated with the Proposed Action. These emissions would
16 produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However,
17 the effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the
18 proposed construction sites. Construction emissions resulting from the Proposed
19 Action would not exceed the de minimis threshold limits and would not exceed
20 10 percent of the regional air emissions values. Appendix F contains the
21 detailed spreadsheets for calculation of air emissions.
22 Table 3.10-3. Total Proposed Construction Emissions Estimates

23 from the Proposed Action
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
(tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
Construction Emissions 2.617 0.390 3.057 0.052 45.117
Generator Emissions 19.095 1.559 4.113 1.256 1.342
Total Proposed Action
21.712 1.949 7.171 1.308 46.459
Emissions
Federal de minimis Threshold 100 50 NA NA 70
SDAQCR Regional Emissions 69,491 57,494 398,793 937 59,518
Percent of SDAQCR
0.025% 0.004% 0.003% 0.023% 0.078%
Regional Emissions
Source: USEPA 2007b
24 Specific information describing the types of construction equipment required for a

25 specific task, the hours the equipment is operated, and the operating conditions
26 vary widely from project to project. For purposes of analysis, these parameters
27 were estimated using established methodologies for construction and experience
28 with similar types of construction projects. Combustion by-product emissions

3-51
FME002855
1 from construction equipment exhausts were estimated using USEPA’s AP-42

2 emissions factors for heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment.
3 The construction emissions presented in Table 3.10-3 include the estimated

4 annual emissions from construction equipment exhaust associated with the
5 Proposed Action in Calendar Year (CY) 2008 and operation of the diesel
6 powered generators. As with fugitive dust emissions, combustion emissions
7 would produce slightly elevated air pollutant concentrations. Early phases of
8 construction projects involve heavier diesel equipment and earthmoving,
9 resulting in higher NOx and PM10 emissions. Later phases of construction
10 projects involve more light gasoline equipment and surface coating, resulting in
11 more CO and VOC emissions. However, the effects would be temporary, fall off
12 rapidly with distance from the proposed construction site, and would not result in
13 any long-term effects.
14 In addition, the Proposed Action would require six diesel-powered generators to

15 power construction equipment. It is assumed that these generators would be
16 approximately 75 horsepower and operated approximately 8 hours per day for
17 190 working days. Operational emissions associated with the Proposed Action
18 would not result in an adverse impact on air quality. The emissions factors and
19 estimates were generated based on guidance provided in USEPA AP-42,
20 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources. According to ICAPCD Rule
21 202, internal combustion engines greater than 50 brake horsepower require an
22 operating permit (ICAPCD 2007). CBP would coordinate with the ICAPCD for all
23 necessary operating permits for these generators.
24 Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities. After construction is

25 completed, USBP El Centro Sector would begin patrols along Sections B-1, B-2,
26 B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. The vehicles used for surveillance of the existing border
27 area, such as Section B-3, are currently generating criteria pollutants and would
28 not introduce new pollutant sources. Therefore, no net increase of criteria
29 pollutant emissions would be expected from border-patrol operations.
30 The construction of new tactical infrastructure would increase infrastructure

31 maintenance activities within the USBP El Centro Sector. It is anticipated that
32 future maintenance of tactical infrastructure would be conducted by contractors,
33 and would primarily consist of welding and fence section replacements, as
34 needed. Maintenance activities would result in criteria pollutant air emissions
35 well below the de minimis thresholds and would have a negligible contribution to
36 the overall air quality in the SDAQCR (USEPA 2006c). Negligible long-term
37 adverse impacts on air quality would be expected.
38 Greenhouse Gases. The Proposed Action would result in short-term CO2

39 emissions from the operation of construction vehicles and generators. Using
40 emissions coefficients reported by the Energy Information Administration (EIA
41 2007), operation of construction vehicles would result in an estimated 56 tons of
42 CO2, and operation of generators would result in an estimated 365 tons CO2.

3-52
FME002856
1 Therefore, short-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction

2 activities would total approximately 421 tons of CO2. These emissions estimates
3 are included in Appendix F.
4 After construction is completed, USBP El Centro Sector would begin patrols

5 along Sections B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. The vehicles used for
6 surveillance of the existing border area, such as at Section B-3, are currently
7 generating CO2; therefore, no net increase of CO2 emissions would be expected.
8 Maintenance of tactical infrastructure would increase under the Proposed Action,
9 which could result in CO2 emissions of approximately 19 tpy.
10 The USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions for California
11 were 427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MMTCE) in 1990 (CARB 2007b).
12 Of this, an estimated 3.3 million tons of CO2 are associated with the SDAQCR
13 region. The short-term CO2 emissions associated with construction (421 tons)
14 represent less than 0.0001 percent of the estimated California CO2 inventory and
15 less than 0.1 percent of the estimated SDAQCR CO2 inventory. Long-term
16 increases in CO2 emissions would result from maintenance activities (19 tpy)
17 representing negligible fractions of the estimated California and SDAQCR CO2
18 inventories. The Proposed Action would be expected to have a negligible
19 contribution to CO2 and greenhouse gases.
20 Summary. Since the Proposed Action would occur within a Federal

21 marginal/State moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3 and Federal
22 serious/State nonattainment area for PM10, General Conformity Rule
23 requirements are applicable to the Proposed Action. As shown in Table 3.10-3,
24 emissions from the Proposed Action would not exceed the de minimis thresholds
25 for the SDAQCR and would also be less than 10 percent of the emissions
26 inventory for SDAQCR (USEPA 2007b). Minor adverse impacts on local and air
27 quality would be anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Action. A
28 General Conformity Determination would not be required.
30 Proposed Construction Projects. Alternative 3 would generate air pollutant

31 emissions from the proposed construction projects and the operation of
32 generators to supply power to construction equipment.
33 Major, short-term, adverse impacts would be expected from construction

34 emissions and land disturbance associated with Alternative 3. The proposed
35 project would result in impacts on regional air quality during construction
36 activities, primarily from site-disturbing activities and operation of construction
37 equipment.
38 It is assumed that ground disturbance associated with Alternative 3 would be

39 approximately 810 acres. CBP would obtain an approved Fugitive Dust
40 Emissions Control Plan from the ICAPCD prior to commencing construction

3-53
FME002857
1 activities. Potential emissions from Alternative 3 as shown in Table 3.10-4 were

2 calculated using the same methodology as the Proposed Action.
3 Table 3.10-4. Estimates of Total Proposed Construction Emissions

4 from Alternative 3
NOx VOC CO SOx PM10

Description
Construction Emissions 16.356 2.438 19.108 0.327 113.112
Generator Emissions 26.937 2.199 5.803 1.771 1.894
Total Alternative 3 Emissions 115.00
43.293 4.637 24.910 2.098
5
Federal de minimis Threshold 100 50 NA NA 70
SDAQCR Regional Emissions 69,491 57,494 398,793 937 59,518
Percent of SDAQCR Regional
0.061% 0.008% 0.006% 0.224% 0.194%
Emissions
Source: USEPA 2007b
5 As shown in Table 3.10-4, the emissions of NAAQS pollutants are high and
6 could contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in the region. Alternative 3
7 emissions would exceed the de minimis threshold limit for PM10. The impact of
8 this alternative on air quality does not exceed 10 percent of the regional values.
9 However, because Alternative 3 emissions would exceed a de minimis threshold
10 level, a General Conformity Determination in accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1)
11 would be required prior to commencing construction activities associated with
12 Alternative 3.
13 Alternative 3 would require six diesel powered generators to power construction

14 equipment, which is the same as described for the Proposed Action. The CBP
15 would coordinate with the ICAPCD for all necessary operating permits for these
16 generators.
17 Proposed Operations and Maintenance Activities. The air quality effects of

18 proposed operations along Sections B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5A, and B-5B would be
19 essentially the same as those described under the Proposed Action. Criteria
20 pollutant emissions would be comparable to but slightly greater that the
21 Proposed Action because there would be more infrastructure to maintain.
22 However, the air emissions associated with maintenance would be a negligible
23 contribution to overall air quality in the SDAQCR. Negligible long-term adverse
24 impacts on air quality would be expected under Alternative 3.
25 Greenhouse Gases. Alternative 3 would result in short-term CO2 emissions

26 from the operation of construction vehicles and generators. Operation of
27 construction vehicles would result in an estimated 139 tons of CO2, and
28 operation of generators would result in an estimated 365 tons CO2. Therefore,
29 short-term greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction activities
3-54
FME002858
1 would total approximately 504 tons of CO2. These emissions estimates are
2 included in Appendix F.
3 The air quality effects of proposed operations and maintenance activities would
4 result in essentially the same amount of CO2 emissions as described for the
5 Proposed Action. Air emissions associated with maintenance would be a
6 negligible contribution to overall air quality in the SDAQCR.
7 The USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions for California
8 were 427 MMTCE in 1990 (CARB 2007b). Of this, an estimated 3.3 MMTCE are
9 associated with the SDAQCR region. The short-term CO2 emissions associated
10 with construction (504 tons) represent less than 0.0001 percent of the estimated
11 California CO2 inventory and less than 0.1 percent of the estimated SDAQCR
12 CO2 inventory. Long-term increases in CO2 emissions would result from
13 increased maintenance activities. The Proposed Action would be expected to
14 have a negligible contribution to CO2 and greenhouse gases.
15 Summary. Since the Alternative 3 would occur within a Federal marginal/State

16 moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3 and Federal serious/State
17 nonattainment area for PM10, General Conformity Rule requirements are
18 applicable to Alternative 3. Table 3.10-4 illustrates that Alternative 3 emissions
19 for PM10 would be greater than the de minimis threshold for the SDAQCR but
20 less than 10 percent of the emissions inventory for SDAQCR (USEPA 2007b).
21 Therefore, major adverse impacts on local air quality would be anticipated from
22 implementation of Alternative 3. A General Conformity Determination in
23 accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1) is required as the total of direct and indirect
24 emissions from Alternative 3 would be above de minimis threshold levels.
25 3.11 NOISE
27 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
28 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Sound is defined as a
29 particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for example the sound
30 resulting from rain hitting a metal roof. Noise is defined as any sound that is
31 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to
32 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Sound or noise (depending on one’s
33 perception) can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can
34 involve any number of sources and frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or
35 generally nondescript. Human response to increased sound levels varies
36 according to the source type, characteristics of the sound source, distance
37 between source and receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. How an
38 individual responds to the sound source will determine if the sound is viewed as
39 music to one’s ears or an annoying noise. Affected receptors are specific
40 (e.g., schools, churches, or hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or

3-55
FME002859
1 designated districts) in which occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise above

2 ambient levels exists.
3 Sound is measured with instruments that record instantaneous sound levels in

4 decibels. A-weighted decibels (dBA) are sound level measurements used to
5 characterize sound levels that can be sensed by the human ear. “A-weighted”
6 denotes the adjustment of the frequency content of a sound-producing event to
7 represent the way in which the average human ear responds to the audible
8 event. Construction-, vehicle-, and aircraft-related noise levels are analyzed
9 using dBA.
10 Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the housing density, location,
11 and surrounding use. As shown in Figure 3.11-1, a quiet urban area in the
12 daytime is about 50 dBA, which increases to 65 dBA for a commercial area, and
13 80 dBA for a noisy urban daytime area.
14 Construction Sound Levels. Building construction, modification, and

15 demolition work can cause an increase in sound that is well above the ambient
16 level. A variety of sounds come from graders, pavers, trucks, welders, and other
17 work processes. Table 3.11-1 lists noise levels associated with common types
18 of construction equipment that are likely to be used under the Proposed Action.
19 Additionally, the fence would be constructed using pile driving. Noise levels from
20 pile driving equipment have been measured at range of 91 dBA to 101 dBA
21 (USEPA 1971). In general, construction equipment usually exceeds the ambient
22 sound levels by 20 to 25 dBA in an urban environment and up to 30 to 35 dBA in
23 a quiet suburban area. Pile driving would exceed ambient sound levels by
24 approximately 25 to 35 dBA in an urban environment and 35 to 45 dBA in a quiet
25 suburban.

27 The construction corridor associated with the Proposed Action is adjacent to both
28 urban/mixed use areas and rural/undeveloped areas. The areas north of the
29 U.S./Mexico international border are largely rural/undeveloped areas. The most
30 prominent sources of noise in these areas would be from vehicle traffic and
31 agricultural equipment. Expected daytime noise levels in these areas would be
32 approximately 50 dBA or less. The closest populations on the U.S. side of the
33 construction corridor are several unidentified buildings approximately 400 feet
34 north of the proposed construction corridor. The areas south of the western end
35 of the construction corridor, in Mexicali, Mexico, are urban/mixed use areas. The
36 city of Mexicali, Mexico has a population of approximately 1 million. The most
37 prominent sources of noise in this area would be from vehicle traffic and local
38 industry. Expected daytime noise levels in these areas could range from 60 dBA
39 to 80 dBA. The closest populations in Mexicali, Mexico, are approximately 50
40 feet from the proposed construction corridor. Moving east along the construction
41 corridor, once outside of the city of Mexicali, Mexico, the areas are largely
42 rural/undeveloped. The most prominent sources of noise in these areas would

3-56
FME002860
2
3 Source: Landrum & Brown 2002
4 Figure 3.11-1. Common Sound Levels

3-57
FME002861
1 be from vehicle traffic and agricultural equipment. Expected daytime noise levels
2 in these areas would be approximately 50 dBA or less.
3 Table 3.11-1. 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

6 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
7 built and there would be no change in USBP operations. No noise impacts are
8 anticipated under the No Action Alternative.
10 Short-term, moderate, adverse effects on local populations in Mexicali, Mexico

11 and short-term, minor adverse effects on local U.S. populations would result from
12 noise associated with construction of the border fence. The effect on local
13 populations in Mexicali, Mexico, would be greater than populations in the United
14 States because of the size of the population and its proximity to the proposed
15 construction corridor.
16 Noise from construction activities varies depending on the type of construction

17 being done, the area that the project would occur in, and the distance from the
18 source. To predict how construction activities would impact adjacent

3-58
FME002862
1 populations, the cumulative noise for several pieces of equipment (generator set,
2 industrial saw, and welder) (see Table 3.11-1) and pile driving was estimated.
3 Pile driving would be the dominant source of noise associated with the Proposed
4 Action. To estimate the worst-case scenario, the higher noise level for pile
5 driving was used (101 dBA). Under the Proposed Action, the cumulative noise
6 from all construction equipment and pile driving was estimated to be 101 dBA at
7 50 feet from construction activities.
8 The residents closest to the proposed construction in Mexicali, Mexico would be

9 approximately 50 feet south of the construction corridor. The residents closest in
10 the United States would be approximately 400 feet north of the construction
11 corridor. Populations in Mexico would experience noise levels of approximately
12 101 dBA from construction, including pile driving. Populations in the United
13 States would experience noise levels of approximately 83 dBA. Implementation
14 of the Proposed Action would have localized, short-term, minor and moderate,
15 adverse effects on the acoustical environment from the use of heavy equipment
16 and pile driving during construction activities. Noise generation would last only
17 for the duration of construction activities and would be isolated to normal working
18 hours (i.e., between 0700–1700 hours) in the vicinity of the construction corridor.
19 Additionally, pile driving, which would be the dominant source of noise, would be
20 an intermittent noise during construction. Noise impacts from increased traffic
21 due to construction vehicles would also be temporary in nature.
22 Long-term, negligible, adverse effects on the acoustical environment would result

23 from patrols associated with the Proposed Action. Patrols would consist of a
24 single vehicle driving along the border fence on the U.S. side.
26 Short-term moderate adverse impacts would be expected under Alternative 3.

27 Under Alternative 3, primary and secondary pedestrian fences would be
28 constructed 130 feet apart along the same route as Alternative 2. Noise impacts
29 from Alternative 3 would be slightly greater than those discussed under
30 Alternative 2.
31 3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

32 Visual resources include both natural and man-made features that influence the
33 visual appeal of an area for residents and visitors. Visual resources can be
34 defined as the visible physical features on a landscape (e.g., land, water,
35 vegetation, animals, structures, and other features).
36 In order to meet its responsibility to maintain the scenic values of public lands,
37 BLM has developed a Visual Resource Management (VRM) system based on
38 human perceptions and expectations in the context of the existing landscape.
39 Different levels of scenic values require different levels of management.
40 Determining how an area should be managed first requires an assessment of the

3-59
FME002863
1 area’s scenic values. For management purposes, BLM has developed Visual
2 Resource Classes.
3 Class I Objective. The objective of these classes is to preserve the existing

4 character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes
5 but also allows very limited management activity. The level of change to the
6 characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention.
7 Class II Objective. The objective of these classes is to preserve the existing

8 character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape
9 should be low. Management activities are allowed, but should not attract the
10 attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of
11 form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the
12 characteristic landscape. New projects can be approved if they blend in with the
13 existing surroundings and don’t attract attention.
14 Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing
15 character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape
16 should be moderate. Management activities might attract attention but should
17 not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic
18 elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic
19 landscape. New projects can be approved that are not large scale, dominating
20 features.
21 Class IV Objective. The objective of this class is to provide for management

22 activities which require major modifications of the existing character of the
23 landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high.
24 These management activities can dominate the view and be the major focus of
25 viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the
26 impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and
27 repeating the basic elements of predominant natural features (BLM 1986a).

29 As listed in Table 2-1, the majority of the Proposed Action would be on Federal
30 lands managed by BLM. Currently, the BLM El Centro Field Office does not
31 have specific Visual Resource Classes for the proposed project area. VRM
32 classifications are developed in BLM resource management plans and the
33 existing plans do not include the applicable classifications for the proposed
34 project area. BLM lands in the proposed project area are managed according
35 the California Desert Conservation Area as Multiple-Use Class L and Class I
36 which are generally consistent with Visual Resource Management (VRM)
37 Classes II and IV respectively. Section B-1 and BLM lands along Sections B-2
38 and B-4 fall into Multiple-Use Class L, which according to VRM Class II, may be
39 seen, but should not attract attention of the casual observer. The level of change
40 to the landscape should be low and changes should repeat the basic elements
41 found in the natural features of the landscape in form, line, color and texture.

3-60
FME002864
1 Section B-5B falls into the Class I or "Intensive Use" meaning its purpose is to
2 provide for concentrated use of lands and resources to meet human needs.
3 Reasonable protection will be provided for sensitive natural and cultural values
4 (BLM 2007a).

6 Degree of Contrast Criteria
7 To properly assess the contrasts between the existing conditions and the
8 Proposed Action, it is necessary to break each down into the basic features
9 (i.e., landform/water, vegetation, and structures) and basic elements (i.e., form,
10 line, color, and texture) so that the specific features and elements that cause
11 contrast can be accurately identified.
12 General criteria and factors used when rating the degree of contrast are as
13 follows:
14 • None: The element contrast is not visible or perceived.

15 • Weak: The element contrast can be seen but does not attract attention.
16 • Moderate: The element contrast begins to attract attention and dominate
17 the characteristic landscape.
18 • Strong: The element contrast demands attention, cannot be overlooked,
19 and is dominant in the landscape.
20 When applying the contrast criteria, the following factors are considered:
21 1. Distance. The contrast created by a Proposed Action usually is less as

22 viewing distance increases.
23 2. Angle of Observation. The apparent size of a Proposed Action is directly
24 related to the angle between the viewer’s line-of-sight and the slope upon
25 which the Proposed Action is to take place. As this angle nears 90
26 degrees (vertical and horizontal), the maximum area is viewable.
27 3. Length of Time the Project Is In View. If the viewer can only view the
28 Proposed Action for a short period of time, the contrast may not be of
29 great concern. If the Proposed Action can be viewed for a long period of
30 time, the contrast could be very significant.
31 4. Relative Size or Scale. The contrast created by the Proposed Action is
32 directly related to its size and scale as compared to the immediate
33 surroundings.
34 5. Season of Use. Contrast ratings should consider the physical conditions
35 that exist during the heaviest or most critical visitor-use season, such as
36 snow cover and tree defoliation during the winter, leaf color in the fall, and
37 lush vegetation and flowering in the spring.

3-61
FME002865
1 6. Light Conditions. The amount of contrast could be substantially affected

2 by the light conditions. The direction and angle of light can affect color
3 intensity, reflection, shadow, form, texture, and many other visual aspects
4 of the landscape. Light conditions during heavy periods must be a
5 consideration in contrast ratings.
6 7. Recovery Time. The amount of time required for successful revegetation
7 should be considered. Few projects meet the VRM objectives during
8 construction activities. Recovery usually takes several years and goes
9 through several phrases (e.g., bare ground to grasses, to shrubs, to
10 trees).
11 8. Spatial Relationships. The spatial relationship within a landscape is a
12 major factor in determining the degree of contrast.
13 9. Atmospheric Conditions. The visibility of a Proposed Action due to
14 atmospheric conditions such as air pollution or natural haze should be
15 considered.
16 10. Motion. Movements such as waterfalls, vehicles, or plumes draw attention
17 to a Proposed Action (BLM 1986b).
19 Under the No Action Alternative, no tactical infrastructure would be constructed,

20 resulting in no change to the current landscape. However, under the No Action
21 Alternative, cross-border violators would continue to impact the area. Without
22 improved USBP patrol efficiency and effectiveness provided by road
23 improvements, the area’s natural vistas would continue to be degraded by
24 garbage, trails, and wildfires associated with cross-border violators. Indirect
25 impacts from continued cross-border violators would permanently degrade the
26 visual character of the area.
28 The construction activity associated with the Proposed Action would result in
29 both temporary and permanent moderate contrasts to Visual Resources. BLM
30 lands along Sections B-1, B-2, and B-4 fall into Multiple-Use Class L, which
31 according to VRM Class II, may be seen, but should not attract attention of the
32 casual observer. The level of change to the landscape should be low and
33 changes should repeat the basic elements found in the natural features of the
34 landscape in form, line, color and texture. Primary pedestrian fence along
35 Sections B-2 and B-4 would be a moderate to strong contrast for viewers near
36 the fence. However, public viewing is limited in this area because of low
37 visitation frequency and limited line of sight from other locations. Proposed
38 primary pedestrian fence in Section B-5B would be consistent with intensive use
39 associated with VRM Class I. Primary vehicle fence along Sections B-1 would
40 be a weak contrast for viewers near the fence.

3-62
FME002866
2 The increased width of corridor associated with this alternative would increase
3 the contrast impact and be visible to a greater extent than that demonstrated for
4 Alternative 2. Over time, the changes to the landscape caused by construction
5 and repair of this alternative would dissipate significantly; therefore reducing the
6 contrast of viewable sections of both sections, but it would always be greater
7 than in the Proposed Action. This alternative would however be even more
8 effective at protecting the area’s natural vistas from continuing degradation by
9 garbage, foot trails, and wildfires associated with cross-border violators.
10 3.13 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

12 Solid Wastes. Solid waste management primarily relates to the availability of

13 landfills to support a population’s residential, commercial, and industrial needs.
14 Alternative means of waste disposal might involve waste-to-energy programs or
15 incineration. In some localities, landfills are designed specifically for, and limited
16 to, disposal of construction and demolition debris. Recycling programs for
17 various waste categories (e.g., glass, metals, papers, asphalt, and concrete)
18 reduce reliance on landfills for disposal.
19 Hazardous Wastes. Hazardous materials are defined by 49 CFR 171.8 as

20 “hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, marine pollutants, elevated
21 temperature materials, materials designated as hazardous in the Hazardous
22 Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101), and materials that meet the defining criteria
23 for hazard classes and divisions” in 49 CFR 173. Transportation of hazardous
24 materials is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations
25 within 49 CFR.
26 Hazardous substances are defined by the Comprehensive Environmental

27 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) at 42 U.S.C. §9601(14),
28 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
29 and the TSCA. The definition of hazardous substance includes (1) any
30 substance designated pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1321 (b)(2)(A); (2) any element,
31 compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
32 §9602; (3) any hazardous waste; (4) any toxic pollutant listed under 33 U.S.C.
33 §1317(a); (5) any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the CAA (42
34 U.S.C. §7412); and (6) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture
35 with respect to which the Administrator of USEPA has taken action pursuant to
36 15 U.S.C. §2606. The term hazardous substance does not include petroleum
37 products and natural gas.
38 Hazardous wastes are defined by RCRA at 42 U.S.C. §6903(5), as amended by

39 the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, as: “a solid waste, or combination
40 of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical,

3-63
FME002867
1 chemical, or infectious characteristics may (A) cause, or significantly contribute to

2 an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating
3 reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
4 health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or
5 disposed of, or otherwise managed.” Certain types of hazardous wastes are
6 subject to special management provisions intended to ease the management
7 burden and facilitate the recycling of such materials. These are called universal
8 wastes and their associated regulatory requirements are specified in 40 CFR
9 273. Four types of waste are currently covered under the universal waste
10 regulations: hazardous waste batteries, hazardous waste pesticides that are
11 either recalled or collected in waste pesticide collection programs, hazardous
12 waste thermostats, and hazardous waste lamps.
13 Toxic substances are regulated under TSCA (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.), which
14 was enacted by Congress to give USEPA the ability to track the approximately
15 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United
16 States. USEPA screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of
17 those that might pose an environmental or human-health hazard. USEPA can
18 ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable
19 risk. Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are among the chemicals
20 regulated by TSCA.
21 In general, hazardous materials, hazardous substances, and hazardous wastes

22 include elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which, when
23 released into the environment or otherwise improperly managed, could present
24 substantial danger to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
25 Evaluation of hazardous materials and wastes focuses on underground storage

26 tanks (USTs); aboveground storage tanks (ASTs); and the storage, transport,
27 handling, and use of pesticides, herbicides, fuels, solvents, and petroleum, oil,
28 and lubricants (POL). Evaluation might also extend to generation, storage,
29 transportation, and disposal of hazardous wastes when such activity occurs at or
30 near the project site of a proposed action. In addition to being a threat to
31 humans, the improper release of hazardous materials and wastes can threaten
32 the health and well-being of wildlife species, botanical habitats, soil systems, and
33 water resources. In the event of release of hazardous materials or wastes, the
34 extent of contamination varies based on the type of soil, topography, and water
35 resources.

37 Solid Wastes. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is
38 responsible for regulating solid waste in California. The CIWMB promotes waste
39 reduction and management of materials for the highest and best use (CIWMB
40 2007a). Solid wastes in Imperial County, California, are managed by the Imperial
41 County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste/Recycling Division. The
42 Department administers and operates ten landfills in compliance with all

3-64
FME002868
1 applicable Federal, state, and local regulations. Each landfill has a separate
2 permit which is subject to review every 5 years. Recently these permits have
3 required revisions because of increased development in outlying, rural areas
4 which increases the amount of daily tonnage and increased daily vehicle count
5 (ICDPW Undated). The total household solid waste disposal rate in Imperial
6 County, California, is 4,588 tons per year. The total business solid waste
7 disposal rate in Imperial County, California, is 148,357 tons per year (CIWMB
8 2007b).
9 Hazardous Wastes. The Cal/EPA, California Department of Toxic Substance

10 Control (DTSC) regulates the treatment, storage, transport, and disposal of
11 hazardous waste. DTSC also administers some site clean-up programs. DTSC
12 is authorized by the USEPA to regulate and enforce the provisions of RCRA.
13 There are no known hazardous waste clean-up sites within the proposed
14 construction corridor (CDTSC Undated).

17 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing solid waste
18 management and hazardous materials and waste management and their
19 associated impacts, as discussed in Section 3.13.1. No additional effects on
20 solid waste management or hazardous materials and waste management would
21 be expected as a result of the Proposed Action not being implemented.
23 Solid Waste. Short-term, minor adverse effects on solid waste management in

24 Imperial County, California, would be expected as a result of the Proposed
25 Action. Solid waste generated from the proposed construction activities would
26 consist of building materials such as concrete and metals (conduit and piping).
27 The contractor would recycle construction materials to the greatest extent
28 possible. Solid waste generated as a result of the Proposed Action is expected
29 to be minor compared to the solid waste currently generated in Imperial County.
30 The contractor would dispose of nonrecyclable construction debris at one or
31 more of the permitted Imperial County landfills, which have not yet been
32 identified. The construction debris associated with the Proposed Action would
33 not result in exceeding the capacity of any landfill or the violation of any permit
34 for any landfill.
35 Hazardous Wastes. Long-term, minor, adverse effects would be expected as a

36 result of the Proposed Action. Products containing hazardous materials (such as
37 fuels, oils, lubricants, pesticides, and herbicides) would be procured and used
38 during the proposed construction. It is anticipated that the quantity of products
39 containing hazardous materials used would be minimal and their use would be of
40 short duration. It is anticipated that the quantity of hazardous and petroleum

3-65
FME002869
1 wastes generated from proposed construction would be negligible. Accidental

2 spills could occur as a result of the proposed construction. A spill could
3 potentially result in adverse effects on wildlife, soils, water, and vegetation.
4 However, the amount of hazardous materials at the construction site would be
5 limited and the equipment necessary to quickly contain any spill would be
6 present when refueling. Contractors would be responsible for the management
7 of hazardous materials and wastes, which would be handled in accordance with
8 Federal and state regulations.
9 There are no known USTs, ASTs, or hazardous waste clean-up sites within the
10 construction corridor.
12 Short-term minor adverse impacts would be expected. The impacts would be

13 similar to the impacts described for Alternative 2. However, two fence layers
14 would be constructed, so greater quantities of hazardous materials would be
15 used for more construction. The increased risk associated with a potential leak
16 or spill would be minor.
17 3.14 SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND

18 PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
19 Socioeconomics. Socioeconomics is defined as the basic attributes and
20 resources associated with the human environment, particularly characteristics of
21 population and economic activity. Regional birth and death rates and
22 immigration and emigration affect population levels. Economic activity typically
23 encompasses employment, personal income, and industrial or commercial
24 growth. Changes in these two fundamental socioeconomic indicators are
25 typically accompanied by changes in other components, such as housing
26 availability and the provision of public services. Socioeconomic data at county,
27 state, and national levels permit characterization of baseline conditions in the
28 context of regional, state, and national trends.
29 Data in three areas provide key insights into socioeconomic conditions that might
30 be affected by a proposed action. Data on employment identify gross numbers
31 of employees, employment by industry or trade, and unemployment trends. Data
32 on personal income in a region can be used to compare the “before” and “after”
33 effects of any jobs created or lost as a result of a proposed action. Data on
34 industrial or commercial growth or growth in other sectors provide baseline and
35 trend line information about the economic health of a region.
36 Demographics identify the population levels and changes to population levels of

37 a region. Demographics data might also be obtained to identify, as appropriate
38 to evaluation of a proposed action, a region’s characteristics in terms of race,
39 ethnicity, poverty status, educational attainment level, and other broad indicators.

3-66
FME002870
1 Socioeconomic data shown in this chapter are presented at census tract, county,
2 municipality, and state levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions
3 in the context of regional and state trends. Data have been collected from
4 previously published documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies;
5 and from state and national databases (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis’
6 Regional Economic Information System).
7 Environmental Justice. EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental

8 Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (11 February 1994)
9 requires Federal agencies’ actions substantially affecting human health or the
10 environment not exclude persons, deny persons benefits, or subject persons to
11 discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. The EO was
12 created to ensure the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
13 regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
14 development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
15 regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people,
16 including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate
17 share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
18 municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of Federal, state, tribal,
19 and local programs and policies.

21 Socioeconomics. The Proposed Action includes the construction of primary
22 pedestrian and vehicle fence along the U.S./Mexico international border
23 southeast of Calexico, California, in Imperial County, California, and north and
24 northeast of Mexicali, Mexico. The Proposed Action would occur in a
25 rural/undeveloped area in the United States. For the purposes of this EA, the
26 Region of Influence (ROI) includes census tracts 119 and 124 in Imperial County,
27 California, (adjacent to the location of the Proposed Action). Census tracts are
28 designed to be relatively homogenous units with respect to population
29 characteristics, economic status, and living conditions at the time of
30 establishment. The most current census tract data is from Census 2000.
31 Employment types in the ROI vary (see Table 3.14-1). The largest employment
32 type in the ROI, Imperial County, and California is educational, health, and social
33 services (18.4, 22.0, and 18.5 percent, respectively). Other employment types in
34 the ROI resemble the percentages of Imperial County and California (U.S.
35 Census Bureau 2002). In 2006, Imperial County had a 15.3 percent
36 unemployment rate compared to a 4.9 percent unemployment rate for California
37 (Fedstats Undated). Table 3.14-2 shows demographic data and economic
38 indicators of the ROI, Imperial County, and California.
39 Residents, businesses, and industry in Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico, could

40 also be affected by the Proposed Action. The population of Mexicali is
41 approximately 1 million. Numerous international businesses occur in Mexicali,
42 such as the diversified “maquiladora” industry (assembly plants) and other

3-67
FME002871
1 cultural facilities. Baja California has the 8th highest state-level per capita
2 income in Mexico. Residents within Mexicali, Baja California, have the highest
3 economic well-being in Baja California. Economic well-being is an indicator
4 developed by Mexico’s census bureau that uses a statistical technique called
5 cluster analysis to compare and rank municipalities. This analysis ranks
6 municipalities using a large number of social and demographic variables.
7 Environmental Justice. For the purposes of the environmental justice analysis

8 for this EA, the residents of the ROI and Mexicali, Mexico, were evaluated.
9 The ROI is considered to have a disproportionately high percentage of low-

10 income or minority residents under either of two conditions: (1) the percentage of
11 low-income or minority populations within the ROI is greater than Imperial
12 County’s minority percentage, or low-income percentage, or (2) the percentage
13 of persons in low-income or minority populations within the ROI is greater than
14
15 Table 3.14-1. Employment Type of Residents in ROI,

16 Imperial County, and the State of California
Imperial State of
Economic and Social Indicators ROI
County California
Employed Persons in Armed Forces 0.4 0.3 0.6
Employed Persons in Civilian Labor Force (By Industry)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and
15.8 11.7 1.9
mining
Construction 2.2 5.3 6.2
Manufacturing 7.8 4.8 13.1
Wholesale trade 5.4 5.4 4.1
Retail trade 18.2 12.3 11.2
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 4.5 6.4 4.7
Information 6.9 1.3 3.9
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and
18.4 3.7 6.9
leasing
Professional, scientific, management,
5.2 5.3 11.6
administrative, and waste management services
Educational, health and social services 18.4 22.0 18.5
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation
5.3 6.3 8.2
and food services
Other services (except public administration) 3.6 4.4 5.2
Public administration 7.5 11.0 4.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002
Note: Census 2000 data are the most recent comprehensive employment data for the ROI.

3-68
FME002872
1 50 percent. Based on these two conditions, the ROI is not considered to have a
2 disproportionately high percentage of low-income or minority residents according
3 to Census 2000 data.
4 The ROI has a lower percentage of minority populations than Imperial County.
5 Approximately 35.7 percent of the population in the ROI and 39.1 percent of the
6 population in California are reported as “Some other race,” as compared to 16.8
7 percent in Imperial County (see Table 3.14-2). The economic characteristics of
8 the ROI are similar to those of Imperial County. However, the economic
9 characteristics of both the ROI and Imperial County are slightly lower than
10 California (see Table 3.14-2). Residents living in the ROI and Imperial County
11 have a lower median household incomes and per capita incomes than the state
12 of California (see Table 3.14-2) (Fedstats Undated). In the ROI and Imperial
13 County, 18.1 percent and 22.6 percent of the residents are living below the
14 poverty level, respectively as compared to 14.2 percent in the state of California
15 (see Table 3.14-2).
16 Table 3.14-2. Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the ROI,

17 Imperial County, and the State of California
Imperial
ROI California
County
Total Population 5,585 142,361 33,871,648
Percent White 57.8 49.4 59.5
Percent Black or African American 2.09 4.0 6.7
Percent American Indian Alaska Native 0.59 1.9 1.0
Percent Asian 0.39 2.0 10.9
Percent Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
0.14 0.1 0.3
Islander
Percent “Some other race” 35.72 39.1 16.8
Percent Reporting 2 or more races 3.2 3.6 4.7
Percent Below Poverty 18.1 22.6 14.2
Per Capita Income $13,224 $13,239 $22,711
Median Household Income $31,744 $35,226 $53,025
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2002
Note: Census 2000 data are the most recent comprehensive economic and demographic data
for the ROI.
18 Residents, businesses, and industry in Mexicali occur as close as 50 feet from

19 the proposed construction corridor.

21 Construction expenditure impacts are assessed in terms of direct effects on the
22 local economy and related effects on other socioeconomic resources
23 (e.g., housing). The magnitude of potential impacts can vary greatly, depending
3-69
FME002873
1 on the location of a proposed action. For example, implementation of an action

2 that creates 10 employment positions might go unnoticed in an urban area, but
3 could have considerable impacts in a rural region. If potential socioeconomic
4 changes were to result in substantial shifts in population trends or a decrease in
5 regional spending or earning patterns, they would be considered adverse. The
6 Proposed Action could have a significant effect with respect to the
7 socioeconomic conditions in the surrounding ROI if it were to result in the
8 following:
9 • Change the local business volume, employment, personal income, or

10 population that exceeds the ROI’s historical annual change
11 • Adversely affect social services or social conditions, including property
12 values, school enrollment, county or municipal expenditures, or crime
13 rates.

15 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing
16 socioeconomic conditions, as discussed in Section 3.14.1. No additional effects
17 on socioeconomics would be expected as a result of the Proposed Action not
18 being implemented.

20 Socioeconomics. Short-term, minor, direct, beneficial effects would be
21 expected as a result of construction associated with the Proposed Action. The
22 construction activities would occur over CY 2008. It is assumed that local
23 materials, supplies, and contractors would be used. However, the limited nature
24 of the construction and new employment associated with the Proposed Action
25 would not have a significant effect on personal income, poverty levels, or other
26 demographic employment indicators in the ROI.
27 Environmental Justice. Environmental justice concerns and special risks to the

28 populations in Mexicali, Mexico, living closest to the proposed construction (as
29 close as 50 feet) include safety, noise, pollutants, and hazardous materials.
30 Additional risks to children could occur. Children have physiological and
31 behavioral characteristics that make them more vulnerable than adults to
32 damage from environmental effects. Safety precautions to protect children and
33 other populations in areas surrounding work sites would include adequate
34 measures to restrict access, minimization of hazards associated with
35 construction activities, and proper handling and disposal of hazardous materials.
36 These BMPs would reduce the potential for impacts on any populations or age
37 groups, including children. Noise associated with construction would be
38 intermittent and short in duration (described in Section 3.11.2).

3-70
FME002874
2 Socioeconomic Resources. Short-term beneficial impacts for this alternative

3 would be similar to those under Alternative 2. This alternative would increase the
4 need for more construction workers and materials due to the more extensive
5 construction.
6 Environmental Justice, Protection of Children, and Safety. Impacts under

7 this alternative would be similar to those discussed for Alternative 2. Direct
8 beneficial impacts on safety and the protection of children would be expected as
9 Alternative 3 would be designed with two layers of primary pedestrian fence
10 along each section. The additional layer of fencing would deter drug smugglers,
11 terrorists, and cross-border violators, and therefore provide for a generally safer
12 immediate area.
13

3-71
FME002875

3-72
FME002876
SECTION 4
Cumulative and Other Impacts
FME002877
FME002878
1 4. CUMULATIVE AND OTHER IMPACTS
2 CEQ defines cumulative impacts as the “impacts on the environment which 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 in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and CEQ
15 guidance on cumulative effects (CEQ 1997, 2005). The geographic scope of the
16 analysis varies by resource area. For example, the geographic scope of
17 cumulative impacts on resources such as noise, visual resources, soils, and
18 vegetation is very narrow and focused on the location of the resource. The
19 geographic scope of air quality, wildlife and sensitive species, and
20 socioeconomics is much broader and considers more county- or regionwide
21 activities. Projects that were considered for this analysis were identified by
22 reviewing USBP documents, news releases, and published media reports, and
23 through consultation with planning and engineering departments of local
24 governments, and state and Federal agencies. Projects that do not occur in
25 close proximity (i.e., within several miles) to the proposed fence would not
26 contribute to a cumulative impact and are generally not evaluated further.
27 Cumulative Fencing, Southern Border. There are currently 62 miles of landing

28 mat fence at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border (CRS
29 2006); 14 miles of single, double, and triple fence in San Diego, California;
30 70 miles of new primary pedestrian fence approved and currently under
31 construction at various locations along the U.S./Mexico international border; and
32 fences at POE facilities throughout the southern border. In addition, 225 miles of
33 fence are proposed (including the 44.6 miles proposed in the USBP El Centro
34 Sector) are currently being studied for Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and
35 California.
36 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
37 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EA. The effects of
38 these past actions are generally described in Section 3. For example, extensive
39 OHV use in the Algodones Dunes has contributed to the existing environmental
40 conditions of the area.

4-1
FME002879
1 Present Actions. Present actions include current or funded construction

2 projects, USBP or other agency operations in close proximity to the proposed
3 fence locations, and current resource management programs and land use
4 activities within the cumulative effects analysis areas. Ongoing actions
5 considered in the cumulative effects analysis include the following:
6 • New Fence. In January 2004, USBP approved construction of

7 approximately 5 miles of primary pedestrian fence along the U.S./Mexico
8 international border starting approximately 2 miles west of the Calexico
9 POE (designated as Section B-3 in this EA). This fence is currently under
10 construction. In August 2007, USBP approved the installation of 7.62
11 miles of maintenance road and 2.62 miles of additional primary pedestrian
12 fence to extend the 5 miles of primary pedestrian fence previously
13 approved. Proposed fence section B-2 would be west of and connected to
14 the 2.62 miles of primary pedestrian fence approved in August 2007 (CBP
15 2007).
16 • New River Safety Barrier. USBP approved construction of a retractable
17 safety barrier/gate-style fence on the New River near the City of Calexico
18 (CBP 2005). This project also proposed installation of approximately 2
19 miles of permanent lighting near the City of Calexico.
20 • All-American Canal Relining Project (AACRP). In 1994, the Bureau of
21 Reclamation approved the AACRP and it is currently under construction
22 near proposed fence section B-5B. This project consists of constructing a
23 23-mile concrete lined canal parallel to the existing earthen canal, from 1
24 mile west of Pilot Knob to Drop 3. Construction is expected to continue
25 through Spring 2010 (USBR 1994).
26 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. Reasonably foreseeable future

27 actions consist of activities that have been approved and can be evaluated with
28 respect to their effects. The following activities are reasonably foreseeable future
29 actions:
30 • SBInet is a comprehensive program focused on transforming border

31 control through technology and infrastructure. The goal of the program is
32 to field the most effective proven technology, infrastructure, staffing, and
33 response platforms, and integrate them into a single comprehensive
34 border security suite for DHS. Potential future SBInet projects include
35 deployment of sensor technology, communications equipment, command
36 and control equipment, fencing, barriers capable of stopping a vehicle,
37 and any required road or components such as lighting and all-weather
38 access roads (Boeing 2007). Within the next 2 years, 225 miles of
39 primary fence are proposed for construction (including the 25.2 miles
40 proposed in this EA). The first phase of construction would occur in areas
41 that have already been developed (e.g., currently contains permanent
42 vehicle barriers or temporary vehicle barriers) and, thus, little or no

4-2
FME002880
1 additional environmental impacts would be expected. The second phase

2 of construction would generally occur in more remote areas.
3 • Construction of Primary Fence. The FY 2007 DHS Appropriations Act
4 provided (b) (4) for the installation of fencing, infrastructure, and
5 technology along the border (CRS 2006). CBP is proposing to construct
6 up to 225 miles of primary fence in Rio Grande Valley, Marfa, Del Rio, and
7 El Paso, Texas; Tucson and Yuma, Arizona; El Centro and San Diego,
8 California, sectors. Proposed fence section B-5B would be approximately
9 11 miles from an adjoining fence in the Yuma, Arizona, sector.
10 • Additional Tactical Infrastructure within El Centro Sector. USBP has
11 identified additional tactical infrastructure that might be required in the
12 future, including secondary pedestrian fences and all-weather patrol roads
13 in urban areas near POEs. While specific future operational requirements
14 are not currently known, have not been funded, and are not reasonably
15 certain to occur, additional tactical infrastructure can be identified for the
16 purposes of the cumulative effects analysis. Based on operational
17 requirements in urban areas in other sectors, the El Centro Sector can
18 reasonably foresee the need for approximately 5.9 miles of secondary
19 (double) fencing and an all-weather road in the urban area of Calexico;
20 approximately 2.4 miles of secondary fencing and an all-weather road
21 along fence section B-2; approximately 7.4 miles of secondary fencing and
22 an all-weather road along section B-3; and approximately 8.6 miles of
23 secondary fencing along section B-4. Lighting and sensors might be
24 needed in the distant future in Sections B-2, B-3, and B-4. The El Centro
25 Sector has also projected the need for a vehicle bridge with a gate
26 spanning the New River, fencing, an all-weather road, and lighting along
27 both sides of the river.
28 • BLM Eastern San Diego Draft Resource Management Plan. BLM has
29 prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan and EIS which will provide
30 future management guidance for use and protection of the resources on
31 approximately 100,000 acres of public lands managed by BLM’s El Centro
32 Field Office in the eastern portion of San Diego County, California (BLM
33 2007b).
34 • City of Calexico. The City of Calexico is proposing to annex a 640-acre
35 parcel of land near the All-American Canal. The proposed annex is along
36 the eastern edge of the City of Calexico and will be developed as a
37 housing, commercial, and industrial area (CBP 2005).
38 • San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) transmission line. SDG&E has
39 proposed to construct a new 150 mile transmission line between the Cities
40 of El Centro and San Diego. The stated purpose of the project is to bring
41 renewable energy sources into San Diego from Imperial County, reduce
42 energy costs, and improve electric reliability in the San Diego area.
43 SDG&E has filed an application with the California Public Utilities

4-3
FME002881
1 Commission to construct the Sunrise Powerlink Project. A joint

2 EIS/Environmental Impact Report is being prepared (BLM 2007c).
3 • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Caltrans has several
4 road improvement projects scheduled for Imperial County in the next
5 5 years. However, the potential for adverse cumulative impacts would be
6 low as the majority of the construction would be within existing ROW.
7 These projects are in the planning stage and potential impacts are
8 unknown at this time: New Interstate 8 and Imperial Avenue interchange;
9 construction of 5.5 miles of four-lane divided highway with access control
10 from State Highway 98 to Interstate 8; upgrade existing State Route (SR)
11 111 between Ross Road and SR 78 in Imperial County; widen or realign
12 of SR 98 between SR 111 and SR 7 from four to six lanes (CBP 2007).
13 • Lower Colorado River Drop 2 Storage Reservoir. This project is
14 approximately 30 miles east of the city of El Centro, and might be near
15 proposed fence sections B-5A and B-5B. The plans call for a 450-acre
16 reservoir located on a 615-acre site. Administrative and office buildings as
17 well as mechanical equipment necessary for operations of the reservoir
18 would be located on the 615-acre site. In addition to the reservoir, this
19 project also includes 6.5 miles of new canal to connect the Coachella
20 Valley Canal to the reservoir and from the reservoir to the All-American
21 Canal. The total acreage expected to be impacted from this proposed
22 project is 967 acres (CBP 2007).
23 Table 4.0-1 presents the cumulative effects that might occur from implementation
24 of the Proposed Action.
25 4.1 LAND USE

26 Construction of tactical infrastructure would result in minor changes to land use.
27 Recent activities that have most affected land use near the proposed tactical
28 infrastructure is the AACRP, construction of new energy and communications
29 infrastructure, and construction of other USBP tactical infrastructure. Moderate
30 cumulative impacts on land use are expected from the additive effects of the
31 past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
32 4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

33 Additive effects include a minor increase in erosion. Construction of the tactical
34 infrastructure adjacent to the AACRP would have a minor cumulative effect on
35 soils due to construction.
36 4.3 HYDROLOGY AND GROUNDWATER

37 Minor adverse cumulative effects could occur on groundwater resources as a
38 groundwater use for dust suppression during various construction activities.
39
4-4
FME002882
Draft EA
Table 4.0-1. Summary of Potential Cumulative Effects
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects
Actions
Activities
Land Use Commercial and Commercial and CBP purchase of land Commercial and Moderate adverse
residential residential or easements to residential impacts on natural
development, development near construct tactical development and areas.
infrastructure Calexico and infrastructure. Natural infrastructure
improvements on infrastructure areas developed for improvements
natural areas. improvements. tactical infrastructure. permanently alter
BLM Eastern San natural areas and
Diego Draft RMP agricultural lands.
identifies
management
direction for lands.
Geology and Soils Installation of Installation of Minor grading and Continued cross- Minor long-term impact

4-5
infrastructure, infrastructure; recontouring would border violators from construction of

intrusions by cross- continued cross- disturb soils. activities adversely additional
border violators have border violators affect soils. infrastructure.
modified soils. activities adversely Installation of
affect soils. infrastructure.
Hydrology and High dissolved solids Groundwater Short-term minor Long-term adverse Minor short-term impact
Groundwater concentrations, primarily used for adverse effects from effects on from groundwater use
fluoride, and boron in industrial groundwater use for groundwater recharge during construction.
two major aquifers. applications. dust suppression from reservoir and
during construction. canal relining projects.
Surface Waters Degradation of water Surface water Soil disturbance, Construction erosion Nonpoint discharges,
and Waters of the resources due to quality adversely erosion during and sediment runoff, construction erosion
U.S. pollution. impacted by construction, impacts potential oil spills and and sediment runoff,
January 2008
development. on wetlands. leaks. potential oil spills and

leaks.
FME002883
Draft EA
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Floodplains Floodplain adversely Various storm water Short-term potential Increased Proposed Action would
impacted by and floodplain for minor impacts development activities not be expected to
development, management during construction. and water reservoir contribute to flood
decreased vegetation, practices when Only a small portion and canal projects hazards.
increased impervious activities are of Section B-4 is could change peak
surfaces, and soil proposed in or near within 100-year flow or floodplain
compaction. floodplains. floodplain. capacity during high-
volume storm events.
Vegetation Degraded historic Continued Habitat fragmentation. Minor to moderate Moderate adverse
Resources habitat of sensitive and urbanization results Minor to moderate loss of native species impacts on native
common wildlife in loss of native loss of native species and habitat. habitats and
species. species. and habitat. vegetation.
Wildlife and Loss of native habitat Development Minor to moderate Minor to moderate Minor to moderate loss
Aquatic due to development; continues to impact loss of habitat, wildlife loss of habitat and of habitat and wildlife

4-6
Resources loss of wildlife biological resources corridors, habitat wildlife corridors. corridors.
corridors; impacted and wildlife habitat. fragmentation.
habitat and food
sources.
Threatened and Degraded habitat Urbanization and Minor to moderate Loss of habitat for Minor to moderate loss
Endangered impacted sensitive agricultural loss of habitat, habitat sensitive species. of habitat, habitat
Species species. development fragmentation. fragmentation.
degraded habitat for
sensitive species.
Cultural, Development and Development and None. Continued None.
Historical, and infrastructure infrastructure development and
Archeological improvements improvements infrastructure
Resources adversely affected adversely affect improvements to
January 2008
cultural resources. cultural resources; adversely affect

some preservation. cultural resources;
continued
preservation efforts.
FME002884
Draft EA
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Air Quality State nonattainment for Existing emission Construction activities Existing emission Construction activities
8-hour O3; Federal sources continue to would temporarily sources continue to would temporarily
moderate maintenance adversely affect contribute to CO and adversely affect contribute to CO and
for CO; State regional air quality. PM emissions. regional air quality. PM emissions.
nonattainment for PM10 No new major sources
and PM2.5. identified in El Centro
Noise Commercial and Commercial and Short-term noise None. Current activities would
residential residential impacts from be the dominant noise
development, vehicles development, construction. source.
dominate ambient vehicles dominate Negligible cumulative
noise near urban ambient noise near impacts.
areas. Remote areas urban areas.
temporarily impacted Remote areas
by ORV recreational temporarily

4-7
activities. impacted by ORV

recreational
activities.
Visual Resources Historical development Development of Constant static visual Continued moderate Minor to moderate
of undeveloped lands. natural areas for interruption at fixed to severe impacts to long-term impacts from
community and points. Loss of Class I and Class III permanent
industry recreational area. Visual Resources. infrastructure.
infrastructure.
Socioeconomics, Commercial and Commercial and Minor, temporary Infrastructure Minor stimulation of
Environmental residential residential contribution to local development to local economies from
Justice, and development around development construction industry. support future construction activities.
Protection of Calexico. around Calexico. commercial and No adverse affects on
Children residential environmental justice
development around issues, children, or
January 2008
Calexico. human health and

safety.
FME002885
Draft EA
Current
Known Future
Actions
Activities
Hazardous Use of hazardous Use of hazardous Minor use of Minor use of None.
Materials and substances in vehicles. substances in hazardous materials hazardous materials
Wastes Possible illegal vehicles. Possible during construction. during construction.
dumping. illegal dumping.

4-8
January 2008
FME002886
1 Potential cumulative adverse effects on Alamo River surface water flow volume,
2 duration, and water quality could result from the AACRP to the east that would
3 reduce canal seepage to the groundwater table in the Mexicali Valley by up to
4 68,000 acre-feet annually, potentially reducing the volume, duration, and quality
5 of irrigation return water into the Alamo River.
6 4.4 SURFACE WATER AND WATERS OF THE U.S.

7 Minor impacts on surface water and waters of the United States could occur from
8 impacts on wetlands. An unknown amount of wetlands could be permanently
9 impacted by construction of the tactical infrastructure. CBP would obtain CWA
10 Section 404 permits and mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts
11 on wetlands would be long-term and adverse.
12 Potential cumulative adverse effects on Alamo River surface water flow volume,
13 duration, and water quality could result from the AACRP to the east that would
14 reduce canal seepage to the groundwater table in the Mexicali Valley by up to
15 68,000 acre-feet annually, potentially reducing the volume, duration, and quality
16 of irrigation return water into the Alamo River.
17 4.5 FLOODPLAINS
18 Minor adverse effects from proposed construction adjacent to the 100-year
19 floodplain and from a small portion of Segment B-4 within the 100-year floodplain
20 could occur. Continued development, AACRP, and proposed Lower Colorado
21 River Storage Reservoir could affect flood dynamics, though it is assumed that
22 floodplain management would be incorporated as appropriate into all
23 development projects to reduce the potential for adverse effects on the 100-year
24 floodplain. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have a negligible long-
25 term effect on floodplain resources.
26 4.6 VEGETATION RESOURCES

27 Minor impacts on native species vegetation and habitat are expected from the
28 additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. As
29 discussed in Section 3.6.2, vegetation in the proposed construction corridor has
30 been highly disturbed by previous construction activities for the All-American
31 Canal, utility infrastructure, and USBP patrol roads. Cumulative impacts from the
32 Proposed Action would be long-term, adverse and moderate.
33 4.7 WILDLIFE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

34 Minor impacts on wildlife and species are expected from the additive effects of
35 the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative
36 impacts would mainly result from loss of habitat, habitat disturbance and
37 degradation, construction traffic, and the AACRP reducing groundwater
38 discharge to wetlands habitat. Displaced wildlife would move to adjacent habitat
4-9
FME002887
1 if sufficient habitat exists. Wildlife could also be adversely impacted by noise

2 during construction, operational lighting, and loss of potential prey species.
3 Species would also be impacted by equipment spills and leaks. The permanent
4 lighting could have minor, adverse cumulative impacts on migration, dispersal,
5 and foraging activities of nocturnal species.
6 4.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

7 As discussed in Section 3.8, CBP has begun Section 7 preconsultation
8 coordination with the USFWS regarding potential impacts on listed species or
9 designated critical habitat. Potential effects of fence construction, operation, and
10 maintenance will be analyzed in both the Biological Assessment and Biological
11 Opinion. Minor adverse impacts are possible on the Algodones dunes sunflower,
12 Peirson’s milkvetch, and FTHL due to loss of habitat. Special status species are
13 commonly protected because their historic range and habitat has been reduced
14 and will only support a small number of individuals. Construction, operation, and
15 maintenance of tactical infrastructure, when combined with past, present, and
16 future residential and commercial development, has the potential to result in
17 minor to major adverse cumulative impacts on these species.
18 4.9 CULTURAL, HISTORIC, AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

19 The proposed action would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources.
20 A cultural resources technical report has been submitted to the BLM for review.
21 Because there are no known cultural resources within the Proposed Action, there
22 no expected impacts on cultural resources and therefore would not contribute to
23 cumulative impacts. Recorded cultural resources are outside the immediate
24 Proposed Action and would not be directly or indirectly impacted.
25 4.10 AIR QUALITY

26 Minor, short-term adverse cumulative effects on air quality are expected from the
27 construction of proposed tactical infrastructure in combination with other
28 reasonably foreseeable future actions. Emissions from construction, operation,
29 and maintenance activities would not be expected to significantly affect local or
30 regional air quality.
31 4.11 NOISE
32 Negligible cumulative effects on ambient noise would be expected. The
33 Proposed Action would result in noise from construction, operation, and
34 maintenance of tactical infrastructure, but other known activities in the vicinity of
35 the Proposed Action would not be expected to contribute noticeably to the overall
36 noise environment.

4-10
FME002888
1 4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

2 Minor to moderate impacts on aesthetics and visual resources are expected from
3 the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
4 The presence of construction equipment would produce a short-term adverse
5 impact on visual resources. Once installed, the tactical infrastructure would
6 create a permanent and fixed visual interruption at fixed points. Adverse
7 cumulative effects could include temporary construction impacts and the
8 introduction of light poles and increased night illumination during construction.
9 Recreational activities such as star-gazing would be adversely affected by this
10 cumulative impact in night illumination.
11 4.13 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

12 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure would require
13 minimal quantities of hazardous materials and generate small quantities of
14 hazardous wastes. Therefore, minimal cumulative impacts on hazardous
15 materials and wastes would occur.
16 4.14 SOCIOECONOMIS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION

17 OF CHILDREN
18 Short-term beneficial impacts on local and regional socioeconomic resources are
19 expected from the additive effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
20 future actions. Economic benefits would be realized by construction companies;
21 their employers and suppliers; and by Imperial County through a minor increase
22 in tax receipts for the purchase of goods and services. Construction of tactical
23 infrastructure has the potential for minor beneficial effects from temporary
24 increases in construction jobs and the purchase of goods and services. Since
25 the construction jobs would be temporary, negligible cumulative effects on
26 population growth, income, or other services would be expected.
27 The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs,
28 terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant
29 effects upon the Nation's health and economy, drug-related crimes, community
30 cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and
31 beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of adjacent towns would benefit
32 from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities and the
33 number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property, and less
34 financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the
35 concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. There could
36 be an adverse cumulative effect on agriculture and other employers of low-
37 income workers if the labor pool of illegal aliens was substantially reduced.
38 Operation and maintenance of the tactical infrastructure has little potential for
39 cumulative impacts on socioeconomics.

4-11
FME002889
1 4.15 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF

2 RESOURCES
3 An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources refers to impacts on or
4 losses to resources that cannot be reversed or recovered, even after an activity
5 has ended and facilities have been decommissioned. A commitment of
6 resources is related to use or destruction of nonrenewable resources, and effects
7 that loss will have on future generations. For example, if prime farmland is
8 developed there would be a permanent loss of agricultural productivity.
9 Construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical infrastructure involves the
10 irreversible and irretrievable commitment of material resources and energy, land
11 and wetland resources, biological resources, and human resources. The impacts
12 on these resources would be permanent.
13 Material Resources. Material resources irretrievably utilized for the Proposed

14 Action include steel, concrete, and other building materials (for construction of
15 fence). Such materials are not in short supply, would not limit other unrelated
16 construction activities, and their irretrievable use would not be considered
17 significant.
18 Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized for the Proposed Action would be
19 irretrievably lost. These include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline and
20 diesel) and electricity. During construction, gasoline and diesel would be used
21 for the operation of construction vehicles. USBP operations would not change
22 and the amount of fuel used to operate government-owned vehicles might
23 decrease slightly due to increased operational efficiencies. Consumption of
24 these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability
25 in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.
26 Biological Resources. The Proposed Action would result in the irretrievable

27 loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat. In the long term, construction of the
28 tactical infrastructure would result in the loss of 324 acres of potential wildlife
29 habitat, force the relocation of wildlife, and require the removal of natural
30 vegetation. This result would be a permanent loss or conversion of decreasing
31 open spaces. An unknown amount of wetlands could be permanently impacted
32 by the Proposed Action. CBP would obtain CWA Section 404 permits and
33 mitigate the loss of wetlands. The cumulative impacts on wetlands would be
34 long-term and adverse.
35 Human Resources. The use of human resources for construction is considered

36 an irretrievable loss, only in that it would preclude such personnel from engaging
37 in other work activities. However, the use of human resources for the Proposed
38 Action represents employment opportunities, and is considered beneficial.

4-12
FME002890
1 4.16 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SHORT-TERM USE OF THE

2 ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
3 Short-term uses of the biophysical components of the human environment
4 include direct construction-related disturbances and direct impacts associated
5 with an increase in population and activity that occurs over a period of less than 5
6 years. Long-term uses of the human environment include those impacts that
7 occur over a period of more than 5 years, including permanent resource loss.
8 Activities that could result in short-term resource uses that compromise long-term
9 productivity include filling of wetlands and loss of habitat.
10

4-13
FME002891

4-14
FME002892
SECTION 5
Mitigation Plan and CEQA Findings
FME002893
FME002894
1 5. MITIGATION PLAN AND CEQA FINDINGS
2 CBP applied various design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts

3 associated with the Proposed Action as much as possible. Nonetheless, CBP
4 has determined that construction, operation, and maintenance of tactical
5 infrastructure in USBP El Centro Sector would result in adverse environmental
6 impacts. These impacts would be most adverse during the period of
7 construction. CBP has concluded, however, that the Proposed Action would be
8 an environmentally acceptable action and overall result in insignificant
9 environmental impacts. Although many factors were considered in this
10 determination, the principal reasons are:
11 • BMPs would be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on biological

12 resources.
13 • CBP would implement a Construction, Mitigation, and Restoration (CM&R)

14 Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan; Blasting
15 Specifications, Dust Control Plan; Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan;
16 and Unanticipated Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect
17 natural and cultural resources and residential areas during construction
18 and operation of the Project.
19 • CBP would complete appropriate consultations with the USFWS, the

20 CDFG, the SHPOs, and Native American tribes before construction would
21 begin in any given area.
22 • An environmental inspection and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would be

23 prepared to ensure compliance with all mitigation measures.
24 In addition, CBP developed specific mitigation measures to further reduce the

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

28 and the mitigation measures identified to avoid or reduce each impact. The
29 impacts are classified before and after mitigation in accordance with the CEQA
30 significance classifications. The recommended mitigation would reduce potential
31 environmental impacts on less than significant levels. Table 5.1-1 is the basis for
32 the mitigation and monitoring that would be implemented during construction and
33 operation of the Proposed Action.

5-1
FME002895
Draft EA
Table 5.0-1. Mitigation Monitoring Program for El Centro Tactical Infrastructure
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Geo 1 Construction of the Significant (CEQA CBP would mitigate impacts on soils by implementing its Less than CBP
tactical infrastructure Class II) CM&R Plan developed in consultation with the BLM, the significant
could expose soils to USFWS, and the CDFG, and its Project-wide Dust (CEQA Class III)
erosional forces, and Control Plan. Fugitive dust generated by construction
facilitate the dispersal activities would be minimized by implementing CBP’s
and establishment of Project-wide Dust Control Plan to include BMPs
weeds. indentified by some of the regulatory agencies.
Measures to be implemented include: take every

reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities; take every
5-2
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, 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.
Geo 2 Contamination from Significant (CEQA CBP would mitigate impacts on soils by implementing its Less than
spills or leaks of fuels, Class II) Spill Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan for significant
lubricants, and coolant Hazardous Materials and Wastes (SPCC Plan). (CEQA Class III)
from construction
equipment could have
an impact on soils.
January 2008
FME002896
Draft EA
WATER RESOURCES
Water 1 Refueling of vehicles Significant (CEQA CBP would comply with its SPCC Plan. This includes Less than
and storage of fuel, oil, Class II) avoiding or minimizing potential impacts by restricting the significant
and other fluids during location of refueling activities and storage facilities and (CEQA Class III)
construction could by requiring immediate cleanup in the event of a spill or
contaminate water leak. Additionally, the SPCC Plan identifies emergency
resources. response procedures, equipment, and cleanup measures
in the event of a spill.
Water 2 Impacts on wetlands Significant (CEQA CBP would adhere to its CM&R Plan, and comply with Less than CBP
would include the Class II) the USACE’s Section 404 and the SDRWQCB’s Section significant
temporary and 401 Water Quality Certification permit conditions. (CEQA Class III)
permanent alteration of Wetlands would be restored or mitigated. Some of the
wetland vegetation, mitigation measures pertaining to wetland crossings

temporary changes in include: minimizing construction time in wetland areas,
wetland hydrology and requiring non-essential construction to avoid crossing
5-3
water quality, mixing of wetland areas, storing and returning the top foot of soil
topsoil and subsoil, from wetland areas to preserve root stock for re-growth.
and compaction and
rutting of soils.
January 2008
FME002897
Draft EA
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio 1 The primary impact of Significant (CEQA CBP would minimize the area of new disturbance and Less than CBP
the Proposed Action Class II) impacts on vegetation. CBP would implement its CM&R significant
on vegetation would be Plan to reduce impacts on vegetation within the (CEQA Class III)
the cutting, clearing, construction and permanent rights-of-way and improve
and/or removal of re-vegetation potential. Some of the measures that
existing vegetation would be implemented include: crush or skim vegetation
within the construction within the construction corridor in areas where grading is
work area. not required, which would result in less soil disturbance.
The remaining root crowns would aid in soil stabilization,
help retain organic matter in the soil, aid in moisture
retention, and have the potential to re-sprout following
construction. Preserve native vegetation removed during
clearing operations. The cut vegetation would be

windrowed along the ROW during construction and then
re-spread over the disturbed areas as part of restoration
5-4
activities.
Bio 2 Removal of existing Significant (CEQA CBP would reduce the potential to spread noxious weeds Less than CBP
vegetation and the Class II) and soil pests by implementing the measures included in significant
disturbances of soils its CM&R Plan. These measures include, but are not (CEQA Class III)
during construction limited to: survey by a qualified noxious weed authority;
could create conditions flagging or treatment before construction; identification of
for the invasion and populations of plants listed as invasive exotics by the
establishment of California Invasive Plant Council and the BLM National
exotic-nuisance List of Invasive Weed Species of Concern; not allowing
species. 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; implementation of post-construction monitoring
January 2008
and treatment of invasive weeds.

FME002898
Draft EA
Bio 3 Fires inadvertently Significant (CEQA CBP would implement its Fire Prevention and Less than CBP
started by construction Class II) Suppression Plan to minimize the potential for wildfires. significant
activities (e.g., Some of the measures contained in the plan include: (CEQA Class III)
welding), equipment, requiring the contractor to train all personnel on fire
or personnel could prevention measures, restricting smoking and parking to
affect wildlife by cleared areas, requiring all combustion engines to be
igniting vegetation equipped with a spark arrestor, and requiring vehicles
along the ROW. and equipment to maintain a supply of fire suppression
equipment (e.g., shovels and fire extinguishers).
Some impact on Avoidance by design and BMPs based on USFWS Less than CBP
Significant (CEQA
Bio 4 sensitive species could Biological Assessment/Biological Opinion will be significant
Class II)
occur. implemented. (CEQA Class III)
VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual 1 Installation of new Significant (CEQA Design based on tactical needs and BLM input on Less than
tactical infrastructure Class II) sensitive visual resources will be installed. significant
5-5
would impact visual (CEQA Class III)

resources.
SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Socio 1 Construction of the Less than No mitigation is proposed during construction. This Less than None
Project could significant (CEQA negligible short-term increase in population would not significant
temporarily increase Class III) significantly affect housing availability or increase the (CEQA Class III)
the population in the demand for public services in excess of existing and
area by about 200 projected capabilities.
people.
January 2008
FME002899
Draft EA
AIR QUALITY
Air 1 Construction of the Less than Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would Less than CBP
Proposed Action would significant (CEQA be minimized by the implementation of CBP’s Project- significant
generate emissions of III) wide Dust Control Plan. The Project-wide Dust Control (CEQA III)
Particulate Matter Plan includes control measures identified as BMPs by
(PM10 ) some of the 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, 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
5-6
transfer operations are required, spray handling and

transfer points with water at least 15 minutes before use.
NOISE
Noise 1 Individuals in the Significant (CEQA Noise associated with construction activities would be Less than CBP
immediate vicinity of Class II) both temporary and intermittent. Equipment would be significant
the construction operated on an as-needed basis during day light. A (CEQA Class III)
activities could majority of the activities would occur away from
experience an population centers. Pile driving in populated areas would
increase in noise. be limited to daylight hours. The duration of construction
in the few populated areas would be limited to a few
days.
January 2008
FME002900
SECTION 6
References
FME002901
FME002902
1 6. REFERENCES
ATSDR 2002 Agency of Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2002.
“Division of Toxicology ToxFAQs: DDT, DDE, and DDD.” U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
ATSDR. September 2002. Available online:
<http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts35.html>. Accessed 20 November
2007.
Bailey 1995 Bailey, Robert F. 1995. Ecoregions of the United States. U.S. Forest
Service. Available online: <http://www.fs.fed.us/coloimagemap/
images/300.html>. Accessed 4 November 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 2003a BLM. 2003. Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan
(RAMP). U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, El Centro Field Office.
El Centro, CA.
BLM 2003b BLM. 2003. Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management

Strategy, Revision 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, BLM, El Centro
Field Office.
BLM 2007a BLM. 2007. BLM El Centro Field Office, Personal correspondence
between John Johnson, Wilderness Coordinator, BLM El Centro Field
Office, and Ron Lamb, e²M, December 3, 2007.
BLM 2007b BLM. 2007. Eastern San Diego County Draft Resource Management
Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by U.S.
Department of the Interior, BLM, El Centro Field Office. February
2007. Available online: <http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/
esdrmp.html>. Accessed 20 November 2007.
BLM 2007c BLM. 2007. Sunrise Powerlink Project. Available online:
<http://www.blm.gov.ca.st.en.fo.elcentro/sunrise.html>. Accessed 22
October 2007.
BLM Undated BLM. Undated. “El Centro, Programs.” Available online:
<http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/elcentro/whatwedo.1.html>. Accessed
11 September 2007.
Boeing 2007 Boeing Integrated Defense System (Boeing). 2007. SBInet
Backgrounder. 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/index.cfm>. Accessed 7 September 2007.

6-1
FME002903
CARB 2007a 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.
CARB 2007b CARB. 2007. California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and
2020 Emissions Limit. Available online: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/
ccei/inventory/1990_level.htm>. Accessed 20 November 2007.
CBP 2005 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2005. Environmental
Assessment for Gamma Imaging Inspection System, Port of Entry
(West) Calexico, Imperial County, California. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, CBP, Applied Technology Division. March 2005.
CBP 2007 CBP. 2007. Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Installation of 2.62 Miles of Primary Fence near Calexico,
California. August 2007.
CDTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control (CDTSC).

Undated Undated. “Find Clean Sites.” Available online:
<http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed 4 September
2007.
CEQ 1997 Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President
(CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. January 1997.
CEQ 2005 CEQ. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in
Cumulative Effects Analysis. 24 June 2005.
CIWMB 2007a California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2007.
“Integrated Waste Management Board.” Available online:
<http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/>. Accessed 12 September 2007.
CIWMB 2007b CIWMB. 2007. “California Waste Stream Profiles, Imperial County
Overview.” Available online: <http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/
County/CoProfile1.asp>. Accessed 12 September 2007.
CRS 2006 Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. Border Security:
Barriers Along the U.S. International Border. Report For Congress
prepared by Blas Nunez-Neto and Stephen Vina. Updated 12
December 2006.
EIA 2000 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2000. Inventory of

Electric Utility Power Plants in the United States 2000. U.S.
Department of Energy, EIA. Available online:
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/ippv1td2p2.html>.
Accessed ?
EIA 2007 EIA. 2007. “Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program.”

U.S. Department of Energy, EIA. Available online:
<www.eis.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients>. Accessed 4 November
2007.

6-2
FME002904
Fedstats Fedstats. 2007. “Mapstats, Imperial County, California.” Available

Undated online: <http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/06/06025.html>. Accessed
13 September 2007.
FEMA 1984 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1984. Map
Service Center Viewer – Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel No.
0600651025B for Imperial County, California. Effective Date 15 March
1984. Available online: <https://msc.fema.gov>. Accessed 19
September 2007.
FEMA 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1986. A Unified National

Program for Floodplain Management, March 1986.
Graber 1996 Graber, David M. 1996. “Chapter 25: Status of Terrestrial

Vertebrates.” In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to
Congress, Volume II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for
Management Options. University of California, Centers for Wildlife
Resources. Available online: <http://ceres.ca.gov/snep/
pubs/v2s3.html>. Accessed 20 November 2007.
Hangan 2003 Hangan, Margaret. 2003. Bureau of Land Management 110 Survey.
Hickman 1996 Hickman, James C., ed. 1996. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of
California. University of California Press: Berkley.
Hunt 1974 Hunt, C.B. 1974. Natural Regions of the United States and Canada.
W.H. Freeman and Company: San Francisco.
IBWC 2007 U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). 2007.
“The International Boundary and Water Commission, Its Mission,
Organization and Procedures for Solution of Boundary and Water
Problems.” Available online: <www.ibwc.state.gov/About_Us/
About_Us.html>. Accessed 20 September 2007.
ICAPCD 2007 Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD). 2007. Rule
202, Exemptions. Available online: <http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/imp/
curhtml/r202.pdf>. Accessed 3 October 2007.
ICDPW Imperial County Department of Public Works (ICDPW). Undated.
Undated “Solid Waste/Recycling Division.” Available online:
<http://www.co.imperial.ca.us/PublicWorks/Index.htm>. Accessed 12
September 2007.
ICPD 1998 Imperial County Planning Division (ICPD). 1998. Title 9, Land Use
Ordinance.
IID 2005 Imperial Irrigation District (IID). 2005. 2005 Annual Water Report.
Imperial, CA. Available online:
<http://www.iid.com/Water_Index.php?pid=2675>. Accessed 20
November 2007.
IID 2007 IID. 2007. Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan, Final Report.
Prepared as part of the IID Efficiency Conservation Definite Plan.
Imperial, CA. May 2007. Available online: <http://www.iid.com/
Water_Index.php?pid=268. Accessed 20 November 2007.

6-3
FME002905
Landrum & Landrum & Brown, Inc. 2002. “Common Noise Sources.” Available
Brown 2002 online: <www.landrum-brown.com/env/PVD/EIS/Jan%202002%
20Chapter%204/ 4%201-1%20%20common_noise_sources.pdf>.
Accessed 6 July 2004.
LeBlanc et al. LeBlanc, Lawrence A., James L. Orlando, and Kathryn M. Kuivila.
2004 2004. Pesticide Concentrations in Water and in Suspended and
Bottom Sediments in the New and Alamo Rivers, Salton Sea
Watershed, California, April 2003. U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 104, in cooperation with the
California State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Reston, VA.
Available online: <http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/ds104/>. Accessed 20
November 2007.
Morton 1977 Morton, P.K. 1977. Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial
County, California. County Report 7, California Division of Mines and
Geology, Sacramento, California.
NatureServe NatureServe Explorer. 2007. Comprehensive Reports Alliance and
2007 Associations. Available online: <http://www.natureserve.org/
explorer/servlet/>.
Spectrum Spectrum Laboratories (Spectrum). 2007. “Chemical Fact Sheet –

Undated Chemical Abstract Number 759944: Eptam.” Available online:
<http://www.speclab.com/compound/c759944.htm>. Accessed 20
November 2007.
SSA 1997 The Salton Sea Authority (SSA). 1997. “The Salton Sea: A Brief
Description of Its Current Conditions, and Potential Remediation
Projects.” Available online: <http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/
Salton%20Sea%20Descriptions.html>.
Stene Undated Stene, Eric A. Undated. “Boulder Canyon Project: All-American

Canal System.” (2nd Draft) Available online:
<http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/allamer1.d2.html>. Accessed 20
November 2007.
TopoZone. TopoZone.com. 2007. USGS Calexico, Bonds Corner, and Grays

com 2007 Well topographic maps. Copyright TopoZone.com © 1999–2003 Maps
a la carte, Inc. Available online: <http://www.topozone.com>.
Accessed 5 September 2007.
U.S. Census U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. “Decennial, Census 2000.” Available
Bureau 2002 online: <http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=DEC&_submenuId=datasets_0&
_lang=en>. Accessed 12 September 2007.
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.

6-4
FME002906
USACE 2000 USACE. 2000. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed JTF-6
Levee Road Maintenance and Repair Project, Brownsville, Texas.
USACE Fort Worth District. April 2000.
USBR 1994 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1994. Record of Decision for
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the All-American Canal
Lining Project, Imperial County, California. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. May 1994.
USBR 2001 USBR. 2001. New River Wetlands Project Environmental
Assessment. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Lower Colorado Region. Brawley and Imperial, CA.
USBR 2005 USBR. 2005. Biological Assessment for the All-American Canal
Lining Project, Potential Species Impacts in the Republic of Mexico.
18 November 2005. Available online: <http://www.usbr.gov/lc/
region/programs/aac.html>. Accessed 20 November 2007.
USDA-NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation

2007a Service (USDA-NRCS). 2007. National Cooperative Soil Survey
(NCSS) Web Soil Survey Version 1.1. Available online:
<http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/>. Accessed 6 September
2007.
USDA-NRCS USDA-NRCS. 2007. Interpreting Wetland Indicator Status – USDA
2007b PLANTS. Available online: <http://plants.usda.gov/wetinfo.html>.
USDOJ 2007 U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ). 2007. “Clean Water Act
Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos
v. United States and Carabell v. United States.” Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/
CWAwaters.html>. Accessed 20 November 2007.
USEPA 1971 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from
Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances. NJID 300.1. 31 December 1971.
USEPA 1974 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>. Accessed 3 October
2007.
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 2007a USEPA. 2007. “Clean Water Act: History, Introduction, Electronic
Clean Water Act Snapshot, and Finding Updates.” Last updated 7
September 2007. Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/r5water/
cwa.htm>. Accessed 20 November 2007.

6-5
FME002907
USEPA 2007b USEPA. 2007. Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria
Pollutants. Available online: <http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk>.
Accessed 3 October 2007.
USFS 1995 U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Forested Wetlands: Functions,
Benefits and the Use of Best Management Practices. NA-PR-01-95.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, USFS. (b) (6) (USFS) with
(b) (6) (NRCS) , (b) (6) (USACE), (b) (6)
(USEPA), (b) (6) (NRCS), and (b) (6)
(USFWS).
1

6-6
FME002908
SECTION 7
List of Preparers
FME002909
FME002910
1 7. LIST OF PREPARERS
2 This EA has been prepared under the direction of CBP and the U.S. Army Corps
3 of Engineers, Fort Worth District ECSO. The individuals who assisted in
4 resolving and providing agency guidance for this document are:
5 (b) (6)
6 Chief, CBP Environmental Branch
7 (b) (6)
8 USACE Fort Worth District ECSO
9 This EIS has been prepared by engineering-environmental Management, Inc.

10 (e²M) under the direction of CBP. The individual contractors that contributed to
11 the preparation of this document are listed below.
12 (b) (6) 35 (b) (6)

13 B.A. Geography 36 B.S. Geology
14 Years of Experience: 2 37 USACE Certified Wetland
38 Delineator
15 (b) (6)
39 Certified Professional Soil Scientist
16 M.P.A. Public Administration 40 Years of Experience: 23
17 B.S. Political Science
18 Years of Experience: 7 41 (b) (6)
42 Michael Baker Corporation
19 (b) (6)
43 B.S. Natural Resources
20 M.P.A. Public Administration 44 M.S. Marine Biology
21 B.S. Engineering Physics 45 Years of Experience: 20
22 Years of Experience: 33
46 (b) (6)
23 (b) (6) 47 M.S. Biology
24 M.S. Natural Resources 48 B.S. Environmental Studies
25 B.S. Applied Biology 49 Years of Experience: 3
50 (b) (6)
27 (b) (6) 51 Ph.D. Anthropology
28 M.S. Environmental Sciences and 52 B.A. Anthropology and Archaeology
29 Engineering 53 Years of Experience: 21
30 B.S. Geology
31 Certificate of Water Quality 54 (b) (6)
32 Management 55 B.A. Geography
33 Years of Experience: 10 56 GIS Professional Certificate
34
58

7-1
FME002911
1 (b) (6) 41 (b) (6)

2 M.S. Environmental Studies 42 A.A.S. Nursing
3 B.S. Earth Science and Geography 43 Years of Experience: 17
44 (b) (6)
5 (b) (6) 45 M.S. Historic Preservation
6 B.S. Environmental Science 46 M.S. Anthropology
7 Registered Environmental 47 B.S. Anthropology
8 Professional 48 Years of Experience: 24
49 (b) (6)
10 (b) (6) 50 B.S. Environmental Science
11 M.A. Anthropology 51 B.A. Communications
12 Years of Experience: 15 52 Years of Experience: 6
13 (b) (6) 53 (b) (6)

14 B.S. Biology 54 B.S. Environmental Science
15 Certificate of Environmental 55 B.A. Business Administration
16 Management 56 Years of Experience: 9
57 (b) (6)
18 (b) (6) 58 B.S. Natural Resource Management
19 M.A. Anthropology 59 J.D. with Certificate in
20 Years of Experience: 17 60 Environmental Law
21 (b) (6)
22 B.S. Environmental Policy and 62 (b) (6)
23 Planning 63 B.S. Environmental Studies
25 (b) (6) CEP 65 (b) (6)

26 M.S. Environmental Science 66 B.S. Biology
27 M.A. Political Science/International 67 Years of Experience: 4
28 Economics
68 (b) (6)
29 B.A. Political Science
30 Years of Experience: 22 69 Ph.D. Biology
70 M.S. Biology
31 (b) (6) 71 B.S. Biology
32 M.B.A. Business Administration 72 Years of Experience: 22
33 B.S. Forestry and Natural
34 Resources Management 73 (b) (6)
35 Years of Experience: 11 74 B.S. Geography
36 (b) (6)
76 (b) (6)
37 Ph.D. Biochemistry
38 B.S. Chemistry 77 B.S. Biology
39 Registered Environmental Manager 78 M.S. Engineering
7-2
FME002912
1 (b) (6)
2 M.S. Environmental Science and
3 Education
4 B.S. Biology
6 (b) (6)
7 B.S. Environmental Policy and
8 Planning
10 (b) (6)
11 B.S. Environmental Studies
13 (b) (6)
14 M.S. Biology
15 B.S. Biology
17 (b) (6)
18 B.S. Environmental Science
20 (b) (6)
21 M.S. Resource
22 Economics/Environmental
23 Management
24 B.A. Political Science
26 (b) (6)
27 M.S. Fisheries Science
28 B.S. Marine Science

7-3
FME002913
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7-4
FME002914
APPENDIX A
Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure
FME002915
FME002916
APPENDIX A
STANDARD DESIGN FOR TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
A properly designed tactical infrastructure system is an indispensable tool in

deterring those attempting to illegally cross the U.S. border. Tactical
infrastructure is also integral to maintaining USBP’s flexibility in deploying agents
and enforcement operations. A formidable infrastructure acts as a force
multiplier by slowing down illegal entrants and increasing the window of time that
agents have to respond. Strategically developed tactical infrastructure should
enable USBP managers to better utilize existing manpower when addressing the
dynamic nature of terrorists, illegal aliens, and narcotics trafficking (INS 2002).
USBP apprehension statistics remain the most reliable way to codify trends in
illegal migration along the border. Based on apprehension statistics, in a 2006
report on border security, the Congressional Research Service concluded that
“the installation of border fencing, in combination with an increase in agent
manpower and technological assets, has had a significant effect on the
apprehensions made in the San Diego sector” (CRS 2006).
Since effective border enforcement requires adequate scope, depth, and variety
in enforcement activity, any single border enforcement function that significantly
depletes USBP’s ability to satisfactorily address any other enforcement action
creates exploitable opportunities for criminal elements. For example, the intense
deployment of personnel resources necessary to monitor urban border areas
without tactical infrastructure adversely affects the number of agents available for
boat patrol, transportation check points, patrolling remote border areas, and other
tasks. Tactical infrastructure reduces this effect by reinforcing critical areas,
allowing the agents to be assigned to other equally important border enforcement
roles (INS 2002).
Fencing
Two applications for fencing have been developed in an effort to control illegal
cross-border traffic: primary pedestrian fences that are built on the border, and
secondary fences that are constructed parallel to the primary pedestrian fences.
These fences present a formidable physical barrier which impede cross-border
violators and increases the window of time USBP agents have to respond (INS
2002).
There are several types of primary pedestrian fence designs USBP can select for
construction depending on various site conditions and law enforcement tactics
employed. Each option offers relative advantages and disadvantages. Fencing
composed of concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-effective
options, but USBP agents cannot see through it. USBP prefers fencing
A-1
FME002917
structures offering visual transparency, allowing observation of activities

developing on the other side of the border.
Over the past decade, USBP has deployed a variety of types of fencing, such as
primary pedestrian fence (see Figures A-1 through A-4), primary pedestrian
fence with wildlife migratory portals (see Figures A-5 and A-6), and bollard
fencing (see Figure A-7).
Figure A-1. Typical Primary pedestrian fence Foundation
A-2
FME002918
Figure A-2. Typical Primary pedestrian fence Design
A-3
FME002919
Figure A-5. Primary pedestrian fence with Wildlife Migratory Portals
A-4
FME002920
Figure A-6. Wildlife Migratory Portals
Figure A-7. Bollard Fence
Bollard fencing has been effective in its limited deployment and can also be seen
through. However, it is expensive to construct and to maintain. Landing mat
fencing is composed of Army surplus carbon steel landing mats which were used
to create landing strips during the Vietnam War. Chain-link fencing is relatively
economical, but more easily compromised. In selecting a particular fencing
design, USBP weighs various factors such as its effectiveness as a law
enforcement tool, the costs associated with construction and maintenance,
potential environmental impacts, and other public interest concerns. USBP
continues to develop fence designs to best address these objectives and
constraints.
Patrol Roads
Patrol roads provide USBP agents with quick and direct access to anyone
conducting illegal activity along the border, and allow agents access to the
various components of the tactical infrastructure system. Patrol roads typically
run parallel to and a few feet north of the primary pedestrian fence. Patrol roads
are typically unpaved, but in some cases “all-weather” roads are necessary to
ensure continual USBP access (INS 2002).
A-5
FME002921
Lighting
Two types of lighting (permanent and portable) might be

constructed in specific urban locations. Illegal entries are
often accomplished by using the cover of darkness, which
would be eliminated by lighting. Lighting acts as a
deterrent to cross-border violators and as an aid to USBP
agents in capturing illegal aliens, smugglers, terrorists, or
terrorist weapons after they have entered the United
States (INS 2001). Lighting locations are determined by
USBP based on projected operational needs of the
specific area.
The permanent lighting would be stadium-type lights on

approximately 30- to 40-foot high poles with two to four
lights per pole. Each light would have a range of 400 to
1,000 watts, with lower-wattage bulbs used where
feasible. Wooden poles, encased in concrete and steel
culvert pipe to prevent them from being cut down, would
most often be used, although steel poles with concrete footings might also be
used. The poles might be existing poles or they might need to be installed.
Electricity would be run in overhead lines unless local regulations require the
lines to be underground (DHS 2004). Lights would operate from dusk to dawn.
Light poles adjacent to U.S. IBWC levees would be coordinated with and
approved by the U.S. IBWC. The final placement and direction of lighting has
been and would continue to be coordinated with the USFWS, with the USFWS
having final review over both placement and direction along each fence section.
Portable lights are self-contained units with generators that can be quickly moved
to meet USBP operational requirements. Portable lights are powered by a
6-kilowatt self-contained diesel generator. Portable lights would generally
operate continuously every night and would require refueling every day prior to
the next night’s operation. The portable light systems can be towed to the
desired location by USBP vehicles, but they are typically spaced approximately
100 to 400 feet apart, depending upon topography and operational needs. Each
portable light would have a light fan directed toward the fence to produce an
illuminated area of 100 ft2. The lighting systems would have shields placed over
the lamps to reduce or eliminate the effects of backlighting. Effects from the
lighting would occur along the entire corridor where they could be placed;
however, in reality, only parts of the fence would be illuminated at a given time
since the portable lights would be periodically relocated to provide the most
effective deterrent and enforcement strategy (INS 2001).
A-6
FME002922
References
CRS Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2006. “Report For
2006 Congress.” Border Security: Barriers Along the U.S. International
Border. 12 December 2006.
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 2004.
2004 Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande. CBP,
Washington D.C. April 2004.
INS 2001 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2001. Final
Environmental Assessment, Portable Lights within the Naco
Corridor. Cochise County, Arizona. December 2001.
INS 2002 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 2002. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Completion of the 14-Mile
Border Infrastructure System, San Diego, CA. Immigration and
naturalization Service. January 2002
A-7
FME002923
A-8
FME002924
APPENDIX B
Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
FME002925
FME002926
Table B-1. Applicable Laws and Executive Orders 1
Title, Citation Summary
Archaeological and Historical Protects and preserves historical and archaeological

Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. data. Requires Federal agencies to identify and recover
469 data from archaeological sites threatened by a proposed
action(s).
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Establishes Federal standards for air pollutants.
7401–7671q, as amended Prevents significant deterioration in areas of the country
where air quality fails to meet Federal standards.
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Comprehensively restores and maintains the chemical,
1251–1387 (also known as physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.
the Federal Water Pollution Implemented and enforced by the U.S. Environmental
Control Act) Protection Agency (USEPA).
Comprehensive Provides for liability, compensation, cleanup, and

Environmental Response, emergency response for hazardous substances released
Compensation, and Liability into the environment and cleanup of inactive hazardous
Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. substances disposal sites. Establishes a fund financed
9601–9675 (also known as by hazardous waste generators to support cleanup and
“Superfund”) response actions.
Endangered Species Act of Protects threatened, endangered, and candidate species

1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531–1543, of fish, wildlife, and plants and their designated critical
as amended habitats. Prohibits Federal action that jeopardizes the
continued existence of endangered or threatened
species. Requires consultation with U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries and a
biological assessment when such species are present in
an area affected by government activities.
Fish and Wildlife Authorizes the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce
Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. to provide assistance to and cooperate with Federal and
661–667e, as amended state agencies to protect, rear, stock, and increase the
supply of game and fur-bearing animals, as well as to
study the effects of domestic sewage, trade wastes, and
other polluting substances on wildlife. The 1946
amendments require consultation with the USFWS and
the state fish and wildlife agencies involving any
waterbodies that are proposed or authorized, permitted,
or licensed to be impounded, diverted, or otherwise
controlled or modified by any agency under a Federal
permit or license.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 Implements various treaties for protecting migratory
U.S.C. 703–712 birds; the taking, killing, or possession of migratory birds
is unlawful.
B-1
FME002927
National Environmental Requires Federal agencies to use a systematic approach

Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. when assessing environmental impacts of government
4321–4370e, as amended activities. Proposes an interdisciplinary approach in a
decisionmaking process designed to identify
unacceptable or unnecessary impacts to the
environment.
National Historic Requires Federal agencies to consider the effect of any

Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. federally assisted undertaking or licensing on any district,
470–470x-6 site, building, structure, or object eligible for inclusion, or
listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Provides for the nomination, identification (through
NRHP listing), and protection of significant historical and
cultural properties.
Noise Control Act of 1972, Establishes a national policy to promote an environment

42 U.S.C. 4901–4918 free from noise that jeopardizes health and welfare.
Authorizes the establishment of Federal noise emissions
standards and provides relevant information to the
public.
Occupational Safety and Establishes standards to protect workers, including

Health Act of 1970, 29 standards on industrial safety, noise, and health
U.S.C. 651–678 standards.
Resource Conservation and Establishes requirements for safely managing and

Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. disposing of solid and hazardous waste and
6901–6992k underground storage tanks.
Executive Order (EO) 12372, Requires Federal agencies to consult with state and local
Intergovernmental Review of governments when proposed Federal financial
Federal Programs, July 14, assistance or direct Federal development impacts
1982, 47 FR 30959 interstate metropolitan urban centers or other interstate
(6/16/82), as supplemented areas.
EO 12898, Environmental Requires certain Federal agencies, to the greatest extent

Justice, February 11, 1994, practicable permitted by law, to make environmental
59 FR 7629 (2/16/94), as justice part of their missions by identifying and
amended addressing disproportionately high and adverse health or
environmental effects on minority and low-income
populations.
B-2
FME002928
EO 13148, Greening the Designates the head of each Federal agency to ensure
Government Through that all necessary actions are taken to integrate
Leadership in Environmental environmental accountability into agency day-to-day
Management, April 21, 2000, decision making and long-term planning processes,
65 FR 24595 (4/26/00) across all agency missions, activities, and functions.
Establishes goals for environmental management,
environmental compliance, right-to-know (informing the
public and their workers of possible sources of pollution
resulting from facility operations) and pollution
prevention, and similar matters.
EO 13175, Consultation and Requires Federal agencies to establish an accountable

Coordination with Indian process that ensures meaningful and timely input from
Tribal Governments, tribal officials in developing policies that have tribal
November 6, 2000, 65 FR implications.
67249 (11/09/00)
EO 13186, Responsibilities Requires each agency to ensure that environmental

of Federal Agencies to analyses of Federal actions (required by the National
Protect Migratory Birds, Environmental Policy Act or other established
January 10, 2001, 66 FR environmental review processes) evaluate the effects of
3853 (1/17/01) actions and agency plans on migratory birds,
emphasizing species of concern. Agencies must support
the conservation intent of migratory bird conventions by
integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and
practices into agency activities, and by avoiding or
minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on
migratory bird resources when conducting agency
actions.
EO 11593, Protection and Requires all Federal agencies to locate, identify, and
Enhancement of the Cultural record all cultural resources, including significant
Environment, May 13, 1971, archeological, historical, or architectural sites.
36 FR 8921 (5/15/71)
Note: 1 This table only reflects those laws and EOs that might reasonably be expected to apply to
the Proposed Action and alternatives addressed in this EIS.
Other laws and Executive Orders potentially relevant to the construction,

maintenance, and operation of tactical infrastructure include, but are not limited
to, the following:
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996, et seq.

• Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 433, et seq.; Archeological Resources
Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 aa-ll, et seq.
• Architectural Barriers Act, 42 U.S.C. 4151, et seq.
B-3
FME002929
• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620, et

seq.
• Department of Transportation Act, P.L. 89-670, 49 U.S.C. 303, Section
4(f), et seq.
• Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C.
11001–11050, et seq.
• Environmental Quality Improvement Act, P.L. 98-581, 42 U.S.C. 4371, et
seq.
• Farmlands Protection Policy Act, P.L. 97-98, 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq.
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, P.L. 86-139, 7 U.S.C.
135, et seq.
• Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2101-3324, et seq.
• Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, P.L. 85-888, 16 U.S.C. 742, et seq.
• Flood Disaster Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.
• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001,
et seq.
• Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101-13109, et seq.
• Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 93-523, 42, U.S.C. 201, et seq.
• Toxic Substances Control Act, 7 U.S.C. 136, et seq.
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P.L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq.
• EO 12114, dated January 9, 1979, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major
Federal Actions, 44 FR 1957
• EO 12088, dated October 13, 1978, Federal Compliance with Pollution
Control Standards, 43 FR 47707, as amended by EO 12580, dated
January 23, 1987, and revoked (in part) by EO 13148, dated April 21,
2000
• EO 13132, dated August 4, 1999, Federalism, 64 FR 43255
• EO 11988, dated May 24, 1977, Floodplain Management and Protection,
42 FR 26951, as amended by EO 12148, dated July 20, 1979, 44 FR
43239
• EO 13007, dated May 24, 1996, Historic Sites Act, 16 U.S.C. 46, et seq.;
Indian Sacred Sites, 61 FR 26771
• EO 12372, dated July 14, 1982, Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs, 47 FR 30959, as amended by EO 12416, April 8, 1983, 48 FR
15587; supplemented by EO 13132, August 4, 1999, 64 FR 43255
• EO 13112, dated February 3, 1999, Invasive Species, 64 FR 6183, as
amended by EO 13286, February 28, 2003, 68 FR 10619
B-4
FME002930
• EO 11514, dated March 5, 1970, Protection and Enhancement of

Environmental Quality, 35 FR 4247, as amended by EO 11541, July
1,1970, 35 FR 10737 and EO 11991, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26967
• EO 13045, dated April 21, 1997, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks, 62 FR 19885, as amended by EO
13229, October 9, 2001, 66 FR 52013 and EO 13296, April 18, 2003, 68
FR 19931
• EO 11990, dated May 24, 1977, Protection of Wetlands, 42 FR 26961, as
amended by EO 12608, September 9, 1987, 52 FR 34617
B-5
FME002931
B-6
FME002932
APPENDIX C
Public Involvement and
Agency Coordination
FME002933
FME002934
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
C-1
FME002935
C-2
FME002936
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-3
FME002937
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-4
FME002938
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b)
(b) (6) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-5
FME002939
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
(b) (6)
C-6
FME002940
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-7
FME002941
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-8
FME002942
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-9
FME002943
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-10
FME002944
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-11
FME002945
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-12
FME002946
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-13
FME002947
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-14
FME002948
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (6)
(b) (6)
C-15
FME002949
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-16
FME002950
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b)

(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-17
FME002951
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-18
FME002952
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-19
FME002953
Agency consultations letters have been sent to the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and to identified Indian Nations that may have interest in the
Proposed Action. Those consultation letters are located in the Cultural
Resources Survey (Appendix E).
C-20
FME002954
APPENDIX D
Biological Survey Report
FME002955
FME002956
DRAFT
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

SUPPORTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
MAINTENANCE OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
Prepared by:
DECEMBER 2007
FME002957

°F degrees Fahrenheit
ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMP Best Management Practice
BO Biological Opinion
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFG California Fish and Game
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CWA Clean Water Act
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ESA Endangered Species Act
FE Federally Endangered
FTHL Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard
FTHLRMS Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy
GIS Geographic information system
GPS Global Positioning System
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission
m meter
m2 square meter
MA Management area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mph miles per hour
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
OHV Off-highway vehicle
POE Port of Entry
RAMP Recreation Area Management Plan
ROE Right of entry
ROW right-of-way
SE State Endangered
SFA Secure Fence Act
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
FME002958
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 DRAFT BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT

2 FOR
3 CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
4 EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
5
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS
7
8 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ......................................... INSIDE FRONT COVER
9 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
10 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2
11 3. SURVEY METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 4
12 4. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................. 6
13 5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 7
14 5.1 VEGETATION CLASSIFICATION ................................................................... 7
15 5.1.1 Active Desert Dunes and Sand Fields ................................................. 8
16 5.1.2 Creosote Bush with Disturbance ......................................................... 9
17 5.1.3 Creosote Bush – White Bursage – Longleaf Jointfir ............................ 9
18 5.1.4 Creosote Bush – White Bursage – Fourwing Saltbush ........................ 9
19 5.1.5 Shrubby Coldenia .............................................................................. 10
20 5.1.6 Common Reed ................................................................................... 12
21 5.1.7 Bermuda Grass .................................................................................. 12
22 5.1.8 Heliotrope .......................................................................................... 13
23 5.1.9 Alkali Mallow ...................................................................................... 14
24 5.1.10 Broad-leafed Cattail ........................................................................... 14
25 5.1.11 Ditchgrass Wetland ............................................................................ 15
26 5.1.12 Arrow Weed Scrub ............................................................................. 15
27 5.1.13 Athel Tamarisk ................................................................................... 16
28 5.1.14 Shrub Tamarisk ................................................................................. 16
29 5.1.15 Non–Vegetated Formations and Sites ............................................... 17
30 5.2 PLANT SPECIES IDENTIFIED ..................................................................... 21
31 5.3 PROPOSED FENCE SECTION CHARACTERISTICS AND
32 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT QUALITY ....................................................... 25
33 5.4 FLAT-TAILED HORNED LIZARD AND DESIGNATED
34 MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................................................................... 27
35 5.5 WILDLIFE OBSERVED ................................................................................. 27
36 6. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES .................................................. 30
37 7. PERMITS, TECHNICAL STUDIES, AND NOTIFICATIONS ................................. 34
38 8. LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................................... 38
39 9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 39
40
41 APPENDICES
42
43 A. Description of the Federally Listed Species
44
45
November 2007 i
FME002959
1 PHOTOGRAPHS
2
3 5-1. Alamo River at the U. S./Mexico Border Entering a Culvert under the All
4 American Canal ..................................................................................................... 7
5 5-2. Representative Photographs of Active Desert Dune and Sand Field
6 Habitat ................................................................................................................... 8
7 5-3. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush with Disturbance Habitat .......... 10
8 5-4. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush – White Bursage –
9 Longleaf Jointfir Habitat ...................................................................................... 11
10 5-5. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush – White Bursage –
11 Fourwing Saltbush Habitat .................................................................................. 11
12 5-6. Representative Photographs of Shrubby Coldenia Habitat ................................. 12
13 5-7. Representative Photographs of Common Reed Habitat ..................................... 13
14 5-8. Representative Photographs of Bermuda Grass Habitat .................................... 13
15 5-9. Representative Photograph of Heliotrope Habitat ............................................... 14
16 5-10. Representative Photograph of Alkali Mallow Habitat .......................................... 14
17 5-11. Representative Photographs of Submerged Aquatic Bed Habitat ...................... 15
18 5-12. Representative Photographs of Arrow Weed Scrub Habitat ............................... 16
19 5-13. Representative Photographs of Athel Tamarisk .................................................. 17
20 5-14. Representative Photographs of Shrub Tamarisk ................................................ 17
21 5-15. Unvegetated Sand Flats and Dunes ................................................................... 18
22 5-16. Unvegetated Playa .............................................................................................. 18
23 5-17. Unvegetated Berms and Ditches ........................................................................ 19
24 5-18. Unvegetated Seepage Recovery Area ................................................................ 19
25 5-19. Unvegetated Access Roads and Trails ............................................................... 20
26 5-20. Unvegetated Recreation Sites ............................................................................ 21
27
28
29 TABLES
30
31 2-1. Tactical Infrastructure Sections, El Centro Sector................................................. 2
32 5-1. Plant Species Observed in El Centro Sector Segments B-1, B-2, B-4, B-
33 5A, and B-5B. ...................................................................................................... 21
34 5-2. Wildlife Observed During Natural Resources Surveys Conducted
35 September 4–6 and October 16–18, 2007 .......................................................... 28
36
November 2007 ii
FME002960
1 1. Introduction
2 This biological survey report synthesizes information collected from a variety of
3 sources to describe the biological resources of the project areas associated with
4 Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of tactical infrastructure along the
5 U.S./Mexico international border in the USBP El Centro Sector, California, the
6 potential impacts of the proposed project (described in more detail below) on
7 those biological resources, and recommendations for avoidance or reduction of
8 those impacts. Information was gathered from publicly available literature; data
9 provided by relevant land management agencies; review of aerial photography
10 and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps (Calexico, Bonds Corner;
11 Midway Well NW, Midway Well, Grays Well, and Grays Well NE quadrangles);
12 data from the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) electronic inventory; data
13 from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB); and field surveys
14 conducted on September 4–6, 2007, and October 16–18, 2007. During the
15 September 4–6, 2007, surveys, segments B-4 and B-5B were surveyed.
16 Additional segments were added to the project in October 2007 and these
17 segments (B-1, B-2, and B-5A) were surveyed on October 16–18, 2007.
18 This report was developed to support National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
19 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Endangered Species Act
20 (ESA) requirements for analysis of potential impacts on biological resources
21 resulting from the proposed project. This report was developed as an
22 independent document but will be included as an appendix in the Environmental
23 Assessment developed for this project.
24
November 2007 1
FME002961
1 2. Project Description
2 U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
3 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), is proposing to install and operate
4 tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian, aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access
5 roads; patrol roads; lights; and other tools along the U.S./Mexico international
6 border within the USBP El Centro Sector, California. USBP El Centro Sector has
7 identified these high-priority areas for improvements that will help it gain
8 operational control of the border. These improvements include installation of
9 “primary fence” segments (i.e., areas of the border that are not currently fenced).
10 Under the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (SFA) (Public Law 109-367), Congress has
11 appropriated funds for the construction of pedestrian fence along the U.S./Mexico
12 international border. Construction of other tactical infrastructure might occur as
13 additional funds are appropriated by Congress. Table 2-1 provides the general
14 location of tactical infrastructure and length for each section in the USBP El
15 Centro Sector.
16 Table 2-1. Tactical Infrastructure Sections, El Centro Sector
Approx.
Fence Section BP Project
General Location Length
Number Station Section ID
(mi)
El 1.5 miles west of Pinto Wash 11.3
B-1 ELC-ELS-2
Centro to Monument 225
El Monument 224 to ELS West 2.4
B-2 ELC-ELS-3
Centro Checks
B-4 Calexico ELC-CAX-1 CAX East Checks 8.6
B-5A Calexico ELC-CAX-3 Between B-4 and B-5B 19.3
East End of CAX E Checks to 3.0
B-5B Calexico ELC-CAX-2
Monument 210 (start of B-5A)
Total 44.6
17
18 Five fence segments are proposed within the USBP El Centro sector. The
19 following is a general description of each section:
20 x Section B-1 is approximately 11.3 miles in length. The westernmost start

21 of the fence would be approximately 1.5 miles west of Pinto Wash, at the
22 easternmost boundary of the Jacumba Wilderness. The fence would
23 extend 11.31 miles to the east, to the International Boundary Monument
24 marker 225. The section has somewhat variable terrain; flats, rocky
25 outcrops, small washes and areas of shifting sand. The vegetation is
26 sparse and the composition stays relatively consistent throughout. Most
27 of the section consists of creosote scrub transitioning to either smoke tree
28 or disturbed habitat. The Pinto Wash and the New River are within this
29 section. Pinto Wash is a large desert dry wash woodland plant community
November 2007 2
FME002962
1 and the site of a 100-year floodplain. Reports indicate a high incidence of

2 flat-tailed horned lizards (FTHLs) within this area. Much of this sandy
3 creosote flat area is considered to be suitable FTHL habitat. The Bureau
4 of Land Management (BLM) manages the land in Section B-1.
5 x Section B-2 would be approximately 2.4 miles in length, extending from
6 Monument 224 at the western edge, to ELS West (where the canal takes
7 a 90 degree turn north). Much of the area along the canal is a disturbed
8 habitat. The eastern end of Section B-2 is in an agricultural area
9 dominated by minor canals, cultivated fields, and associated access
10 routes. The only non–agricultural vegetation in this area is along the berm
11 of the primary east-west canal. With the exception of a higher plant
12 diversity in the wash at the northern base of Mt. Signal, the areas that are
13 not cultivated consist of weedy grasses and forbs. The BLM manages the
14 land in Section B-2.
15 x Section B-4 would extend approximately 8.6 miles east of the existing
16 fence on the eastern edge of Calexico, California. Approximately 4.9
17 miles of this alignment would parallel the All American Canal, and would
18 be constructed within the disturbance footprint of the canal. From the
19 point that the canal angles northward, the fence would continue along the
20 international boundary through approximately 2.8 miles of relatively
21 undisturbed vegetation before entering the sand dunes on the western
22 edge of the Algodones Dunes. The alignment would extend
23 approximately 0.8 miles eastward into the Algodones Dunes.
24 x Section B-5A would extend from the easternmost portion of Section B-4 at
25 Monument Marker 211 (approximately 0.5 miles south of the All American
26 Canal) to the westernmost start of B-5B. Section B-5A would be 22.4
27 miles in length. The alignment parallels the All American Canal, which is
28 situated approximately 0.5 miles or less north of the proposed fence at
29 most times in this segment. Disturbance from off-highway vehicle (OHV)
30 use is evident, and there are numerous power line and border access
31 routes. Much of Section B-5A consists of sandy flats that are suitable
32 FTHL habitat. The BLM manages the land in Section B-5A.
33 x Section B-5B would start due south of the Grays Well Road exit on
34 Interstate Highway 8 and extend eastward along the U.S./Mexico
35 international border for approximately 3 miles. The entirety of this section
36 would be within the Algodones Dunes. The western end of this section
37 would be proximate to the impact areas of the All American Canal. The
38 BLM manages the land in Section B-5B.
39
November 2007 3
FME002963
1 3. Survey Methods and Limitations

2 To provide flexibility in placement of tactical infrastructure within these section
3 corridors, and to ensure consideration of potential impacts due to construction
4 and use, surveys were conducted in an area extending 300 feet north from the
5 international boundary and extending at least 0.5 miles past the proposed ends
6 of each segment. The areas thus defined are referred to hereafter as the
7 potential impact areas.
8 Intuitive controlled surveys of the potential impact areas were conducted by

9 (b) (6) (Senior Ecologist, e²M) and (b) (6) (Senior Ecologist,
10 e²M) on September 4, 5, and 6, 2007. Surveyors walked the entire length of the
11 potential impact corridor for each fence segment, and examined in more detail
12 areas containing unique species compositions or habitat that might be conducive
13 to sensitive species. Plot data (GPS coordinates, photographs, and plant
14 community composition) were recorded at regular intervals along the corridor and
15 where plant communities presented substantial shifts in species composition.
16 Although protocol surveys were not conducted, surveyors did specifically look for
17 evidence indicating the presence of state- and Federal-listed species (see
18 Table 3-1), and habitats that might support them. Appendix A contains a
19 species description about each federally listed species.
20 Table 3-1. Federal- and State-Listed Species

21 Potentially Occurring in the Project Area

Name Status Status
Plants
Found in sandy desert area of
Algodones Helianthus
Algodones Sand Dunes in
dunes niveus ssp. -- E
California and southwestern
sunflower Tephrodes
Arizona.
Only known occurrence in the
Astragalus
Peirson's milk- United States is in Algodones
magdalenae var. T E
vetch Sand Dunes. Found at
peirsonii
elevations of 55–250 meters.
Birds
Inhabits dry grassland and
desert habitats. In Imperial
Athene County, they are commonly
Burrowing owl -- SSC
cunicularia seen along areas that are
unvegetated on the banks of
the All American Canal.
Birds (continued)
Southwestern
Empidonax Inhabits thickets, brushy areas,
willow E E
traillii extimus and riparian woodlands.
flycatcher
November 2007 4
FME002964

Name Status Status
Inhabits freshwater or brackish
Rallus stream–sides and marshlands.
Yuma clapper
longirostris E T Forages in higher marsh
rail
yumanensis vegetation, mudflat interface,
and along tidal creeks.
Inhabits riparian woodlands
Dendroica consisting of cottonwoods,
Yellow warbler petechia None SSC willows, and alders. Requires
brewsteri a heavy brush understory for
nesting.
Mammals
Reported in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian, desert
Western yellow Lasiurus
None SSC wash, and palm oasis habitats.
bat xanthinus
Roost and feed in palm oases
and riparian habitats.
Occur in many open, semi-arid
Western mastiff Eumops perotis to arid habitats, including palm
None SSC
bat californicus oases, desert scrub, and urban
areas.
Found in desert scrub habitat,
desert riparian, desert wash,
Pocket free- Nyctinomops alkali desert scrub, and palm
None SSC
tailed bat femorosaccus oases. Prefers rocky desert
habitats with high cliffs or rocky
outcrops.
Found in drier shrub and
herbaceous habitats with
American
Taxidea taxus None SSC friable soils. Known to dig
badger
burrows in sandy soil with a
sparse overstory.
Reptiles
Inhabits sandy flats or areas
Flat-tailed Phrynosoma --
SSC with a veneer of fine,
horned lizard mcallii (Proposed)
windblown sand.
Source: BLM, El Centro Field Office, USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, and California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB)
Notes: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SSC = Species of Special Concern (State of CA
Designation)
1
November 2007 5
FME002965
1 4. Environmental Setting
2 The potential impact areas extend 300 feet north from the U.S./Mexico
3 international border. To the extent feasible, the proposed fence would be
4 constructed within 3 feet of this international border. The 300-foot corridor allows
5 sufficient room to accommodate temporary construction impacts, as well as
6 permanent impacts from installation and use of tactical infrastructure.
7 The climate of the area is continental desert, of extreme aridity, and results in
8 high air and soil temperatures. Summers are long and hot however the brief
9 winter is moderate in terms of temperature. There are typically no summer rains
10 and the average annual precipitation of the area is approximately 4 inches. The
11 evaporation rate during the summer season is very high, particularly due to light
12 to moderate winds.
13 The project area is within the Desert Province and Sonoran Desert Region (also
14 referred to locally and regionally as the Colorado Desert). Overall, the project
15 area is on an extensive plain of arid desert that is gently undulating.
16
November 2007 6
FME002966
1 5. Biological Resources
2 5.1 Vegetation Classification
3 Vegetation Overview
4 The vegetation in the El Centro Sector of southern California has generally been
5 classified under the Dry Domain (300), Tropical/Subtropical Desert Division (320)
6 classified by Bailey (1995). The project area is more finely classified as the
7 American Semidesert and Desert Province (322). The Jepson Manual (Hickman
8 1996) describes vegetation geography using combined features of the natural
9 landscape including natural vegetation types and plant communities, and
10 geologic, topographic, and climatic variation. This geographic system places the
11 project area in the Desert Province and Sonoran Desert Region.
12 Occurring within the Salton Trough, the drainage of the project area in general,
13 and the Alamo River within Section B-4 (see Photograph 5-1), flows from south
14 to north to the Salton Sea. Overall, the project area is on an extensive plain of
15 arid desert that is gently undulating. Bailey (1995) describes the vegetation
16 pattern as dry-desert, a class of xerophytic plants that are widely dispersed and
17 provide negligible ground cover.
18 Photograph 5-1. Alamo River at the U. S./Mexico Border Entering

19 a Culvert under the All American Canal
20 NatureServe (2007) has defined ecological systems to represent recurring

21 groups of biological communities that are found in similar physical environments
22 and are influenced by similar dynamic ecological processes such as fire or
23 flooding. Ecological systems represent classification units that are readily
24 identifiable by conservation and resource managers in the field. The following
25 vegetation description for the project area was prepared in the framework of the
26 ecological systems that include the following:
27 1. Sonora – Mojave Creosotebush – White Bursage Desert Scrub

28 (CES302.756)
November 2007 7
FME002967
1 2. North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dune (CES302.744)

2 3. North American Warm Desert Pavement (CES302.750)
3 4. North American Warm Desert Playa (CES302.751)
4 5. North American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland
5 (CES302.753)
6 6. North American Warm Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque (CES302.752)
7 7. North American Arid West Emergent Marsh (CES300.729).
8 A brief description of each plant association, supported by ground photographs,

9 is provided here.
10 5.1.1 Active Desert Dunes and Sand Fields

11 This habitat type occurs on the eastern end of Section B-5B, east of the electrical
12 power transmission line towers. Active dunes form a low apron leading to the
13 topographically higher Imperial Dunes to the east and support widely scattered
14 desert tea shrubs (< 1 percent cover) on the taller sand deposits onsite (see
15 Photograph 5-2). Along the margins of the dune field, where lower dunes and
16 areas of deflation occur, sparse stands (< 1–4 percent cover) of creosote bush,
17 longleaf jointfir, desert buckwheat, and Devil’s lanterns occurs. The shrubs alter
18 movement of sand particles to form mounds up to 1.5 meters (m) tall around their
19 bases to the foliage drip-line. Areas between shrubs and their attendant sand
20 mounds are heavily traveled by OHVs, however the shrubs and sand mounds
21 provide important burrowing sites for small mammals and reptiles. This
22 vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert Active and
23 Stabilized Dune and North American Warm Desert Wash ecological systems of
24 NatureServe (2007).
25 Photograph 5-2. Representative Photographs of

26 Active Desert Dune and Sand Field Habitat
November 2007 8
FME002968
1 5.1.2 Creosote Bush with Disturbance

2 Adjoining and west of the dune and sand fields is a flat plain that is armored by
3 small gravel and as a result is relatively resistant to wind erosion (see
4 Photograph 5-3). The habitat occurs in the middle portion of Section B-5B also
5 typified by placement of electrical power transmission line towers. Therefore, this
6 habitat was disturbed historically to construct the power line towers and the
7 border access road and is continually disturbed due to power line maintenance
8 activities, travel on and maintenance of the border road, and camping and ATV
9 recreational use. Creosote bush can provide up to 5 percent cover within this
10 sparse community but there are relatively large stands that support only
11 1 percent or less cover by short-stature and widely scattered creosote bush
12 shrubs. The creosote bush shrubs of this vegetation type have captured little
13 sand and the mounds associated with them are nearly nonexistent to up to
14 0.25 m tall. Associated species include shrubby coldenia and desert tea that
15 each provide < 1 percent cover within the stand. Annual grasses and forbs
16 (Mediterranean grass, crane’s-bill, fiddleneck) can provide up to 1 percent cover,
17 based on the dried leaves and stems present in this vegetation type. This
18 vegetation type occurs within the Sonora – Mojave Creosotebush – White
19 Bursage Desert Scrub and North American Warm Desert Pavement ecological
20 systems of NatureServe (2007).
21 5.1.3 Creosote Bush – White Bursage – Longleaf Jointfir

22 Characterizing much of the eastern portion of Section B-4 and a few sites along
23 Section B-5B, are areas with deeper sand deposits supporting relatively tall
24 creosote bush and longleaf jointfir shrubs, the sand mounds (up to 1.5 m tall) are
25 interspersed with areas of deflation exposing a veneer of small gravel (see
26 Photograph 5-4). Cover within this type is sparse, sometimes approaching 10
27 percent and white bursage is typically absent or provides < 1 percent cover when
28 present. Individual longleaf jointfir shrubs and sand mounds can become quite
29 large however ground cover is always 1 percent or less for this species.
30 Burrowing activity for small mammals is at its highest density within this upland
31 desert habitat. This vegetation type occurs within the Sonora – Mojave
32 Creosotebush – White Bursage Desert Scrub ecological system of NatureServe
33 (2007).
34 5.1.4 Creosote Bush – White Bursage – Fourwing Saltbush

35 The eastern end of the B-4 Section supports a band of this vegetation type,
36 which occurs on deeper sand deposits with a few deflation areas armored by
37 small gravel (see Photograph 5-5). It forms a minor, narrow ecotone with arrow
38 weed shrubs that extend up some small washes. Creosote bush cover ranges
39 between 3 percent and 8 percent, while fourwing saltbush cover is typically < 1
40 percent but can be as high as 4 percent cover. Both longleaf jointfir and white
41 bursage can be present providing < 1 percent cover and annual grasses and
42
November 2007 9
FME002969
1 Photograph 5-3. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush

2 with Disturbance Habitat
3 forbs (Mediterranean grass, crane’s-bill, desert plantain) can provide up to 1

4 percent cover, based on the dried leaves and stems present. During moist
5 periods, the annual growth and subsequent ground cover could be extensive.
6 This vegetation type occurs within the Sonora – Mojave Creosotebush – White
7 Bursage Desert Scrub ecological system of NatureServe (2007).
8 5.1.5 Shrubby Coldenia

9 A small patch of shrubby coldenia, occupying approximately 2,000 square meters
10 (m2), occurs in sandy soil between the All American Canal bank and the low
11 berm that demarcates the international border (see Photograph 5-6). This
12 unique type supports up to 4 percent cover of shrubby coldenia along with a few
13 stems, < 1 percent cover, of arrow weed. This vegetation type occurs within the
14 Sonora – Mojave Creosotebush – White Bursage Desert Scrub and North
15 American Warm Desert Pavement ecological systems of NatureServe (2007).
November 2007 10
FME002970
1 Photograph 5-4. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush – White

2 Bursage – Longleaf Jointfir Habitat
3 Photograph 5-5. Representative Photographs of Creosote Bush – White

4 Bursage – Fourwing Saltbush Habitat
November 2007 11
FME002971
1 Photograph 5-6. Representative Photographs of Shrubby Coldenia Habitat
2 5.1.6 Common Reed

3 Common reed forms linear, dense stands (up to 80% cover) on saturated soils of
4 the banks of the All American Canal and broader, moderately dense stands (up
5 to 45 percent cover) in the ditch between the canal bank and the berm that has
6 been formed on the international border within Section B-4 (see
7 Photograph 5-7). Stand height also varies relative to depth to saturated soils
8 ranging from approximately 2 m tall on drier sites to 4 m tall on moist sites.
9 Although often occurring in monotypic stands, up to 10 percent cover can be
10 provided by Bermuda grass or heliotrope in or adjacent to the common reed
11 stems. Common reed typically alternates in dominance on both the canal bank
12 and in the ditch between the canal and the border berm with arrow weed shrubs.
13 This vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert Riparian
14 Woodland and Shrubland ecological system of NatureServe (2007).
15 5.1.7 Bermuda Grass

16 Nearly pure stands of Bermuda grass have become established in the ditch
17 between the canal bank and the berm that has been formed along the
18 international border within Section B-4 as proposed (see Photograph 5-8).
19 These sites are likely too dry to support common reed and too alkaline for arrow
20 weed shrubs to flourish. Typically, this short grass provides up to 15 percent
21 cover and the stands are monotypic. Abundant burrowing activity by pocket
22 gophers occurs within these stands, and controls the amount of top growth as
23 roots and rhizomes are consumed. This vegetation type occurs within the North
24 American Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland ecological system of
November 2007 12
FME002972
1 Photograph 5-7. Representative Photographs of Common Reed Habitat
2 Photograph 5-8. Representative Photographs of Bermuda Grass Habitat
3 5.1.8 Heliotrope
4 One large patch of heliotrope, providing approximately 10 percent cover, has
5 become established within the ditch between the canal bank and the berm of
6 Section B-4 on the international border (see Photograph 5-9). This stand
7 occupies approximately 1 acre and supports high levels of pocket gopher
8 burrowing activity. Sparse cover, < 1 percent of alkali mallow, also occurs. This
November 2007 13
FME002973
1 vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert Riparian
3 Photograph 5-9. Representative Photograph of Heliotrope Habitat
4 5.1.9 Alkali Mallow

5 One large patch of alkali mallow, providing up to 6 percent cover, has become
6 established within the ditch between the canal bank and the international border
7 berm of Section B-4 (see Photograph 5-10). This stand occupies approximately
8 1 acre and includes a few shrubs of arrow weed that provide sparse cover, up to
9 1 percent. This vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert
10 Riparian Woodland and Shrubland ecological system of NatureServe (2007).
11 Photograph 5-10. Representative Photograph of Alkali Mallow Habitat
12 5.1.10 Broad-leafed Cattail

13 Patches of broad-leafed cattail occur mostly on saturated soils of the south-
14 facing banks of the All American Canal. These patches were associated with
15 common reed and were less than 25 m2 in area, a few occur within the canal
16 reach of Section B-4. Therefore, they were not sampled or photographed and
17 will be inclusively mapped with giant reed. This vegetation type occurs within the
November 2007 14
FME002974
1 North American Arid West Emergent Marsh ecological system of NatureServe

2 (2007).
3 5.1.11 Ditchgrass Wetland

4 Submerged beds of aquatic vascular vegetation have become established within
5 the All American Canal and appear to support ditchgrass and water milfoil,
6 primarily (see Photograph 5-11). In these beds are an abundance of aquatic
7 insects, minnows, and larger fish. Submerged aquatic beds of vegetation are
8 subject to disturbance when the canal banks are periodically cleared of
9 vegetation and sediments are removed from the canal.
10 Photograph 5-11. Representative Photographs

11 of Submerged Aquatic Bed Habitat
12 5.1.12 Arrow Weed Scrub

13 The most common riparian shrub in terms of distribution and cover is arrow
14 weed, ranging from open stands of 10 percent to 25 percent cover on drier sites
15 to dense stands of 50 percent to 80 percent cover on moist sites (see
16 Photograph 5-12). Except for small reaches dominated by common reed and
17 very small patches of broad-leafed cattail, the banks of the All American Canal
18 are lined with thick stands of arrow weed shrubs up to 3 m tall. Arrow weed
19 shrubs are dominant on the south-facing canal bank, occupying the moist soils
20 adjacent to the canal. Arrow weed shrubs are also the dominant shrub within the
21 ditch area between the canal bank and the berm that marks the international
22 border and further east along Section B-4. They are the principal colonizing
23 species when soils south of the canal are disturbed. The stands typically are
24 monotypes and when other species occur (giant reed, tamarisk, alkali mallow)
25 they typically provide less than 1 percent cover. On the eastern portion of B-4
26 within this shrubs’ distribution, it becomes understory to codominant with
27 tamarisk shrubs and it forms a narrow ecotone with creosote bush and fourwing
28 saltbush where the desert uplands and riparian lowlands meet within
29 Section B-4. This vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm
30 Desert Riparian Mesquite Bosque ecological system of NatureServe (2007).
November 2007 15
FME002975
1 Photograph 5-12. Representative Photographs

2 of Arrow Weed Scrub Habitat
3 5.1.13 Athel Tamarisk

4 An occasional tree or tall shrub of Athel tamarisk occurs within stands of shrub
5 tamarisk within the western portion of Section B-4 (see Photograph 5-13). The
6 unvegetated playa near the middle of Section B-4 is rimmed on the north shore
7 by Athel tamarisk, where it forms a dense patch (up to 80 percent cover) of
8 approximately 100 m2. A few fourwing saltbush shrubs occur along the margin of
9 this tall shrub patch. This vegetation type occurs within the North American
10 Warm Desert Riparian Woodland and Shrubland ecological system of
12 5.1.14 Shrub Tamarisk

13 Dense stands of shrub tamarisk occur in the riparian portion of Section B-4, near
14 the eastern portion and in the area north of the unvegetated playa where the
15 canal orients away from the international border to the northeast (see
16 Photograph 5-14). The stands are often mixed with the tall shrub tamarisk (up
17 to 5 m tall) and the short shrub arrow weed (up to 3 m tall) providing up to 80
18 percent and 10 percent cover, respectively. In general, little understory
19 vegetation can tolerate the dense shading and salinity associated with the
November 2007 16
FME002976
1 ground beneath shrub tamarisk stands. An occasional Athel tamarisk or fan

2 palm tree and rarely a Fremont cottonwood or Goodding willow tree might add
3 structure in these stands, but they contribute little to the cover value. This
4 vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert Riparian
6 Photograph 5-13. Representative Photographs of Athel Tamarisk
7 Photograph 5-14. Representative Photographs of Shrub Tamarisk
November 2007 17
FME002977
1 5.1.15 Non–Vegetated Formations and Sites

2 Several areas of the proposed El Centro Section corridor are unvegetated. On
3 the eastern terminus of Section B-5B, active sand flats and dunes support no to
4 less than 1 percent vegetative cover (see Photograph 5-15). An unvegetated
5 playa located approximately midway along Section B-4, east of the Alamo River,
6 is devoid of vegetation due to seasonal flooding and accumulation of salts (see
7 Photograph 5-16). Berms and ditches along the western portion of Section B-4
8 are often unvegetated and the soil appears compacted (see Photograph 5-17).
9 The Imperial Irrigation District is currently undertaking canal seepage recovery
10 resulting in many acres of complete surface disturbance resulting in vegetation
11 removal and precluding the establishment of vegetation at this time (see
12 Photograph 5-18).
13 Photograph 5-15. Unvegetated Sand Flats and Dunes
14 Photograph 5-16. Unvegetated Playa
November 2007 18
FME002978
1 Photograph 5-17. Unvegetated Berms and Ditches
3 Photograph 5-18. Unvegetated Seepage Recovery Area
4
5
November 2007 19
FME002979
1 Throughout both segments an access road is usually present adjacent to the

2 international border and along the All American Canal, in addition to electrical
3 power transmission line access and maintenance roads constructed within
4 Section B-5B (see Photograph 5-19). For the length of Section B-5B, unlimited
5 camping and OHV access is permitted, typically during the cooler months of the
6 year, resulting in and maintaining additional unvegetated landscape (see
7 Photograph 5-20). The BLM estimated that annual visits to the Buttercup
8 Campground adjacent to Section B-4, as proposed, exceeds 108,000 (USBLM
9 2003a).
10 Photograph 5-19. Unvegetated Access Roads and Trails
November 2007 20
FME002980
1 Photograph 5-20. Unvegetated Recreation Sites
2 5.2 Plant Species Identified

3 A complete plant list of all species identified during the field surveys, including
4 the associated wetland status and the fence section in which it was identified, is
5 provided in Table 5-1.
6 Table 5-1. Plant Species Observed in El Centro Sector

7 Segments B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5A, and B-5B.
Total Number
Wetland of Fence
Scientific Name/
Indictor B-1 B-2 B-4 B-5A B-5B Sections in
Common Name
Status Which Species
Occurs
Ambronia villosa/Sand
--- X X 2
Verbena
Ambrosia dumosa/White
--- X X X X 4
Bursage or Burro Bush
Amsinckia sp./Fiddleneck --- X X 2
Arundo donax/Giant Reed FACW X 1
Asclepias subulata/
--- X X 2
Rush Milkweed
Atriplex canescens/
FACU X X X 3
Fourwing Saltbush
Atriplex
FAC X X X 3
lentiformis/Quailbush
Bouteloua sp. --- X X 2
Brassica cf tournefortii/
--- X 1
Mustard
November 2007 21
FME002981
Total Number
Wetland of Fence
Scientific Name/
Common Name
Occurs
Conyza canadensis/
FACU X 1
Canadian horseweed
Cucurbita palmate --- X 1
Cylindropuntia
echinocarpa cf/ --- X 1
Golden cholla
Cynodon dactylon/
FAC X X 2
Bermuda Grass
Eleocharis acicularis/
OBL X 1
Spike-rush
Encelia frutescens/
--- X 1
Button Brittlebush
Ephedra trifurca/
Longleaf Jointfir or --- X X X X 4
Mormon-tea
Ericameria laricifolia/
--- X X 2
Turpentine Bush
Eriogonum deserticola/
--- X 1
Desert Buckwheat
Eriogonum thomasii/
--- X 1
Thomas’ buckwheat
Erodium cicutarium/
--- X X 2
Crane’s-bill
Ferocactus cylindraceus/
--- X 1
Barrel Cactus
Fouquieria splendens/
--- X X 2
Ocotillo
Heliotropium
--- X 1
currassivicum/Heliotrope
Hesperocallis undulata/
--- X 1
Desert lily
Hymenoclea salsola/
--- X 1
Cheesebush
Larrea tridentata/
--- X X X X X 5
Creosotebush
November 2007 22
FME002982
Total Number
Wetland of Fence
Scientific Name/
Common Name
Occurs
Malvella leprosa/
FAC* X 1
Alkali Mallow, Whiteweed
Myriophyllum sp./
OBL X 1
Water-milfoil
Oenothera deltoides/
--- X X 2
Devil’s Lantern
Olneya tesota/Ironwood --- X 1
Parkinsonia aculeate/
Jerusalem Thorn or FAC- X 1
Mexican Palo Verde
Palafoxia arida var. arida
--- X X X 3
/ Spanish Needle
Pectis papposa/
--- X X 2
Manybristle Cinchweed
Phragmites australis/
FACW X X 2
Common Reed
Phoenix sp./Date Palm --- X 1
Plantago insularis/
--- X 1
Annual Plantain
Pleuraphis rigida/Big
--- X 1
Galleta
Pluchea sericea/Arrow
FACW X X X 3
Weed
Populus fremontii/
FACW X 1
Fremont Cottonwood
Prosopis glandulosa/
--- X X X X 4
Mesquite
Psorothamnus emoryi/
--- X X 2
Dyebush
Psorothamnus spinosus/
--- X 1
Smoketree
Ruppia sp./Ditchgrass OBL X 1
Salix gooddingii/
OBL X 1
Goodding Willow
November 2007 23
FME002983
Total Number
Wetland of Fence
Scientific Name/
Common Name
Occurs
Schismus barbatus/
--- X X 2
Mediterranean Grass
Stephanomeria
--- X X 2
pauciflora/Wire Lettuce
Tamarix aphylla/
FACW- X 1
Athel Tamarisk
Tamarix ramosissima/
FAC X X X 3
Tamarisk, Salt-Cedar
Thamnosa sp. --- X 1
Tiquilia plicata/Shrubby
Coldenia or Fanleaf --- X X X X X 5
Crinklemat
Typha latifolia/Broad-
OBL X X 2
leafed Cattail
Washingtonia sp./Fan
FACW X 1
Palm
Total # of FACW- to
OBL species per NA 2 9 15 2 0 NA
section
Total # of species per
NA 22 20 30 13 9 NA
fence section
Source: USDA NRCS 2007
Notes: Facultative Upland (FACU) – usually occurs in non wetlands, but occasionally found in
wetlands;
Facultative (FAC) – equally likely to occur in wetlands or non wetlands;
Facultative Wetland (FACW) – usually occurs in wetlands but occasionally found in non wetlands;
Obligate Wetland (OBL) – occurs almost always under natural conditions in wetlands.
(*) = tentative assignments based on limited information,
(-) = less frequently found in wetlands.
November 2007 24
FME002984
1 5.3 Proposed Fence Section Characteristics and Description of

2 Habitat Quality
3 A general description of the habitat quality and the characteristics of each section
4 are provided below.
5 Section B-1
6 Potential Listed Species: Flat-tailed horned lizard
7 Listed Species Observed: None (several types of lizard tracks)
8 Suitable Listed Species Habitat Present: Yes
9 If so, Habitat Quality: High
10 Section Habitat Description: Section B-1 occurs at the easternmost edge of

11 the Jacumba Wilderness, and extends through the Pinto Wash. This desert dry
12 wash woodland plant community is the site of a 100-year floodplain. Reports
13 indicate a high density of FTHL occurs in the Yuha desert, specifically in the
14 Pinto Wash area. The Yuha Basin Management Area in Section B-1 is a
15 designated FTHL management area and Area of Critical Environmental Concern
16 (ACEC) for monitoring and protection of the species.
17 Section B-2
18 Potential Listed Species: Flat-tailed horned lizard
19 Listed Species Observed: None (no tracks observed)
20 Suitable Listed Species Habitat Present: Yes
21 If so, Habitat Quality: Low due to agriculture and disturbance
22 Section Habitat Description: The eastern end of Section B-2 is in an

23 agricultural area dominated by minor canals, cultivated fields, and associated
24 access routes. The only nonagricultural vegetation in this area is along the berm
25 of the primary east-west canal. This highly disturbed area is a mixture of
26 nonnative grasses and forbs, and Bermuda grass-dominated habitat. Moving
27 westward out of the agricultural area, the desert is disturbed by border patrol and
28 recreational activities and recent grading and earthmoving activity. The habitat
29 here is creosote bush – white bursage – fourwing saltbush. A large wash
30 complex at the northern base of Mt. Signal has sparse vegetation but higher
31 plant diversity. Percent cover of each species is variable within the braids,
32 slopes, and channels of the greater wash area.
33 Section B-4
34 Potential Listed Species: None
35 Listed Species Observed: None
36 Suitable Listed Species Habitat Present: No
37 If so, Habitat Quality: Not applicable
November 2007 25
FME002985
1 Section Habitat Description: Occurring within the Salton Trough, the drainage
2 of the project area in general and the Alamo River located within Section B-4
3 flows from south-to-north to the Salton Sea. Native and non-native vegetation
4 occurring in the western two-thirds of Section B-4 are largely supported by
5 seepage from the All American Canal. Nearly pure stands of Bermuda grass
6 have become established in the ditch between the canal bank and the berm that
7 has been formed along the international border within Section B-4.
8 Characterizing much of the eastern portion of Section B-4 are areas with deeper
9 sand deposits supporting relatively tall creosote bush and longleaf jointfir shrubs.
10 Sand mounds (up to 1.5 m tall) are interspersed with areas of deflation exposing
11 a veneer of small gravel. The alignment in Section B-4 would extend
12 approximately 0.8 miles eastward into the Algodones Dunes.
13 Section B-5A
14 Potential Listed Species: Peirson’s milkvetch
15 Algodones dunes sunflower
16 Plant Occurrence: None
17 Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Yes
18 If so, Habitat Quality: Moderate
19 Section Habitat Description: The eastern portion of Section B-5A beginning at

20 Monument Marker 211 consists of reosote bush with disturbed habitat.
21 Disturbances from OHV use were prevalent, as well as power line and border
22 access roads, is evident. As canal related construction continues westward, it
23 can be expected that additional areas on the northern edge of the survey area
24 will be reclassified as Unvegetated Seepage Recovery Area. At the time of the
25 survey only the most northeastern area of this Section fell under this
26 classification. Most of the central and western portions of Section B-5A are
27 classified creosote bush – white bursage – longleaf jointfir habitat with one
28 significant depression or shallow wash dominated by arrow weed scrub habitat.
29 Section B-5B
30 Potential Listed Species: Peirson’s milkvetch
31 Algodones dunes sunflower
32 Plant Occurrence: None
33 Suitable Listed Plant Habitat Present: Yes
34 If so, Habitat Quality: Moderate
35 Section Habitat Description: Section B-5B in its entirety lies within the BLM’s
36 Buttercup Recreation Management Area, designated Multiple-use Class I
37 “Intensive” and is used for camping, OHV riding, sightseeing, commercial
38 vending, education, filming, and rights-of-way (USBLM 2003a). The entirety of
39 this section is within the Algodones Dunes. Surveys were conducted for the
40 presence of Pierson’s Milk-vetch, however, none were found. Generally,
41 Pierson’s Milk-vetch is found mostly in the more interior portions of the dunes
42 (USFWS 2007).
November 2007 26
FME002986
1 5.4 Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard and Designated Management

2 Areas
3 The potential exists to encounter FTHLs in Sections B-1, B-2, B-5A, and B-5B.
4 The highest potential to encounter FTHLs is in Section B-1. While no occurrence
5 of FTHLs were recorded during our surveys, active ant mounds were observed in
6 Sections B-1 and B-5A, and three inactive mounds were observed in Section
7 B-5B.
8 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Management Area

9 The FTHL was listed by the BLM as a sensitive species in California in 1980.
10 The El Centro Field Office of the BLM has designated five FTHL management
11 areas within their jurisdiction to protect the FTHL. Fence Section B-1 traverses
12 the management area (MA) known as the Yuha Basin FTHL MA (USBLM
13 2003b).
14 The overall goal of the FTHL MA is to maintain a self-sustaining population of

15 FTHLs in perpetuity. The management objectives include continuing to maintain
16 sufficient habitat for FTHL populations in each of the five designated MAs,
17 maintaining a stable population, supporting research and promoting conservation
18 of the species particularly in recreation areas, limiting the loss of habitat within
19 and outside of the MAs through the application of effective mitigation and
20 compensation, and encouraging Mexico to develop and implement an FTHL
21 management strategy (USBLM 2003b).
22 Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Species Description

23 The FTHL has a typical round, flattened body like other horned lizards. It is
24 distinguished from other species by its dark vertebral stripe; lack of external ear
25 openings; long, broad, flattened tail; and comparatively long spines on the head.
26 It has two rows of fringed scales on each side of its body. The FTHL ranges from
27 pale gray to light rusty brown on the dorsal side, and white or cream-colored
28 ventrally. Adult weight varies between 10 to 25 grams. Ants constitute 97
29 percent of their prey. Harvester ants are the most important ant in their diet
30 (USBLM 2003b).
31 The habitat for FTHL consists of the creosote-white bursage series of Sonoran
32 desert scrub. Most records for the FTHL are from sandy flats or areas with a
33 veneer of fine, windblown sand. FTHLs apparently occur in the lowest density in
34 parts of the Algodones dune fields (USBLM 2003b).
35 5.5 Wildlife Observed

36 Table 5-2 lists wildlife observed during the field surveys. The table can provide a
37 general indication of species richness in each section.
November 2007 27
FME002987
1 Table 5-2. Wildlife Observed During Natural Resources Surveys Conducted

2 September 4–6 and October 16–18, 2007
Total Number
of Fence
Scientific Name/ Species Sections in
B-1 B-2 B-4 B-5A B-5B
Common Name Status Which
Species
Occurs
Mammals
Canis latrans/ C X 1
Coyote
Dipodomys sp. C X 1
Lepus californicus/ C X X 2
Black-tailed jackrabbit
Spermophilus
tereticaudus tereticaudus/ C X X 2
Round-tailed ground
squirrel
Sylvilagus audubonii/ C X X 2
Desert cottontail
Reptiles
Callisaurus draconoides/ C X X 2
Zebra-tailed lizard
Crotalus cerastes
laterorepens/ C X 1
Desert sidewinder
Urosaurus graciosus/ C X 1
Long-tailed brush lizard
Uta stansburiana/ C X 1
Side-blotched lizard
Birds
Athene cunicularia
hypugaea/ SSC X 1
Burrowing owl
Bubulcus ibis/ C X 1
Cattle egret
Birds (continued)
Buteo lineatus/ C X X 2
Red-tailed hawk
Cathartes aura
meridionalisb/ C X X 2
Turkey vulture
Callipepla gambeli/ C X 1
Gambel’s quail
November 2007 28
FME002988
Total Number
of Fence
Scientific Name/ Species Sections in
B-1 B-2 B-4 B-5A B-5B
Common Name Status Which
Species
Occurs
Charadrius vociferous/ C X 1
Killdeer
Columbina inca/ C X 1
Inca dove
Columba livia/ C X 1
Rock dove
Columbina passerine/ C X 1
Common ground dove
Eremophila alpestris/ C X 1
Horned lark
Falco sparverius/ C X 1
American Kestrel
Fulica Americana/ C X X 2
American coot
Geococcyx californianus/ C X X 2
Greater road runner
Himantopus mexicanus/ C X 1
Black-necked Stilt
Hirundo pyrrhonota/ C X X 2
Cliff swallow
Pandion haliaetus
carolinensis/ C X 1
Osprey
Phalacrocorax auritus/ C X 1
Double-crested cormorant
Quiscalus mexicanus/ C X 1
Greattailed grackle
Zenaida macroura/ C X 1
Mourning dove
Note: C = Common; SSC = Species of special concern
November 2007 29
FME002989
1 6. Avoidance and Minimization Measures

2 As part of the coordination between USBP and USFWS, best management
3 practices (BMPs) are under development for the construction, operation, and
4 maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure. The BMPs are designed to
5 avoid and minimize impacts on biotic resources, specifically threatened and
6 endangered resources. These measures will be presented in the Final Report.
7 General pre-project construction measures as directed by USFWS include the

8 following:
9 1. All areas outside of the project footprint will be delineated by a qualified

10 biologist as environmentally sensitive areas. All parties in conjunction with
11 this operation will strictly avoid these areas. No construction activities,
12 materials, or equipment will be permitted in the environmentally sensitive
13 areas. The boundaries of the environmentally sensitive areas will be
14 fenced with orange plastic snow fencing.
15 2. Construction work areas will be delineated and marked clearly in the field
16 prior to habitat clearing, and the marked boundaries maintained
17 throughout the construction period. Construction work areas include
18 staging, laydown, temporary stockpiling, and access and haul roads.
19 3. An employee education program will be developed. Each employee
20 (including temporary, contractors, and subcontractors) will receive a
21 training/awareness program prior to working on the proposed project.
22 They will be advised of the potential impact on the threatened and
23 endangered species and the potential penalties for taking such species.
24 At a minimum, the program will include the following topics: occurrence of
25 the listed and sensitive species in the area, their general ecology,
26 sensitivity of the species to human activities, legal protection afforded
27 these species, penalties for violations of Federal and state laws, reporting
28 requirements, and project features designed to reduce the impacts on
29 these species and promote continued successful occupation of the project
30 area environs. Included in this program will be color photos of the listed
31 species, which will be shown to the employees. Following the education
32 program, the photos will be posted in the contractor and resident engineer
33 office, where they will remain throughout the duration of the project. The
34 USBP and designated biological monitor will be responsible for ensuring
35 that employees are aware of the listed species.
36 4. The project proponent will designate a qualified biologist who will be
37 responsible for overseeing compliance with protection measures for
38 threatened and endangered species during construction activities within
39 designated areas. The designated biologist’s qualifications will be subject
40 to the approval of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The
41 biologist will immediately notify the project proponent’s designated
42 representative to halt all associated project activities which might be in
November 2007 30
FME002990
1 violation of the biological opinion. In such an event, the project proponent

2 will halt all construction activities and contact the USFWS within 24 hours.
3 General measures during project implementation, as directed by the USFWS

4 include the following:
5 1. Scheduling of construction or maintenance activities in or adjacent to

6 threatened and endangered animal species habitats will avoid sensitive
7 time periods for the species whenever possible.
8 2. If an individual of a threatened and endangered species is found in the
9 designated project area, work will cease in the area of the species until
10 either a qualified biological monitor can safely remove the individual, or it
11 moves away on its own.
12 3. The designated biologist will monitor construction activities within
13 designated areas during critical times such as breeding season,
14 vegetation removal, and the installation of BMPs and environmentally
15 sensitive area fencing; and ensure that all avoidance and minimization
16 measures are properly constructed and followed.
17 4. Construction vehicle speed limits will not exceed 35 miles per hour (mph)
18 on major unpaved roads (graded with ditches on both sides) and 25 mph
19 on all other unpaved roads.
20 5. Crossing of streams or marsh areas with flowing or standing water will be
21 avoided, and, if not, the vehicle will be sprayed with a 10% bleach solution
22 or allowed to dry completely to kill any organisms.
23 6. Impermeable fences and walls will not be constructed in key wildlife
24 movement corridors.
25 7. Infrastructure sites will only be accessed using designated, existing roads.
26 One access route to remote or isolated sites, such as surveillance sites,
27 will be designated and used. Parking will be in designated disturbed
28 areas.
29 8. All equipment maintenance, staging, laydown, dispensing of fuels or oil, or
30 any other such activities, will occur in designated upland areas. The
31 designated upland areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent
32 any runoff from entering waters of the United States, including wetlands.
33 9. Typical erosion-control measures and BMPs throughout the project area
34 will be employed in accordance with the project Storm Water Pollution
35 Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and all conditions in the 401 Water Quality
36 Certification requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
37 10. Construction and maintenance activities will be conducted during daylight
38 hours only to avoid noise and lighting issues during the night.
39 11. Any night lighting for the construction of the project will be selectively
40 placed, shielded, and directed away from all native vegetative
November 2007 31
FME002991
1 communities. If lighting is part of the project, special bulbs designed to

2 ensure no increase in ambient light conditions will be used.
3 12. The project proponent will monitor light levels to ensure that light levels do
4 not illuminate native vegetation.
5 13. No off-road vehicle activity will occur outside of the project footprint by the
6 project proponent, project workers, and project contractors.
7 14. No pets owned or under the care of the project proponent or any and all
8 construction workers will be permitted inside the project’s construction
9 boundaries, adjacent native habitats, or other associated work areas.
10 15. Light poles and other pole-like structures will be designed to discourage
11 roosting by birds, particularly ravens or other raptors that might use the
12 poles for hunting perches.
13 16. Ambient noise levels will be determined prior to the start of construction.
14 All areas where vireos, gnatcatchers, and flycatchers might be present or
15 have historically occurred will have ambient noise level contours along the
16 proposed project corridors determined prior to the start of construction.
17 17. All excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will
18 either be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or will be
19 constructed with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or
20 wooden planks. The ramps will be located at no greater than 1,000-foot
21 intervals and will be sloped less than 45 degrees. Each morning before
22 the start of construction and before they are filled, the holes and trenches
23 will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. Any animals discovered
24 will be allowed to escape voluntarily (by escape ramps or temporary
25 structures), without harassment, before construction activities resume, or
26 they will be removed from the trench or hole by a qualified biologist and
27 allowed to escape unimpeded.
28 Road Design and Maintenance during project implementation, as directed by

29 USFWS include the following:
30 1. Existing roads will be utilized to the extent practical.

31 2. Potential for erosion off the designated road bed into threatened and
32 endangered species habitat will be avoided or minimized.
33 3. Potential for entrapment of surface flows within the roadbed due to
34 incisement or edging berms created by grading will be avoided or
35 minimized.
36 4. Widening of existing or created roadbed beyond the design parameters
37 due to improper maintenance and use will be avoided or minimized.
38 5. Stream crossings will not be located near or at bends or meanders but
39 rather at straight stream reaches where channel stability is enhanced.
November 2007 32
FME002992
1 6. Excessive use of unimproved roads that results in their deterioration such

2 that it affects the surrounding threatened and endangered species habitat
3 areas will be monitored and corrective maintenance provided.
4 7. The minimal number of roads needed for the Proposed Action will be
5 constructed and maintained to proper standards. Roads no longer needed
6 will be closed and restored to natural surface and topography using
7 appropriate techniques. The Global Positioning System (GPS)
8 coordinates of roads that are thus closed will be recorded and integrated
9 into the geographical information system (GIS) database maintained in
10 Washington D.C.
11 8. Roads will be designed to minimize road kill and fragmentation of
12 threatened and endangered populations. Exclusion fencing might be
13 appropriate where road kill is likely or to direct species to underpasses or
14 other passageways.
15 9. Disturbed areas will be utilized to the extent practical for any construction-
16 related activities, including staging, laydown, and stockpiling.
17 Other avoidance and mitigation measures were recommended by the USFWS,

18 such as aircraft landing sites, water sources, waste management, and species-
19 specific measures for southwest willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, desert
20 tortoise, Peirson’s milk-vetch, yellow-billed cuckoo, Yuma clapper rail, Peninsular
21 bighorn sheep, flat-tailed horned lizard, and razorback sucker.
22
November 2007 33
FME002993
1 7. Permits, Technical Studies, and Notifications

2 In compliance with state and Federal regulations, the following should be
3 investigated or conducted to assess the potential that regulatory requirements
4 have been met. It should be noted that additional permits, studies, or
5 notifications might be required which are not listed herein.
Permits
Issuing
Permit Type Reason Legislation
Agency
404 Permit U.S. Army Wetland and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Corps of WOUS delineation (CWA) authorizes the USACE to
Engineers issue permits regulating the
(USACE) discharge of dredged or fill material
into the waters of the United States,
including wetlands.
General permits are often issued by
USACE for categories of activities
that are similar in nature and would
have only minimal individual or
cumulative adverse environmental
effects. A general permit can also
be issued on a programmatic basis
("programmatic general permit") to
avoid duplication of permits for
state, local, or other Federal agency
programs.
401 Water California Wetland and Section 401(a)(1) of the CWA
Quality Regional WOUS delineation specifies that any applicant for a
Certification Water Federal license or permit to conduct
Quality any activity, including but not limited
Control to the construction or operation of
Board facilities that might result in any
discharge into navigable waters,
shall provide the Federal licensing
or permitting agency a certification
from the state in which the
discharge originates or will
originate, or, if appropriate, from the
interstate water pollution control
agency having jurisdiction over the
navigable water at the point where
the discharge originates or will
originate, that any such discharge
will comply with the applicable
provisions of Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, and 307 of the CWA
(SWRCB 2007).
November 2007 34
FME002994
Permits
Issuing
Agency
Streambed California Prevention of State of California Fish and Game
Alteration Department altering streamflow, (CFG) Code section 1602 requires
Agreement of Fish and changing bottom any person, state or local
Game material, or governmental agency, or public
depositing material utility to notify CFG before
in rivers, streams, beginning any activity that will do
or lakes in one or more of the following: (1)
California. substantially obstruct or divert the
natural flow of a river, stream, or
lake; (2) substantially change or use
any material from the bed, channel,
or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris,
waste, or other material containing
crumbled, flaked, or ground
pavement where it can pass into a
river, stream, or lake. Fish and
Game Code section 1602 applies to
all perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral rivers, streams, and
lakes in the state.
Section 7 (ESA) USFWS Allow the proposed Section 7 of the ESA directs all
consultation action to proceed Federal agencies to use their
while avoiding existing authorities to conserve
impacts on listed threatened and endangered species
species. and, in consultation with the
USFWS, to ensure that their actions
do not jeopardize listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Section 7 applies to the
management of Federal lands as
well as other Federal actions that
might affect listed species, such as
Federal approval of private activities
through the issuance of Federal
funding, permits, licenses, or other
actions.
November 2007 35
FME002995
Permits
Issuing
Agency
Migratory Bird USFWS Fence constructed The MBTA established a Federal
Treaty Act during breeding prohibition, unless permitted by
(MBTA) season. regulations, to pursue, hunt, take,
coordination capture, kill, attempt to take, capture
(Migratory Bird or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell,
Depredation offer to purchase, purchase, deliver
Permit) for shipment, ship, cause to be
shipped, deliver for transportation,
transport, cause to be transported,
carry, or cause to be carried by any
means whatever, receive for
shipment, transportation or carriage,
or export, at any time, or in any
manner, any migratory bird,. . . or
any part, nest, or egg of any such
bird.
The Migraotry Bird Depredation
Permit is USFWS Form 3-200-13.
Special Use BLM If requested by N/A
Permits for BLM.
access to BLM
Management
Areas
Take Permit CDFG California Section 2080 of the Fish and Game
Department of Fish Code prohibits “take” of any species
and Game that the commission determines to
Environmental be an endangered species or a
Species Act threatened species. Take is defined
compliance. in Section 86 of the Fish and Game
Code as "hunt, pursue, catch,
capture, or kill, or attempt to “hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill”
(CDFG 2007).
1
November 2007 36
FME002996
1
Notification
Agency Contact Information
USFWS – Regional (b) (6)
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
Office (b) (6) ext. 308
Fax 760-431-5902
BLM (b) (6)
Wildlife Biologist
El Centro Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
1661 South 4th Street
El Centro, California 92243
Office (b) -(b) (6)
Fax 760-337-4490
(b) (6)
Bureau of Reclamation (b) (6) , Environmental Manager
or
(b) (6) , Realty Specialist
Bureau of Reclamation
7301 Calle Agua Salada
Yuma, AZ 85364
(b) (6)
Fax 928-343-8320
Email: (b) (6)
Email: (b) (6)
2
Additional Studies
Agency Study
USACE Wetland Delineation and Determination
3
November 2007 37
FME002997
1 8. List of Preparers
2 (b) (6) 26 (b) (6)
3 B.A. Geography 27 A.A.S. Nursing
5 (b) (6) 29 (b) (6) Ph. D

6 B.S. Biology 30 Ph.D. Biology
7 Years of Experience: 7 31 M.S. Biology
32 B.S. Biology
8 (b) (6) 33 Years of Experience: 22
9 B.A. Geography
10 GIS Professional Certificate 34 (b) (6)
11 Years of Experience: 5 35 Masters of Engineering
12 (b) (6)
13 M.S. Environmental Studies 37 (b) (6)
14 B.S. Earth Science and Geography 38 M.S. Environmental Science and
15 Years of Experience: 10 39 Education
40 B.S. Biology
17 B.S. Biology
18 Certified Environmental Manager 42 (b) (6)
19 Years of Experience: 17 43 M.S. Biology
44 B.S. Biology
21 M.S. Environmental Science
22 M.A. Political Science/International 46 (b) (6)
23 Economics 47 B.S. Environmental Science
24 B.A. Political Science 48 Years of Experience: 5
49
November 2007 38
FME002998
1 9. References
Bailey 1995 Bailey, Robert F. 1995. Ecoregions of the United States.
U.S. Forest Service. Accessed On-line at:
http://www.fs.fed.us/colorimagemap/images/300.html.
CDFG 2007 California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California

Endangered Species Act Laws, Regulations, and Policy.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/cesa/incidental/cesa policy la
w.html
Hickman 1996 Hickman, James C. Editor. 1996. The Jepson Manual,

Higher Plants of California. University of California Press.
Berkeley, CA.
NatureServe 2007 NatureServe Explorer. 2007. Ecological System

Comprehensive Reports. Accessed On-line at:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?so
urceTemplate=tabular report...
USDA NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

2007 Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database.
Accessed On-line at: http://plants.usda.gov/.
Sawyer and Sawyer, John O. and Todd Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of

Keeler-Wolf 1995 California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society.
Davis, CA.
SWRCB 2007 State Water Resources Control Board, 401 Certification

FAQs.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb7/regulatory2/faqs 401.htm
Website accessed October 23, 2007.
USBLM 2003a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (USBLM). 2003.

Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area Management Plan
(RAMP). El Centro Field Office. El Centro, CA.
USBLM 2003b U.S. Bureau of Land Management (USBLM). Flat-Tailed

Horned Lizard Rangewide Management Strategy, Revision
1. 2003. El Centro Field Office. El Centro, CA.
USFWS 2007 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. Peirson’s
Milk-Vetch Fact Sheet. Accessed On-line at:
http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/Rules/PMV/pmv fact.pdf
November 2007 39
FME002999
November 2007 40
FME003000
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
FME003001
FME003002
Peirson’s Milk-Vetch (Astragalus magdalenae var. peirsonii)
Peirson’s Milk-vetch was listed as threatened species on October 6, 1998.
Distribution: Peirson’s Milk-vetch is only known to occur in the Algodones sand

dunes (also called Imperial sand dunes) of Imperial County, California. Within
the Algodones dunes, Peirson’s Milk-vetch generally occurs in the interior
portions of the dunes (USFWS 2007).
Natural History:
Morphology: Perennial herb. Stems erect, 8–36 inches (2–9 decimeters) long.
Leaf 0.5–6 inches (1–15 cm) long, with 3–13 leaflets. Leaflets
narrow/oblong, 1/8–3/8 inches (2–8 millimeters) long, with one terminal leaflet.
Inflorescence contains 5–20 flowers with pink- purple petals, often white tipped.
Largest petal (banner) is 3/8–5/8 inches (10–14 millimeters) long. The fruit is a
6/8–1 3/8 inches (2–3.5 centimeters) long, and attached to the stem (sessile).
The fruit is an oval pod with a small hook at the end, has stiff, straight, sharp
hairs (strigose) covering it, is inflated (bladdery), and has only one chamber.
Peirson’s milk-vetch blooms from December to April (USBLM 2005).
Habitat: Dune area, at elevations of 55–250 meters above sea level.
Threats: The primary threat to the only known existing population of Peirson’s
milk-vetch is the destruction of existing plants and habitat by off-road vehicle
usage in the Algodone dunes.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Delist the Astragalus magdalenae var.
peirsonii (Peirson's milk-vetch) Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume
70, Number 229), Proposed Rules, Page 71795-71799.
A-1
FME003003
Yuma Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris yumanensis)
Yuma Clapper rail was listed as a federally endangered species on March 11,
1967. There is no critical habitat for the species. The Yuma clapper rail is also
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Distribution: Yuma clapper rail is found in the Lower Colorado River from
California and Arizona into Mexico; also Salton Sea, Imperial County, California
(California Department of Fish and Game 1990). In California, Yuma clapper rail
nests along the lower Colorado River, in wetlands surrounding the Coachella
Canal, the Imperial Valley, and the upper end of the Salton Sea at the
Whitewater River delta and Salt Creek. It is thought that this rail was not
distributed along the Colorado River until suitable habitat was created through
dam construction (Natureserve).
Natural History:
Morphology: Yuma clapper rail is a large-footed marsh bird. It is relatively pale

brown. Yuma clapper rail eats crayfish, small fishes, clams, isopods, and various
insects. Probably probes in mud or sand in or near shallow water or picks items
off substrate (Ehrlich et al. 1992).
Habitat: Yuma clapper rail is associated with freshwater marshes. They prefer
mature stands of cattails and bulrushes with narrow channels of flowing water.
However, dense common reed can also support Yuma clapper rail.
Threats: Threats to the Yuma clapper rail population in the United States
include the loss of marsh habitat due to channelization, lack of existing habitat
marsh management, and lack of protection of suitable habitat area. Other
threats to Yuma Clapper Rail include mosquito abatement activities,
displacement due to nonnative vegetation, and contaminants in prey, particularly
elevated concentrations of selenium in crayfish.
Natureserve 2007. Web site accessed on-line at

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
A-2
FME003004
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus)
Southwestern willow flycatcher was listed as a federally endangered species on

February 27, 1995. The Southwestern willow flycatcher is also protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Distribution: The southwestern willow flycatcher breeds in the southwestern

United States (southern California north to Independence, Arizona, southwestern
New Mexico, southern Utah, and, at least formerly, southern Nevada) and
possibly northern Baja California and Sonora (very rare if present).
Natural History:
Morphology: The southwestern willow flycatcher has brownish-olive upperparts, a

whitish throat that contrasts with the pale olive breast, a pale yellow belly, and
two light wing bars. It generally lacks a conspicuous eye ring; and as in other
flycatchers, the bill is depressed and wide at the base (NGS 1983). Nesting
occurs usually from early June through the end of July, peaks in mid-June (Unitt
1987); sometimes lays eggs as early as late May.
It nests in the fork or on horizontal limb of small tree, shrub, or vine, at a height of
0.6–6.4 m (mean usually about 2–3 m) (Harris 1991), with dense vegetation
above and around the nest.
Clutch size usually is 3 to 4. Incubation lasts 12–15 days, by female. Young are
tended by both parents, and leave the nest at 12–15 days, usually in early to
mid-July. They typically raise one brood per year. Breeding territories are about
1.5 acres. Densities might be on the order of 9–14 pairs/100 acres.
They are present in California from late April to September (Biosystems Analysis
1989); and in southern Arizona from early May to early or mid-September
(Phillips et al. 1964).
Habitat: Thickets, scrubby and brushy areas, open second growth, swamps, and
open woodland (AOU 1983). Nests primarily in swampy thickets, especially of
willow, sometimes buttonbush (Phillips et al. 1964, AOU 1983), tamarisk (Brown
1988), vines, or other plants, where vegetation is 4–7 m or more in height.
Tamarisk is commonly used in the eastern part of the range.
Threats: Decline is due primarily to destruction and degradation of cottonwood-

willow and structurally similar riparian habitats. The causes of habitat loss and
change are water impoundment, water diversion and groundwater pumping,
channelization and bank stabilization, riparian vegetation control, livestock
grazing, off-road vehicle and other recreational uses, increased fires, urban and
agricultural development, and hydrological changes resulting from these and
other land uses. Tamarisk has replaced native riparian vegetation in many
areas, with varying effects on flycatcher populations. Native riparian plant
communities probably have a greater recovery value for flycatchers, but currently
A-3
FME003005
occupied and suitable tamarisk habitat should be maintained (USFWS 2002).

Increased irrigated agriculture and livestock grazing have also resulted in
increased range and abundance of brown-headed Cowbirds; and, in some areas,
heavy brood parasitism by cowbirds has contributed to the decline (Harris 1991,
Brown 1988).
Natureserve 2007. Web site accessed on-line

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
A-4
FME003006
APPENDIX E
Cultural Resource Survey
FME003007
FME003008
CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY

SUPPORTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND

MAINTENANCE OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
Prepared by:
DECEMBER 2007
FME003009
APE Area of Potential Effect

ARMA Archaeological Resource Management Reports
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cm centimeter
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
e²M engineering-environmental Management, Inc.
GPS Global Positioning System
IBWC International Boundary and Water Commission
km kilometer
km2 square kilometer
m meter
NADB National Archaeological Database
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
SBI Secure Border Initiative
U.S.C. United States Code
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
FME003010
Cultural Resources Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
2 DATABASE INFORMATION
3 Report Author: (b) (6)
4 Consulting Firm: engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e²M), San

5 Diego Office, 9449 Balboa Avenue, Suite 111, San Diego, CA
6 92123
7 Report Date: November 2007
8 Report Title: Proposed Construction, Operation, and Maintenance of

9 Tactical Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
10 (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S.
11 Border Patrol, El Centro Sector, California
12 Submitted to: U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth
13 Contract Number: DACA63-03-D-0009
14 USGS Quadrangle
15 Maps: Coyote Wells, Yuha Basin, Mount Signal, Calexico, Bonds
16 Corner, Midway Well NW, Midway Well, Grays Well 7.5
17 Acreage: Linear project area: 45 miles by 300 feet (945 acres)
18 Keywords: Imperial Valley, Southern California, Prehistoric, Historic,

19 Linear Survey, Positive, Ceramic, Flaked Stone Artifacts,
20 Disturbed, International Boundary, All-American Canal
21
November 2007
FME003011
November 2007
FME003012
Cultural Resources Survey Report El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 This report presents the cultural resources management activities conducted in

3 support of construction and operation of approximately 45 miles of tactical
4 infrastructure at the U.S./Mexico international border in the Imperial Valley,
5 California. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the proposed project includes
6 lands owned or managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of
7 Reclamation, U.S. Section International Boundary Water Commission (USIBWC),
8 and private property. The results of cultural resources survey activities
9 conducted in support of the proposed project are presented in accordance with
10 the regulations and terminology associated with the National Historic
11 Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) Section 106 and 36 Code of Federal
12 Regulations (CFR) 800: Protection of Historic Properties, revised 2000. All
13 cultural resources survey activities performed in support of the proposed project
14 meet the requirements of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of
15 1979, as amended (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470aa–470mm), as defined
16 in Section 36 CFR 60.4, and are presented in the format stipulated in
17 Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR) Recommended
18 Contents and Format (California Office of Historic Preservation 2000). All
19 personnel of engineering-environmental Management, Inc. (e²M) performing
20 cultural resources survey activities in support of the proposed project addressed
21 in this report meet or exceed the requirements for professional education and
22 experience as defined in 36 CFR 800 (NHPA), the Secretary of the Interior’s
23 Professional Qualifications Standards (Federal Register Notice, Vol. 48, No. 190,
24 pp. 44738-44739, 1983), and ARPA standards (43 CFR Part 7).
25 Two new archaeological sites (an historic debris scatter and a prehistoric artifact
26 scatter), along with two isolates (prehistoric ceramic sherd and a prehistoric
27 flake) were discovered during the survey. Site forms for all four resources were
28 submitted to the appropriate center for recording. By definition, the two isolates
29 do not meet the standards for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places
30 and do not require additional documentation. The two newly discovered sites are
31 within the buffer zone, but outside the immediate APE and are not recommended
32 for additional evaluation. No further work is recommended for this site relative to
33 the implementation of the current project.
34 A letter initiating consultation with potentially interested Native American groups

35 was sent to 14 tribal groups with cultural links to the project area by the U.S.
36 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth (see Appendix A). The
37 concerns of these groups were considered during the preparation of this
38 document and information regarding resources of traditional, cultural, or religious
39 significance to Native American people have also been considered as part of the
40 impact analysis.
41 Based on the results of the background research and the pedestrian survey,
42 implementation of the proposed project will not result in direct impacts on cultural
43 resources within the proposed project APE. There are no sites within the
November 2007 ES-1

FME003013
Cultural Resources Survey Report El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 proposed project alignment and all construction-related activities would be

2 conducted outside of the limits of known cultural resource sites.
November 2007 ES-2

FME003014
1 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY

2 EL CENTRO SECTOR TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE EA
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................ INSIDE FRONT COVER
5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................ES-1
6 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
7 2. SETTING ............................................................................................................................ 6
8 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................ 6
9 2.2 CULTURAL SETTING ............................................................................................ 8
10 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period ...................................................................................... 8
11 2.2.2 Historic Period ......................................................................................... 11
12 3. METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 14
13 3.1 SITE RECORD AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ................................................... 14
14 3.2 FIELD WORK ........................................................................................................ 14
15 4. RECORD SEARCH RESULTS ....................................................................................... 16
16 4.1 PREVIOUS SURVEYS ......................................................................................... 16
17 4.2 RECORDED SITE INFORMATION ..................................................................... 18
18 5. FIELDWORK RESULTS ................................................................................................. 29
19 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS,

20 PROTOCOLS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................... 37
21 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 37
22 6.2 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 37
23 7. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 39
24 8. LIST OF SITE RECORDS ............................................................................................... 45

25
26 APPENDIX
27 A. Consultation Letter with Associated Native American Groups

28
29
30 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS
31 Attachment 1: Site Record Data (Reserved)

32 Attachment 2: Updated Site Record Forms (Reserved)
33
34
35
November 2007 i
FME003015
1 FIGURES
2 1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure ............................................................. 3

3 2-1. Maximum stand for Lake Cahuilla ..................................................................................... 7
4 5-1. Site Map............................................................................................................................ 34
5 5-2. Site Map............................................................................................................................ 35
6
7 PHOTOGRAPHS
8 5-1. Overview of the Easternmost Section of the Survey Area (Section B-5B)
9 Looking West .................................................................................................................... 29
10 5-2. Survey Area in Section B-5B, Partial Desert Pavement, ORV Damage ........................ 30
11 5-3. Overview of Project Corridor Section B-5A, Looking East; International Border is
12 on the Right Side of the Photograph ............................................................................... 30
13 5-4. Section B-4 Looking East; Mexico is to the Left Side of the Photo and the All-
14 American Canal is on the Right Side ............................................................................... 31
15 5-5. Section B-1 Overview, Looking West, Vehicle Barrier is on the Border ......................... 31
16 5-6. U.S./Mexico Border Monument #217, Approximately 35m Southwest of Site
17 Datum ............................................................................................................................... 32
18 5-7. Example of Historic Transfer Ware (ceramics) ............................................................... 33
19 5-8. Examples of Bottle Finishes............................................................................................. 33
20 5-9. Example of Chipping Waste (red metavolcanic stone) ................................................... 35
21 5-10. View of the All-American Canal Looking West (the existing Border Fence can
22 be seen on the far left of the photograph) ....................................................................... 36
23
24 TABLES
25 1-1. Proposed Fence Sections for Border Patrol El Centro Sector ......................................... 4
26 4-1. Recorded Sites within the Project APE by Section ......................................................... 19
27 4-2. Recorded Sites within 0.5 miles of the Project APE ....................................................... 19
28 4-3. Recorded Sites by Project Section .................................................................................. 25
29
November 2007 ii
FME003016
1 1. INTRODUCTION
2 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Proposed Action lies in Imperial
3 County California, along the U.S./Mexico international border. A project-specific
4 archaeological assessment was prepared in support of the USBP El Centro
5 sector on the construction, operation, and maintenance of approximately 26
6 miles of tactical infrastructure in the Imperial Valley, California. The APE for the
7 Proposed Action includes lands owned or managed by the Bureau of Land
8 Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. International Boundary Water
9 Commission (USIBWC), and private property. The tactical infrastructure would
10 consist of patrol roads, pedestrian fence, vehicle barriers, and other infrastructure
11 such as lighting.
17 x Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their

19 (POEs)
20 x Deter illegal entries through improved enforcement
21 x Detect, apprehend, and deter smugglers of humans, drugs, and other
22 contraband
23 x Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement
24 personnel
25 x Reduce crime in border communities and consequently improve quality of
27 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
28 Each sector is responsible for implementing an optimal combination of personnel,
29 technology, and infrastructure appropriate to its operational requirements. The El
30 Centro Sector is responsible for Imperial and Riverside counties in California.
31 The areas affected by the Proposed Action include the southernmost portion of
32 Imperial County. Within the USBP El Centro Sector, areas for tactical
33 infrastructure improvements have been identified that would help the Sector gain
34 more effective control of the border and significantly contribute to USBP’s priority
35 mission of homeland security.
36 The USBP El Centro Sector has identified areas for improvements that will help it
37 gain operational control of the border. These improvements include installation
38 of “primary fence” sections (areas of the border that are not currently fenced).
39 These sections of primary pedestrian fence are designated as sections B-1, B-2,
November 2007 1
FME003017
1 B-4, B-5B, and B-5A on Figure 1-1. See Table 1-1 for a general description of
2 the proposed tactical infrastructure sections.
3 USBP currently uses the following three main types of barriers along the border:
4 x Primary fencing
5 x Secondary double fencing to complement the primary fencing
6 x Vehicle barriers meant to stop vehicles, but not people on foot.
7 There are several types of primary border fence designs that USBP can select
8 for construction depending on various ground conditions and law enforcement
9 tactics employed. Each option offers relative advantages and disadvantages.
10 Fencing based on concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-
11 effective solutions but USBP agents cannot see through this type of barrier.
12 USBP prefers fencing structures that offer visual transparency, which offer USBP
13 agents a tactical advantage to observe activities developing on the other side of
14 the border.
15 Over the past decade, USBP has used a variety of types of primary fencing, such
16 as pedestrian fence, vehicle fence, bollard-type, ornamental picket, landing mat,
17 and chain-link. Bollard fencing has been effective in its limited deployment and
18 can be seen through. However, it is expensive to install and to maintain.
19 Landing mat fencing is composed of military surplus carbon steel landing mats,
20 which were used to create landing strips during the Vietnam War. Chain-link
21 fencing is relatively economical, but more easily compromised. In selecting
22 particular fencing designs, USBP has to weigh various factors such as their utility
23 as a law enforcement tool, costs associated with construction and maintenance,
24 potential environmental impacts, and public concerns. USBP is continuing to
25 develop different types of fence designs that could best address these competing
26 objectives and constraints.
27
November 2007 2
1
FME003018
Proposed Act on Route

Salton
W derness Area Los
Sea Calipatria
Angeles California
r
U S /Mex co
ve
i
Internat ona Border 30

do R
November 2007
115 Salton
ra
Sea
Arizona
Ports of Entry San
Co lo
Phoenix
Diego
B-1 Fence Sect on Labe 111
Tijuana
M es
26
0 25 5 10 E Centro
Sca e Sector
Projection: A bers
U n i t e d S t a t e s
USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic Pacific
North American Datum of 1983 Ocean Mex ico
Gulf
Cultural Resources Survey Report
Brawley of
California
27
California
86
28
Rd
Imperial
H u ff
Ocotillo
80
El Centro
31 32
111 115
Hotville
30
8
Jacumba Mcc a
be Rd 33
Wilderness
Rd
H un t
Heber Rd
H eb e
r Rd
er
98
er R d
29 d
B ow k
rR
s Co rn
K effe
Calexico 98
B on d
B-5A
B-1 B-5B
B-2 B-3 8
Calexico West
Calexico East
(Service Port) B-4
M e x i c o
El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
3
Source: ESRI StreetMap USA 2005
Figure 1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

FME003019
1 Table 1-1. Proposed Fence Sections for USBP El Centro Sector
Border Length of
Section General Land Type of Tactical
Patrol New Fence
Number Location Ownership Infrastructure
Station Section
Vehicle fence, lighting,
B-1 El Centro patrol road, access 11.3 miles
Pinto managed
roads
Monument Pedestrian fence,
Public: BLM-
B-2 El Centro 224 to West lighting, patrol road, 2.4 miles
managed
of Calexico access roads
B-3 Calexico Lighting (7.4 miles) NA
Calexico managed
Public: BLM-
and Bureau Pedestrian fence,
Calexico
B-4 Calexico of lighting, patrol road, 8.6 miles
East
Reclamation- access roads
managed
Public: BLM-
and Bureau Pedestrian fence,
Calexico
B-5A Calexico of lighting, patrol road, 19.3 miles
East
Reclamation- access roads
managed
East of
Pedestrian fence,
Calexico to Public: BLM-
B-5B Calexico lighting, patrol road, 3.0 miles
Monument managed
access roads
210
Total 44.6 miles
Note: Lighting would be spaced approximately 50 yards apart.
2 USBP has also developed a variety of barrier designs to stop vehicles from easily
3 crossing into the United States from Mexico. Some of these barriers are
4 fabricated to be used as temporary structures and are typically not anchored with
5 foundations. Because they are not permanently anchored, they can be easily
6 moved to different locations with heavy construction equipment. Temporary
7 vehicle barriers are typically built from welded metal, such as railroad track, but
8 can also be constructed from telephone poles or pipe. These barriers are built so
9 that they cannot be easily rolled or moved using manual labor only. They are
10 aligned and typically chained together over areas of high potential for vehicle
11 entry.
12 At a minimum, the proposed barrier fencing will be as follows:
13 x 15 feet high and extend below ground

14 x Capable of withstanding a crash of a 10,000-pound (gross weight) vehicle
15 traveling at 40 miles per hour
November 2007 4
FME003020
1 x Capable of withstanding vandalism, cutting, or various types of penetration

2 x Semi-transparent, as dictated by operational need
3 x Designed to survive extreme climate changes
4 x Designed to reduce or minimize impacts on small animal movements
5 x Not impede the natural flow of surface water
6 x Aesthetically pleasing to the extent possible.
7 Vehicle fence typically consist of steel posts or bollards with a concrete

8 foundation base. The posts alternate in aboveground height in order to prevent
9 individuals from forming a ramp over the barrier.
10 Potential direct impacts on archaeological resources are limited to ground-

11 disturbing activities associated with construction of a number of elements of the
12 proposed infrastructure and indirect impacts resulting from increased attention to
13 this area and in some instances, improved access. The project APE includes the
14 barrier alignment corridor and building area; access for construction; lay down,
15 staging, and work areas; and all necessary road improvement to access the work
16 areas. The identified sections for this survey, from west to east, include B-1, B-2,
17 B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. The anticipated alignment is along the existing
18 international border with Mexico, an existing right-of-way in most instances.
19
November 2007 5
FME003021
1 2. SETTING
2 2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3 The proposed project is within a region of the great Sonoran ecozone that is
4 known as the Colorado Desert. The Colorado Desert owes many of its features
5 to its location within the Salton Rift, which is a distinct geomorphologic feature
6 composed of a massive graben at the interface of portions of the North American
7 and Pacific tectonic plates. The graben, or trough, formed through movement of
8 these two plates; as the plates moved, basement formations were subducted.
9 Sediments from the sides of the trough and the surface to either side of it have
10 gradually filled it in. Colluvial and alluvial sediments in some places are as much
11 as 20,000 feet deep (Morton 1977).
12 The largest quantity of the overlying sediment has been derived from the
13 continuous uplift and erosion of the Peninsular Range west of the rift and the
14 older Chocolate and Cargo Muchacho mountains that are on the eastern
15 boundary of the rift. By far the primary source of the Tertiary and Quarternary
16 Age sediments within the trough are sediments deposited by the meanderings of
17 the Colorado River. At the point where the Colorado River empties into the Gulf
18 of Mexico it releases finer sediments onto a vast and growing delta, with the
19 coarser materials falling out of suspension along point bars and interchannel
20 bars. Thus the trough is constantly being filled with sediment although portions of
21 the central valley remain well below sea level.
22 The Colorado Desert is characterized by hot summers and mild winters. Heat,
23 coupled with exceptionally low annual rainfall, creates a somewhat forbidding
24 landscape. Summer temperature frequently exceeds 115 degrees Fahrenheit,
25 with total rainfall averaging about 6.4 centimeters (cm) per year. Summer
26 monsoons are not uncommon, though most of the rain falls in the mid-winter.
27 Vegetation cover is sparse and runoff associated with heavy, seasonal rains is
28 typically severe, in particular over large areas of the central basin which are
29 characterized by hard lacustrine clay soil. There are few permanent water
30 sources in this area of the Salton Rift, with the exception of seasonal springs and
31 Native American dugwells that are associated with localized aquifers.
32 Prior to the construction of dams on the Colorado River, the slower flow of the
33 river resulted in the deposition of large quantities of sediment in the lower
34 channels of the delta. This encouraged local flooding, which resulted in even
35 more sediment accumulation, an increase in the overall height of the delta, and
36 lowering of the stream channel margins above the average grade of the main
37 river channel to the north. The end result was impoundment and flooding in the
38 Salton Trough. This chain of events was particularly common after large flood
39 events, when the receding water of the Colorado River was unable to find a route
40 back through the surface of the delta. The Salton Trough filled with overflow
41 Colorado River water in approximately 18 years, forming what has been
42 estimated to be the largest freshwater lake in California (Schaefer 2000). At its
November 2007 6
FME003022
1 greatest extent, Lake Cahuilla was 110 miles in length, 32 miles wide and more
2 than 280 feet deep in the center. The lake filled to a maximum elevation of 40
3 feet (12 meters [m]) above sea level. Until recently, it was thought that the
4 phenomenon of Lake Cahuilla was a single episode spanning at least five
5 centuries, between circa AD 1000 and 1500 (Rogers 1945). Further study has
6 resulted in a reconstruction of three fillings and recessions that occurred between
7 about AD 1200 and 1700 (Laylander 1997).
8 The lake (see Figure 2-1) is variously referred to as Blake Sea, Lake Le Conte,
9 or Lake Cahuilla and is evidenced today by extensive deposits of lacustrine
10 sediments and many kilometers of relic shoreline formations that are often
11 associated with prehistoric human settlement in the form of camp sites, fishing
12 camps, and occasional long-term habitation locations. The plant and animal
13 resources that were made available as a result of the lake were extensive and
14 large human populations are known to have occupied the region. Relic
15 shorelines of Lake Cahuilla occur in each of the identified project sections,
16 particularly at the western end of the infrastructure corridor.
17
18 (Source: Krantz and Black 2007)
19 Figure 2-1. Maximum stand for Lake Cahuilla

20 (Arrow identifies Calexico and Mexicali)
21 The 11.31-mile section (B-1) at the western end of the corridor is within the area
22 known as the Yuha Basin, in the southwestern portion of Imperial County, about
23 12 miles southwest of the city of El Centro. This area is referred to as West
24 Mesa with the more easterly portion of the project within the area known as East
25 Mesa.
26 The West Mesa portion of fence section B-1 supports a mixed creosote bush
27 scrub community (Holland 1986) with stands of ironwood (Olneya tesota) and
28 desert willow (Chilopis linearis) interspersed within extensive patches of tamarisk
29 (Tamarix chinensis). The ground surface appears to be a combination of
30 alternating clay lenses with softer sandy spits overlying a thick impervious clay
November 2007 7
FME003023
1 base. Runoff accumulates in deeper erosional features along the margins of the
2 depression as well as in the central basin. Stands of vegetation concentrate
3 around the margins of these seasonal, transitory features, and former pools are
4 marked by large stands of dead vegetation. It appears that large concentrations
5 of honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) have been present in this area in the
6 past but appear to have died as a result of low water.
7 2.2 CULTURAL SETTING
8 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period

9 San Dieguito Complex (circa 10,000 to circa 5000 B.C.)
10 The earliest documented occupants of Imperial County were first described by
11 Malcolm Rogers as the “Scraper Makers” and later as the “San Dieguito” (Rogers
12 1929). This cultural complex is widely considered to be the earliest
13 archaeological complex within the Colorado Desert region, though it was first
14 defined and perhaps better represented in San Diego County, in particular by the
15 so-called “type site” CA-SDI-149 (the Harris Site). San Dieguito-era sites have
16 been found in the deserts of California and Arizona with radiocarbon dates
17 extending to as much as 9000 years before the present.
18 The Pinto Complex (5000 B.C. to 1500 B.C.)

19 This complex is best known from a series of sites in the Great Basin, Mojave,
20 and Colorado deserts and is identified primarily by the presence of a distinct
21 stone tool kit that accompanied the divergence from Paleo-Indian technologies
22 and subsistence patterns.
23 The artifact assemblages that are usually associated with the Pinto complex
24 include well-made projectile points, bifacially worked knives, and scrapers. The
25 economy of this period was generally dependent upon hunting, which is inferred
26 from the large number of projectiles in the recovered assemblages. The
27 projectiles were generally heavy, which suggests they were delivered on the end
28 of a spear and probably with the assistance of an atlatl or spear thrower. This
29 indicates a hunting style that focused on larger game, though the increased
30 number of ground stone implements in Pinto period sites is taken as evidence of
31 an increased use of plant foods. Pinto sites are usually found along the margins
32 of old watercourses and dry lake sides (Weide 1976).
33 The two major divisions currently accepted for the Pinto complex are the Little
34 Lake projectile point type series and the Pinto Basin projectile point series. The
35 Little Lake series is generally confined to the regions surrounding the Mojave
36 Desert, Death Valley, and Owens Valley (Bettinger and Taylor 1974). The Pinto
37 Basin series is represented in the Colorado and eastern Mojave deserts, where it
38 is gradually replaced by the Amargosa/Elko complex by circa 1,500 to 1,200 B.C.
November 2007 8
FME003024
1 Amargosa/Elko Period (1,500 B.C. to circa 900 A.D.)

2 The Amargosa complex is a geographically widespread and long-lasting cultural
3 tradition that is often associated with the transition from atlatl to bow technology.
4 The precise date for the transition has not been established, though there is a
5 gradual reduction in the overall size (weight) of projectile points from the earliest
6 to the later years of this complex. The characteristic projectile points for this
7 period are the Gatecliff, Rose Springs, Eastgate, Elko, and the Gypsum Cave
8 series. These are generally relatively large, stemmed, and notched points that
9 were formed on triangular blanks. There have been a number of attempts to
10 classify these variable point forms with mixed results (Heizer and Hester 1978,
11 Thomas 1981). A proposal made in the late 1980s (Flennikan and Wilke 1989),
12 suggests that the variation among these points was due to reuse and repair of
13 damaged points.
14 Only a few Amargosa complex sites have been recorded in the interior of the
15 Colorado Desert. It is likely that sites from this period are present in the desert
16 regions; however, at present many more are known from the coastal plains and
17 peninsular ranges. This is most likely due to the more concentrated amount of
18 survey and evaluation work that has been accomplished in those regions.
19 Late Prehistoric Period 900 AD to Spanish Contact 1769

20 Archaeological sites associated with the Late Prehistoric period reflect a
21 continued focus on hunting and the gathering of natural resources, and are
22 differentiated from Amargosa complex sites by the evidence for several
23 technological developments, including the use of ceramics, introduction of the
24 bow and arrow and the associated distinctive types of projectile points, and
25 replacement of primary inhumation by cremation.
26 The easternmost portion of the APE is in the southeastern corner of California, at

27 the international border with Mexico and the state boundary with Arizona, in an
28 area referred to as East Mesa. The western portion of the project is in the West
29 Mesa vicinity and is the territory that is traditionally associated with the Cahuilla
30 people. The Cahuilla most likely exercised influence over the archaeological
31 materials within the western project area though as boundary limits were most
32 likely fluid and are probably not precisely represented. A presentation of the
33 Cahuilla, Tipai, Quechan, and the Cocopa cultural practices is provided here as
34 the project locations have the potential influence of several groups.
35 The Quechan was one of the Yuman groups who practiced agriculture in addition
36 to hunting, gathering, and collecting. The typical Quechan Colorado River
37 settlement had a scatter of houses along the riverbank rather than a centralized
38 village (Moratto 1984). The house structures were two basic types, a semi-
39 subterranean winter home made from cottonwood log frames with an arrow-weed
40 wattle covered with earth. The second type was a flat-topped ramada that
41 provided shade in the summer. The cultivated fields were established close to
42 the houses.
November 2007 9
FME003025
1 The Quechan had clans and a strong tribal identity. This identity was
2 represented in the Kwoxot or chief and there was normally only one Kwoxot in
3 the tribe at a given time. This individual was the economic, political, and religious
4 leader of the tribe.
5 The Quechan, like other Colorado River tribes, were agricultural and had a
6 material culture that was more complex than neighboring desert people (Moratto
7 1984). They had a military organization and are known to have traveled great
8 distances to do battle, to visit, and to trade. These people are believed to have
9 exercised influence over their California neighbors through the introduction of
10 new material culture and cultural practices.
11 The Cocopa are also a Yuman language speaking group who occupied the lower
12 Colorado River region and the delta in southwestern Arizona, and southeastern
13 California, northwestern Sonora, and northeastern Baja California. The Cocopa
14 have patrilinial, exogamous, nonlocalized, nonautonomous clans or lineages.
15 Each lineage is associated with a particular totem (plant, animal or natural
16 phenomenon). Leaders are selected based on their ability to speak well and to
17 be counselors to other group members. There are elaborate rites and
18 ceremonies associated with death and the dead and cremation has been and is
19 still practiced by the Cocopa.
20 The Colorado River provided ample fresh water, in particular after summer flood
21 events. In the winter months food was scarce though hunting and gathering
22 were practiced. After the floodwaters receded, the Cocopa planted maize,
23 squash, and beans. Wild foods of importance include mesquite, screw beans,
24 cattail pollen, tule roots, and grass seeds. The Cocopa hunted deer, wild boar,
25 rabbits, dove, quail, and waterfowl.
26 At the western end of the project the influence of the Cahuilla and the Tipai is
27 most likely. As a group, the Cahuilla have traditionally inhabited the area north
28 and west of the Salton Trough, including the Coachella Valley and the Santa
29 Rosa Mountains (Wilke and Lawton 1975, Bean 1978). Their language belongs
30 to the Cupan subgroup of the Uto-Aztecan stock, which allies them more closely
31 to the other Takic-speaking groups, such as the CupeĖo, Gabrielino, and the
32 Luiseno (Shipley 1978).
33 The economy of the Cahuilla in ethnographic times was based primarily on

34 hunting and gathering, with males primarily responsible for hunting and females
35 providing the vegetable and other gathered or foraged staples. Horticulture was
36 practiced using maize, beans, and squash, with the occasional addition of some
37 melons that were probably procured from the Mohave and other Colorado River
38 tribes (Bean 1978). There are a number of references to the well-developed
39 tradition of native plant use by the Cahuilla, which allowed these people to
40 prosper in what is considered to be a marginal environment for year-round
41 human occupation (Barrows 1900; Bean and Saubel 1963, 1972).
November 2007 10
FME003026
1 Cahuilla technology included well-developed basketry and ceramic traditions with

2 baskets made from grasses and reeds and dyed with elder, suede, and rush
3 (Bean 1978). The ceramic items were constructed using a paddle and anvil
4 technique and were coiled or sometimes burnished redware. The primary
5 hunting device was a bow made from willow or mesquite with agave fiber string.
6 Cahuilla society was not highly structured in ethnographic times. Tribal members
7 recognized two, nonpolitical patriarchies, which were organized into pseudoclans
8 composed of 3–10 lineages (Bean 1978). The lineages were dialectically
9 different but cooperated within the clan in matters of defense, ritual, and group
10 subsistence practices (Bean 1978). Villages and their surrounding catchment
11 areas were usually controlled by a single lineage, but territory boundaries were
12 indistinct and were open to all Cahuilla (Bean 1978).
13 Early contact with the Spanish produced rapid culture change and decimation of
14 the Cahuilla from disease. The Cahuilla first encountered Europeans in 1774
15 when the Anza expedition crossed their territory. Estimates of the size of the pre-
16 contact Cahuilla population range as high as 10,000 people and as many as 80
17 lineages (Bean 1978). The true population of the Cahuilla was probably closer to
18 4,000 people in pre-contact times but most likely fluctuated with the cycles of the
19 lacustrine environment in the project area. By the 1860s the population of the
20 Cahuilla had fallen to approximately 1,000 individuals as a result of disease and
21 starvation (Bean 1978). After the initial contact with the Spanish, the desert
22 Cahuilla were generally ignored, as their territory did not present a desirable
23 location for early settlement.
24 2.2.2 Historic Period

25 Although European contact with indigenous groups in the coastal southern
26 California region likely began in the mid 16th century, documented contact does
27 not exist prior to the late 18th century, with the Spanish influx of missionaries and
28 military personnel into what was then referred to as Alta California. With the
29 establishment of the San Diego Presidio and the San Diego de Alcala and San
30 Luis Rey missions, Spain had a military and religious presence in the area by
31 1769, laying the foundation for a period of Spanish expansion, colonization, and
32 the exploitation and almost complete decimation of the native groups in the
33 region. This period of Spanish expansion continued until 1821, when California
34 was officially annexed by Mexico. The mission system was secularized and the
35 Mexican military drove out or supplanted the majority of Spanish settlers that had
36 established agricultural enterprises in the region.
37 The Mexican period was characterized by the retention of several of the Spanish
38 institutions, including the granting of large tracts of land to Mexican individuals
39 and families, and the establishment of the rancho system. Cattle ranching
40 superseded agricultural enterprises and most lands became open ranges that
41 were seasonally utilized for cattle grazing; this change in land use severely
42 restricted the mobility and access that native groups once had to prime hunting
43 and collecting areas.
November 2007 11
FME003027
1 The loss of the Mexican-American War by Mexico in 1848 marked the end of the
2 Mexican period in the region. Gold was soon discovered in California, and the
3 massive influx of European and American immigrants into the region beginning in
4 1849 quickly eliminated the last vestiges of the rancho system and the free-range
5 cattle system.
6 Prior to 1900, the Imperial Valley consisted entirely of the semi-barren Colorado
7 Desert. To the settlers and explorers of the Spanish, Mexican, and American
8 periods, the desert was a barren wasteland, which constituted a formidable
9 barrier between southern California and the more settled regions to the east.
10 Irrigation projects begun after 1900 dramatically altered this situation. With the
11 development of a system to transport Colorado River water, the Imperial Valley
12 became one of the most productive and important agricultural regions in the
13 United States.
14 The All-American Canal brings Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley in
15 California. The canal was built by the United States Bureau of Reclamation in
16 the 1930s and was completed in 1942. The canal is the valley’s only source of
17 water. It replaced the Alamo Canal, which was mostly in Mexico. The All-
18 American Canal provides drinking water for nine cities and irrigates more than
19 500,000 acres (2,000 square kilometers [km²]) of farmland. It is the largest
20 irrigation canal in the world, carrying up to 26,155 cubic feet per second of water.
21 The Bureau of Reclamation owns the canal, but the Imperial Irrigation District
22 operates it. Water for the canal is diverted at the Imperial Diversion Dam. The All-
23 American Canal feeds, from east to west, the Coachella Canal, East Highline
24 Canal, Central Canal, and the Westside Main Canal. These four main branches
25 of the canal and a network of smaller canals gradually reduce the flow of the All-
26 American Canal until it ends in the western Imperial Valley and drains into the
27 Westside Main Canal. The All-American Canal is 82 miles (132 kilometers [km])
28 long, has a total drop of 175 feet (53 m), a width of 150 to 700 feet, and a depth
29 of 7 to 50 feet.
30 Activity in the Colorado Desert between the late 1700s and the 1900s primarily
31 consisted of exploration and the establishment of suitable transportation routes
32 across the desert. Some individuals took advantage of the potential for gold
33 starting in the mid-1800s, with the development of a number of placer mining
34 operations including the American Girl and American Boy mines in the Cargo
35 Muchacho Mountains. Lode mining developed in this area beginning in the
36 1870s. In 1938 the American Girl mine and the Golden Cross mine produced 4
37 million dollars worth of gold. By 1900 the largest town in present-day Imperial
38 County was the mining camp of Hedges (Van Wormer and Newland 1996). This
39 town was composed of some 400 inhabitants, primarily Hispanic, in a narrow
40 desert canyon of the Cargo Muchacho Mountains, somewhat north of the project
41 area. Hedges was originally known as Gold Rock, and later as Tumco.
42 While land use in much of the Imperial Valley is still generally undeveloped or
43 agricultural, the impacts of urban expansion, agricultural expansion, and
44 recreational activities have had a significant impact in the past 20 years. The
November 2007 12
FME003028
1 development of roads, canals, utilities, and border maintenance have resulted in

2 alteration of the terrain and allowed greater access to previously isolated areas
3 as well as inadvertent damage to archaeological sites.
November 2007 13
FME003029
1 3. METHODS
2 3.1 SITE RECORD AND ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

3 An archaeological site record and archival search was conducted at the
4 Southeastern Information Center in accord with the requirements of National
5 Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 (Code of Federal Regulations
6 [CFR] 800.4 [2, 3, and 4]. The archeological site record and archival search
7 were completed to identify and collect data regarding cultural resources recorded
8 within a 0.5-mile radius of the proposed project APE as shown on Figure 1.1.
9 The record search area included proposed access roads and all areas known to
10 be part of the project as of October 2007. Pertinent site records were identified
11 and collected and supporting cultural resources management reports were
12 collected, reviewed, and evaluated. A search of the National Archaeological
13 Database (NADB) was also conducted in an effort to identify cultural resources
14 management reports for previously completed cultural resources management
15 activities (archaeological survey or evaluation excavations) in the study area and
16 in the immediate vicinity.
17 A letter initiating consultation with associated Native American groups was sent
18 to 14 tribal groups with cultural links to the project area by the U.S. Army Corps
19 of Engineers (USACE), Fort Worth (see Appendix A). The concerns of these
20 groups were considered during the preparation of this document, and information
21 regarding resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance to Native
22 American tribes, Traditional Cultural Properties have also been considered as
23 part of the impact analysis.
24 3.2 FIELD WORK

25 Cultural resources management survey activities conducted in support of the
26 proposed construction and operation of tactical infrastructure in the El Centro
27 Sector of the international border were completed by personnel of engineering-
28 environmental Management, Inc. (e²M) in October 2007 with a full-time escort
29 provided by the El Centro Sector of the Office of Border Patrol. An intensive
30 pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted between October 9 and 11, 2007
31 under BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit CA-08-03. The survey was completed
32 by a team of five individuals over an area approximately 300 feet (90 m) in width
33 along the designated corridor of access and proposed construction. This area
34 was carefully inspected for surface evidence of archaeological materials such as
35 ceramics, debitage, ground stone, formal flaked stone implements, and historic
36 era materials as well as evidence of trails, “sleeping circles,” intaglios or fish
37 traps, and weirs. The study corridor was intensively examined using pedestrian
38 transects that did not exceed 10 m between team members. Areas of substantial
39 disturbance or alteration were spot-checked for cultural resources presence. For
40 example, flood activity in the Yuha Basin portion of the survey area resulted in
41 substantially altered land surface conditions and recent development along
November 2007 14
FME003030
1 additional portions also reduced the area of survey. The ground surface visibility
2 was excellent and survey conditions were optimal.
3 Identified archaeological sites and isolated finds were plotted on field maps using
4 a field Geographic Positioning instrument with submeter accuracy. All resources
5 have been recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms
6 that will be submitted to the Southeastern Information Center with a copy of the
7 final technical report. The project area includes prehistoric and historic
8 archaeological sites, features, and isolated finds and historic structures (e.g., All-
9 American Canal).
10
November 2007 15
FME003031
1 4. RECORD SEARCH RESULTS
2 A review of the archaeological site records and archival information, including

3 information on site (CA-SDI) and Primary (P-37) plot USGS maps (Coyote Wells,
4 Yuha Basin, Mount Signal, Calexico, Bonds Corner Midway Well NW, Midway
5 Well, Grays Well, and California quads) and information in the NADB, indicates
6 that a number of sections of the study area and vicinity have been previously
7 surveyed. Several recorded sites have been subjected to archaeological
8 evaluation (see Confidential Attachment 1 [Reserved]). Reports listed in the
9 NADB documenting previously completed cultural resources management
10 projects in and within the vicinity of the study area are summarized below.
11 4.1 PREVIOUS SURVEYS

12 There are records for 37 cultural resources studies in the general study area (see
13 Table 4-2). These work efforts include survey coverage of large areas
14 associated with transmission line projects, private developments, and surveys for
15 various border studies. The majority of the studies have been negative for
16 cultural resources discovery, resulting in the identification of only a few
17 prehistoric resources within the surveyed lands.
18 There are 37 reports on file with the Southeastern Information Center for the
19 project area:
20 x Archaeological Impact Statement on East Mesa Areas 1 and 2, Imperial

21 Valley, California. Archaeological Research, Inc.,1974
22 x New Evidence for Early Man in the Yuha Desert. Imperial Valley College
23 Museum, 1977
24 x Environmental Impact Report for Big Chief Claims Group (Glamis), County of
25 Imperial, 1979
26 x Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the East Mesa and West Mesa
27 Regions, Imperial Valley, California. WESTEC Services, Inc.,1980
28 x Archaeological Examinations of a Proposed Sand and Gravel Operation near
29 Mount Signal: A Report. Imperial Valley College Museum, 1981
30 x Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Sand Hills Interchange
31 Project. California Department of Transportation, 1981
32 x Cultural Resource Study of a Proposed Electric Transmission Line from Jade
33 to the Sand Hills, Imperial County, California. RECON, 1981
34 x Archaeological Survey of the La Rosita 230kV Interconnection Project.
35 Cultural Systems Research, Inc., 1981
36 x Archaeological Field Investigation of Cultural Resources Associated with the
37 Proposed Imperial Valley Substation (7A) Access Road. Cultural Systems
38 Research, Inc.,1982
November 2007 16
FME003032
1 x Data Recovery and Analysis for 4-IMP-4830 West Mesa. Imperial County,
2 California, Cornerstone Research, 1982
3 x Archaeological Survey of the Mountain Springs (Jade) to Sand Hills Portion of
4 the SDG&E Interconnection Project 500kV Transmission Line. Cultural
5 Systems Research, Inc., 1982
6 x Sand Hills to the Colorado River Data Recovery Program APS/SDG&E
7 Interconnection Project (now Southwest Powerlink). Wirth Environmental
8 Services, 1982
9 x Cultural Resource Survey of the APS/SDG&E 500kV Transmission Line
10 Right-Of-Way Sand Hills to the Colorado River, Imperial County, California.
11 Cultural Systems Research, Inc., 1983
12 x Southwest Powerlink Cultural Resources Management Plan. Wirth
13 Environmental Services, 1984
14 x Archaeological Investigations in the Western Colorado Desert: A
15 Socioecological Approach, Data Recovery on the Mountain Spring (Jade) to
16 Sand Hills Section: Southwest Powerlink Project. Wirth Environmental
17 Services, 1984
18 x Archaeological Investigations in the Picacho Basin: Southwest Powerlink
19 Project-Sand hills to the Colorado River Section. Wirth Environmental
20 Services, 1984
21 x Cultural Resource Study of the Imperial County Prison Alternatives. Imperial
22 County, California, WESTEC Services, Inc.,1988
23 x Cultural Resource Study of the Mount Signal and Dixie Ranch Imperial
24 County Prison Alternatives Imperial County, California. ERC Environmental
25 and Energy Services Company, Inc.,1990
26 x Archaeological Examinations of Bravo Ranch, Imperial County, California.
27 Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, 1992
28 x Cultural Resources Study of the New Port of Entry and State Route 7 Situated
29 Between the International Border and State Route 98, Calexico, Imperial
30 County, California. Archaeological Associates,1992
31 x Cultural Resource Records Search and Survey for the Southern California
32 Gas Company Line 6902 South, Imperial County, California. LSA Associates,
33 Inc.,1993
34 x Cultural Resource Survey for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility for
35 the New Calexico Port of Entry, Imperial County, California.CalTrans,1994
36 x Cultural Resources Assessment, Southern California Gas Company Natural
37 Gas Transmission Line 6902 Revised Border Crossing Location, Imperial
38 County, California. LSA Associates, Inc.,1995
39 x Cultural Resources Assessment, Southern California Gas Company Natural
40 Gas Transmission Line 6902 El Centro to Mexicali, Imperial County,
41 California. LSA Associates, Inc.,1996
November 2007 17
FME003033
1 x Cultural Resource Survey for the Gateway of the Americas Specific Plan and
2 Constraint Study for the Proposed State Route 7 Corridor, Imperial County,
3 California. Gallegos & Associates, 1997
4 x A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial Irrigation
5 District’s C-Line Pole Replacement Project, Imperial County, California. ASM
6 Affiliates, Inc.,1998
7 x Overview and Cultural Resources Survey for the De Anza Natural Gas
8 Pipeline. KEA Environmental, Inc.,2000
9 x Archaeological Examinations of Aggregate Products, Inc. Conveyor Belt
10 Project at the All-American Canal, Imperial County, California. Jay Von
11 Werlhof, 2000
12 x The All-American Canal: An Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation,
13 Imperial County, California. ASM Affiliates, 2001
14 x Cultural Resource Survey of a 230-kV Transmission Corridor from the
15 Imperial Valley Substation to the International Border with Mexico. RECON,
16 2001
17 x Environmental Assessment for Presidential Permit Applications for BAJA
18 California Power, Inc. and SEMPRA Energy Resources. U.S. Department of
19 Energy, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management El
20 Centro, California, 2001
21 x Proposed Placement of Permanent Lighting Systems near Calexico along the
22 All-American Canal, Imperial County, California. Department of the Army, Fort
23 Worth District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002
24 x Results of an Archaeological Survey for the Border Remote Video
25 Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County, California. Brian F.
26 Smith and Associates, 2002
27 x Supplemental Archaeological Survey for the Border Remote Video
28 Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County, California. Brian F.
29 Smith and Associates, 2002
30 x Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial-Mexicali 230–kV
31 Transmission Lines. U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of the
32 Interior Bureau of Land Management El Centro, California, 2004
33 x A Class I Cultural Resources Inventory for the All-American Canal Lining
34 Project, ASM Affiliates, 2004
35 x Cultural Resources Study for the Proposed Development of Industrial
36 Entitlements at the East Calexico Port of Entry, Imperial County, California.
37 ASM Affiliates, Ken Moslak, 2007
38 4.2 RECORDED SITE INFORMATION

39 The record search results indicate that there are 14 recorded cultural resources
40 sites or features within the proposed APE (see Table 4-1). There are 106 sites
November 2007 18
FME003034
1 within the 0.5-mile radius study record search area as summarized on Table 4-2.
2 While this is a large number of sites, the recorded resources are generally
3 characterized as isolated prehistoric artifacts (prehistoric pottery, flakes, flaked
4 stone tools), features associated with the All-American Canal or historic trash
5 dumps, or artifacts associated with the historic Plank Road. A total of 21 of the
6 recorded resources are categorized as isolated finds, meaning there were fewer
7 than three items found at these locations.
8 Table 4-1. Recorded Sites within the Project APE by Section
Site Number CA-IMP Sector Site Number Sector

4307 B-1 3813 B-5A
6174 B-1 4760 B-5A
4481 B-2 4761 B-5A
4829 B-2 4762 B-5B
4833 B-2 4763 B-5B
3811 B-5A
9
10 Table 4-2. Recorded Sites within 0.5 miles of the Project APE
Site Number Site Description Record History

CA-IMP-319 Temporary camp Ellis & Crabtree N/A
Isolate-fragmented stone tool and one
CA-IMP-805 Childers N/A
metacarpal bone
CA-IMP-1383 Prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter Corbin 1976
CA-IMP-1386 Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Wessel 1976
CA-IMP-1387 Small prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter Corbin 1976
CA-IMP-1388 Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Corbin 1976
Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd/not Corbin 1976/Hangan
CA-IMP-1391 Update
relocated 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Corbin 1976/Hangan
CA-IMP-1392 Update
scatter/not relocated 2003
Prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter/not Corbin 1976/Hangan
CA-IMP-1393 Update
relocated 2003
CA-IMP-3046 Small prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter Unknown
CA-IMP-3047 Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Vogel 1978
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Hunter 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3052 Update
November 2007 19
FME003035

Trail section with small prehistoric Gelinas 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3053 Update
ceramic scatter/not relocated 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Hyslop 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3054 Update
Trail section with small prehistoric Vogel 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3055 Update
ceramic scatter/not relocated 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Vogel 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3056 Update
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Vogel 1978/Hangan
CA-IMP-3057 Update
scatter/not relocated 2003/Andrews 2004
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd and Vogel 1978/Andrews
CA-IMP-3065 Update
flaked lithic scatter/not relocated 2004
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd McManus
CA-IMP-3123 Update
scatter/not relocated 1979/Hangan 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Unknown 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3124 Update
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Eckhardt 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3127 Update
CA-IMP-3649H Unknown 1979/Hangan
Communications site/not relocated
Update 2003
CA-IMP-3794 Isolate-modern camel bone fragment Banks 1979
Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3796 Update Isolate-retouched flake/not relocated
2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3797 Update
Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3798 Update Isolate-flaked lithic tool/not relocated
2003
Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3799 Update Flaked lithic scatter/not relocated
2003
CA-IMP-3800 Isolate-basalt core Banks 1979
CA-IMP-3801H Banks & Talley
Historic debris scatter/not relocated
Update 1979/Hangan 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3802 Update
Banks 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3803 Update Isolate-jasper core/not relocated
2003
CA-IMP-3804H Isolate-historic glass insulator/not Banks 1979/Hangan
Update relocated 2003
CA-IMP-3811* Prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter Walker 1979
CA-IMP-3812 Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Walker 1979
CA-IMP-3813* Isolate-jasper core Walker 1979
November 2007 20
FME003036

Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Walker 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3814 Update
CA-IMP-3815 Isolate-flaked lithic tool Walker & Kupel 1979
Small prehistoric ceramic sherd Walker 1979/Hangan
CA-IMP-3816 Update
CA-IMP-3978 Small prehistoric ceramic scatter Carrico 1979
Gallegos & Martinez
CA-IMP-3979 Cleared circle with flaked lithic tool
1979
Isolate-historic purple glass bottle
CA-IMP-3980H Carrico 1979
fragment
CA-IMP-3981 Small flaked lithic scatter Carrico 1979
Trail linking NS Coyote Valley trail with S
CA-IMP-4307* end of Skull Valley and S end of Haries Collins 1982
Valley
CA-IMP-4397 Update Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Pallette 2004
CA-IMP-4398 Prehistoric ceramic sherd scatter Kasper 1981
CA-IMP-4478 Small prehistoric ceramic scatter Collins 1981
Small prehistoric ceramic scatter/not Collins 1981/Berryman
CA-IMP-4479* Update
relocated 2001
Cleared circles with small flaked stone
CA-IMP-4480 Collins 1981
tool and prehistoric ceramic scatter
Temporary camp with a hearth, flaked
lithics, ground stone and burned bird Collins 1981/Berryman
CA-IMP-4481* Update
bone/Site has been heavily impacted by 2001
bulldozing/not relocated
Temporary camp with small flaked lithic
scatter, prehistoric ceramics, fish bone,
CA-IMP-4495 Ainsworth 1981
shell fragments, and a possible human
cremation
Pot drop of at least two vessels/not Coy 1979/Andrews
CA-IMP-4757 Update
relocated 2004
CA-IMP-4758H Palmer 1981/Hangan
Historic scatter/not relocated
Update 2003
Small prehistoric ceramic scatter and one
CA-IMP-4759 Palmer 1981
jasper flake
Palmer 1981/Hangan
CA-IMP-4760* Update Pot drop (Salton Buff)/not relocated
2003
Palmer 1981/Hangan
CA-IMP-4761* 2 Pot drops (Salton Buff)/not relocated
2003
CA-IMP-4762* Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Palmer 1981
CA-IMP-4763* Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Palmer 1981
November 2007 21
FME003037

Historic metal strapping associated with Wahoff, York and
CA-IMP-4764
the Plank Road Shalom 2005
CA-IMP-4829* Small flaked lithic scatter Welch 1982
Small flaked lithic and prehistoric ceramic
CA-IMP-4830 Welch 1982
scatter
CA-IMP-4831 Small flaked lithic scatter Welch 1982
CA-IMP-4832 Isolated cleared circle Welch 1982
CA-IMP-4833* Rock cairn and trail section Welch 1982
CA-IMP-4910 Prehistoric ceramic scatter Shackley 1982
Two sleeping circles and a geoglyph
CA-IMP-5223 Von Werlhof 1981
associated with the rock ringed circles
CA-IMP-5649 Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd Thesken 1984
Simmons, Garst, Hahn,
CA-IMP-6173 Flaked Lithic tools and cleared circles
and Cline
Cleared circles with prehistoric ceramic
CA-IMP-6174* Richardson, 1981
and flaked lithic scatter
CA-IMP-7130H
Section of historic All-American Canal Sturm 1995
Update
CA-IMP-7130H Sections of the historic All-American
Dolan 2000
Update Canal
CA-IMP-7363H Historic Ash Main Canal Sturm 1995
CA-IMP-7364H Historic South Alamo Canal Sturm 1995
Strudwick and McLean
CA-IMP-7563H Historic Alamitos Canal
1996
CA-IMP-7564H Historic New Briar Canal
1996
CA-IMP-7565H Historic Ash 2 Drain
1996
CA-IMP-7649 Small prehistoric ceramic pot drop Pallette 1997
CA-IMP-7685 Sparse flaked lithic scatter Collins 1997
CA-IMP-7709 Small prehistoric stone artifact scatter Collins 1997
Primary # P-13- Schaefer and Pallette
Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd
007806 1997
Small prehistoric ceramic scatter (Salton
CA-IMP-8286 Andrews 2004
Buff)
Medium prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Black Mesa Buff)
Small prehistoric ceramic scatter (Salton
Buff)
Small prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Tumco Buff)
November 2007 22
FME003038

Medium prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Tumco Buff)
Large prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Colorado Beige)
Large historic machinery
CA-IMP-8303H repair/maintenance workshop area likely Andrews 2004
associated with the All-American Canal
Portion of historic Plank Road or ramp
CA-IMP-8304H Andrews 2004
with associated artifacts
Historic water tank/possible All-
CA-IMP-8306H Pallette 2004
American Canal work camp
Historic trash dump possibly associated
CA-IMP-8308H with the construction of the All-American Andrews 2004
Canal
CA-IMP-8309H Historic trash dump Andrews 2004
Large Multi-loci prehistoric ceramic Pallette 2004/York
CA-IMP-8314 Update
scatter 2005
(Tumco Buff)
(Tumco Buff)
Very small prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Tumco Buff)
(Tumco Buff)
(Tumco Buff)
Section of Old Highway 80 across the York and Norwood
CA-IMP-8356H
East Mesa 2005
Very small prehistoric ceramic scatter
(Black Mesa Buff)
CA-IMP-8362H Historic trash scatter Andrews 2005
Primary # P-13-
Isolate-pile of metal lathe filings Pallette 2004
008865
Primary # P-13- Two prehistoric ceramic sherds
Andrews 2004
008910 (Colorado Beige)
Primary # P-13- Isolate-prehistoric ceramic sherd
Andrews 2005
008935 (Tumco Buff)
Primary # P-13- Two prehistoric ceramic sherds
Andrews 2004
008970 (Colorado Beige)
Primary # P-13- Two prehistoric ceramic sherds (Tumco
Pallette 2004
008977 Buff)
November 2007 23
FME003039

Small prehistoric ceramic scatter (Black
CA-IMP-9304 Schultz 2007
Mesa Buff)
1 Note: * denotes a site within the perceived project corridor.
2 As the definition of an archaeological site by the BLM is three or more artifacts in

3 a 50-square-meter area, many of these sites represent the minimal number of
4 items needed to qualify as an archaeological site and in fact under other site
5 definitions would not have been recorded as sites. A number of these sites were
6 recorded and revisited between 1976 and 2007 with many of the recording
7 episodes concentrated around environmental support work for several large,
8 linear projects such as powerlines and canal improvement projects. In addition
9 to the original survey and recording work at these sites, a number of these sites
10 were revisited with the intent of relocation.
11 (b) (6) archaeologist for the El Centro BLM Field Office, conducted a
12 Class III survey of a number of previously recorded site locations as part of the
13 “110 survey” by the BLM in 2003. Using the Universal Transverse Mercator
14 (UTM) coordinates provided on the original site records, Hangan attempted to
15 relocate these previously identified sites and in every case the original site was
16 not verified. In part, this is not surprising as the original site descriptions are for
17 small numbers of items such as ceramic sherds and debitage and the sites were
18 generally recorded between 1976 and 1980, more than 20 years before Hangan
19 attempted to relocate them. It is possible that the items were collected by the
20 recording teams; however, this is not noted on the site records. Further
21 compounding this effort was the challenge that plotting of site locations during
22 the late 1970s generally involved the use of a hand-held compass to triangulate a
23 position, followed by drawing of point or polygon on the relevant 7.5-minute U.S.
24 Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map. The USGS quads
25 have a scale of 1” to 24,000’, meaning that a site which occupies a 5 or 10
26 square meter area will be plotted a minimum of several hundred feet from its
27 actual location with some regularity, in particular on a landscape that tends to be
28 absent of elevation distinctions or landmarks of a scale evident on a USGS map.
29 As part of her survey, Hangan examined an area of 50 meters around the
30 recorded site UTMs and found no evidence of the 27 sites she attempted to
31 relocate. The likelihood of relocating these small sites remains low.
32 In many instances the site record is for a single cultural item or, in some
33 instances, several items at the mapped location. This is particularly true of those
34 “sites” characterized as ceramic scatters and flaked stone scatters. As shown on
35 the maps in Confidential Attachment 1 (Reserved), many of these sites occupy
36 small areas (1-5 square meters in size) and consist of fewer than five items. In
37 many respects these sites can be characterized as “background noise” for an
38 area with a rich and varied archaeological profile, primarily based around the
39 various shores and edges of the extinct Lake Cahuilla. These small,
40 homogeneous sites represent the remnants of activity that took place in the
41 margins away from the foci of the various shorelines where individuals and
November 2007 24
FME003040
1 groups made use of specific resources or discarded, lost, or tested various

2 natural resources as part of their seasonal rounds.
3 The following sites are recorded within the project APE based on UTM and
4 plotted map indications. These sites were determined to be the most likely to
5 occur within the survey corridor and the UTM data were downloaded into a field
6 Global Positioning System (GPS) unit to assist in relocation efforts. Efforts were
7 made during the survey to identify these sites using the UTM data, site location
8 maps from the site forms, and by completing a careful pedestrian search of 50
9 meters around the UTM or plotted datum.
10 Table 4-2 provided a summary of the recorded sites and isolated finds within 0.5
11 miles of the project corridor. The site descriptions were derived from the site
12 records and the recorders are provided with updated site information, where
13 available.
14 Table 4-3 summarizes the sites and isolated finds by project section from west to
15 east. The information highlights that each of the proposed sections has been
16 previously surveyed and there is a considerable amount of data for each. While
17 most of these sites are outside of the immediate project corridor, the summarized
18 information does emphasize that this area has a relevant prehistoric human
19 presence in addition to an historic component. There are 7 sites or isolated finds
20 in or near Section B-1, 13 in or near Section B-2, 6 in or near Section B-4, 60 in
21 or near Section B-5A, and 20 in or near Section B-5B.
22 Table 4-3. Recorded Sites by Project Section
Site Section
CA-IMP-805 B-1
CA-IMP-3978 B-1
CA-IMP-3981 B-1
CA-IMP-4307 B-1
CA-IMP-5223 B-1
CA-IMP-6173 B-1
CA-IMP-6174 B-1
CA-IMP-3979 B-2
CA-IMP-3980H B-2
CA-IMP-4478 B-2
CA-IMP-4479 B-2
CA-IMP-4480 B-2
CA-IMP-4481 B-2
CA-IMP-4495 B-2
CA-IMP-4829 B-2
CA-IMP-4830 B-2
November 2007 25
FME003041
Site Section
CA-IMP-4831 B-2
CA-IMP-4832 B-2
CA-IMP-4833 B-2
CA-IMP-5649 B-2
CA-IMP-7130H B-4
CA-IMP-7363H B-4
CA-IMP-7364H B-4
CA-IMP-7563H B-4
CA-IMP-7564H B-4
CA-IMP-7565H B-4
CA-IMP-319 B-5A
CA-IMP-1387 B-5A
CA-IMP-1388 B-5A
CA-IMP-1391 B-5A
CA-IMP-1392 B-5A
CA-IMP-1393 B-5A
CA-IMP-3046 B-5A
CA-IMP-3047 B-5A
CA-IMP-3052 B-5A
CA-IMP-3053 B-5A
CA-IMP-3054 B-5A
CA-IMP-3055 B-5A
CA-IMP-3056 B-5A
CA-IMP-3057 B-5A
CA-IMP-3065 B-5A
CA-IMP-3123 B-5A
CA-IMP-3124 B-5A
CA-IMP-3127 B-5A
CA-IMP-3649H B-5A
CA-IMP-3796 B-5A
CA-IMP-3797 B-5A
CA-IMP-3798 B-5A
CA-IMP-3799 B-5A
CA-IMP-3800 B-5A
CA-IMP-3801H B-5A
CA-IMP-3802 B-5A
CA-IMP-3803 B-5A
November 2007 26
FME003042
Site Section
CA-IMP-3804H B-5A
CA-IMP-3813 B-5A
CA-IMP-3814 B-5A
CA-IMP-3815 B-5A
CA-IMP-3816 B-5A
CA-IMP-4757 B-5A
CA-IMP-4758H B-5A
CA-IMP-4759 B-5A
CA-IMP-4760 B-5A
CA-IMP-4761 B-5A
CA-IMP-7685 B-5A
CA-IMP-8286 B-5A
CA-IMP-8287 B-5A
CA-IMP-8288 B-5A
CA-IMP-8292 B-5A
CA-IMP-8293 B-5A
CA-IMP-8294 B-5A
CA-IMP-8303H B-5A
CA-IMP-8304H B-5A
CA-IMP-8309H B-5A
CA-IMP-8321 B-5A
CA-IMP-8322 B-5A
CA-IMP-8323 B-5A
CA-IMP-8335 B-5A
CA-IMP-8336 B-5A
CA-IMP-8356H B-5A
CA-IMP-8361 B-5A
CA-IMP-8362H B-5A
CA-IMP-9304 B-5A
P-13-008865 B-5A
P-13-008910 B-5A
P-13-008935 B-5A
P-13-008970 B-5A
CA-IMP-1383 B-5B
CA-IMP-1384 B-5B
CA-IMP-1385 B-5B
CA-IMP-1386 B-5B
November 2007 27
FME003043
Site Section
CA-IMP-3794 B-5B
CA-IMP-3811 B-5B
CA-IMP-3812 B-5B
CA-IMP-4397 B-5B
CA-IMP-4398 B-5B
CA-IMP-4762 B-5B
CA-IMP-4763 B-5B
CA-IMP-4764H B-5B
CA-IMP-4910 B-5B
CA-IMP-7130H B-5B
CA-IMP-7649 B-5B
CA-IMP-7709 B-5B
CA-IMP-8306H B-5B
CA-IMP-8308H B-5B
CA-IMP-8314 B-5B
P-13-007806 B-5B
1
November 2007 28
FME003044
1 5. FIELDWORK RESULTS
2 The project area was surveyed by a team of five archaeologists from e²M in early
3 October 2007. The team was accompanied by Agent(b) (6) of the El Centro
4 Sector. (b) (6) was with the team for the entire survey and provided
5 important project information. All areas were accessible, though several
6 presented safety hazards. All areas were reached through the use of existing
7 roads on BLM and private land. These roads are used extensively by the Border
8 Patrol on a daily basis. Only one area in Section B-1 presented an access
9 challenge, as there is not an existing road along this border section (see Figure
10 1-1). The closest road is as much as several hundred meters from the
11 international border for a distance of approximately 0.5 to 1 mile. Access to this
12 area was gained by foot and the corridor was examined using a spaced transect
13 pedestrian coverage.
14 Ground surface visibility over the entire survey corridor was excellent. The area
15 was open and generally devoid of vegetation. Large portions of the survey
16 corridor have been altered by road construction, border maintenance, canal
17 construction and maintenance, agricultural development, and off-road vehicle
18 traffic. Photographs 5-1 through 5-5 provide general characterizations of the
19 surveyed areas.
20
21 Photograph 5-1. Overview of the Easternmost Section of the Survey Area
22 (Section B-5B) Looking West
November 2007 29
FME003045
1
2 Photograph 5-2. Survey Area in Section B-5B,
3 Partial Desert Pavement, ORV Damage
4
5 Photograph 5-3. Overview of Project Corridor Section B-5A, Looking East;
6 International Border is on the Right Side of the Photograph
November 2007 30
FME003046
1
2 Photograph 5-4. Section B-4 Looking East; Mexico is to the Left Side of the
3 Photo and the All-American Canal is on the Right Side
4
5 Photograph 5-5. Section B-1 Overview, Looking West,
6 Vehicle Barrier is on the Border
November 2007 31
FME003047
1 None of the previously identified sites within the survey corridor (see Table 4-1)
2 were relocated during the current survey.
3 Two previously unrecorded archaeological resources (historic artifact scatter and

4 a prehistoric chipping waste station) and two prehistoric isolates (prehistoric
5 ceramic sherd and a single piece of chipping waste/debitage) were identified
6 during the survey (see Confidential Attachment 2). Site information regarding
7 the resources was submitted to the Southeastern Information Center. All four
8 resources are immediately adjacent to the APE. By definition the two isolates
9 are not eligible for NRHP consideration; evaluations were not conducted on the
10 two newly discovered archaeological sites.
11 The newly discovered historic site (designated as Border Infrastructure

12 Temporary Site #1) is a diffuse scatter of historic household materials, including
13 glass (aquamarine, brown, clear, purple, green) bottles, patent medicine bottles
14 and drinking glasses; ceramics (transfer ware, saltware, crockery), Vaseline jars,
15 solder drop meat cans, barbed wire, window glass, and possible metal hoops for
16 water container (Photographs 5-6 through 5-8 and Figure 5-1). Artifacts appear
17 to be secondary deposits, although the scatter could represent the remnants of a
18 small homestead. There is a 1934 U.S. Coastal Geodetic Reference Marker
19 within the site area. The historic materials are scattered in an area
20 encompassing approximately 60 by 75 meters with a couple areas of
21 concentration. There is blown sand covering some areas and the sand in the site
22 area does appear to be prone to shifting.
23
24 Photograph 5-6. U.S./Mexico Border Monument #217,
25 Approximately 35 m Southwest of Site Datum
November 2007 32
FME003048
2
3 Photograph 5-7. Example of Historic Transfer Ware (ceramics)
4
5 Photograph 5-8. Examples of Bottle Finishes
November 2007 33
FME003049
1
2 Figure 5-1. Site Map
3 The prehistoric site is a small, dispersed artifact scatter containing 50+ pieces of
4 fine grain metavolcanic shatter and +5 tested cores (see Figure 5-2). Material is
5 sitting on the remnants of a thin desert pavement with an associated cobble lens.
6 There were no formed tools and a couple of the cores appear to be severely
7 weathered by wind, suggesting some antiquity. Artifacts are loosely scattered
8 over an area approximately 60 m east/west by 75 m north/south (see
9 Photograph 5-9). Diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points or artifacts
10 considered tempora lly sensitive are not present in the assemblage. In general, it
11 appears that one type of fine-grained stone was sampled or quarried from cobble
12 float and tested for suitability, or prepared cores and suitable flakes were
13 removed from the site to be worked elsewhere.
14 The historic features or sites within the project include a portion of the All-
15 American Canal, which parallels the study area in the vicinity of Mexicali, towards
16 the eastern end of the corridor (see Photograph 5-10). The All-American Canal
17 has been placed on the NRHP and is considered an important historic complex.
18 Although the canal is in close proximity to the project area, it will not be impacted
19 by the Proposed Action.
November 2007 34
FME003050
1
2 Figure 5-2. Site Map
3
4 Photograph 5-9. Example of Chipping Waste (red metavolcanic stone)
5
November 2007 35
FME003051
1
2 Photograph 5-10. View of the All-American Canal Looking West (the existing
3 Border Fence can be seen on the far left of the photograph)
November 2007 36
FME003052
1 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

2 RECOMMENDATIONS, PROTOCOLS, AND MITIGATION
3 MEASURES
4 6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS
5 Due to the low potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unidentified,
6 buried, or masked archaeological sites within the project area, archaeological
7 monitoring is not recommended for project-related excavation or other ground-
8 disturbing construction activities. Two newly discovered archaeological sites and
9 two isolates were recorded during the survey efforts. All four are outside the
10 area of immediate impacts. Neither of the recorded resources will be directly or
11 indirectly impacted by the project as proposed. Neither of the recorded isolates
12 meet the standards required for significance and would not be eligible for
13 nomination to the NRHP.
14 In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during the
15 course of construction-related excavation, the onsite construction supervisor will
16 halt work in the area and immediately report the discovery to the designated
17 environmental manager and appropriate cultural resources management
18 protocols will be implemented. The results of such mitigation measures will be to
19 thoroughly document and analyze the discovery and the findings will be
20 submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for concurrence.
21 Work may not resume in the vicinity of a potentially eligible archaeological
22 resource until the SHPO has determined that the proposed mitigation measures
23 are sufficient for treatment of the resource, and has concurred with the findings
24 and conclusions contained in the mitigation report. Mitigation measures might
25 include relocation of ground-disturbing project activities to avoid the resource. If
26 avoidance is not possible, data recovery excavation can be implemented to
27 mitigate potential project impacts on a significant or eligible resource that cannot
28 be avoided.
29 6.2 SUMMARY
30 The proposed El Centro tactical infrastructure project does not represent a
31 potential impact on known significant or eligible archaeological sites or features.
32 The area has been examined for evidence of archaeological sites, features, and
33 isolates and none were identified within the project APE. The known sites are
34 outside of the proposed alignment and maximum extent of the construction zone
35 as presently defined.
36 Native American groups with historic ties to the project area have been consulted
37 for information on resources of traditional, religious, or cultural significance and
38 other concerns. The results of this consultation are pending and will be
39 incorporated into a final draft of this report. Based on the completed research
40 and survey work, no additional cultural resources evaluation is recommended
41 prior to implementation of the tactical infrastructure project as proposed. A
November 2007 37
FME003053
1 qualified archaeological monitor should be present during geotechnical survey

2 work and additional work would be required if the project APE is altered or
3 expanded. Additional consultation with Tribal groups might be necessary to
4 address any raised concerns.
November 2007 38
FME003054
1 7. REFERENCES
2 (b) (6)
3 2005 Overview and Survey: Cultural Resources Along the North Baja
4 Expansion Project
5 Bean, Lowell
6 1978 Cahuilla. In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed., Handbook of North American
7 Indians, Vol. 8: California: 575-587. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
8 Institution.
9 Bean, Lowell and Katherine Saubel

10 1963 Cahuilla Ethnobotanical Notes: The Aboriginal Use of Mesquite and
11 Screwbean. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
12 Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1962-1963: 51-75.
13 1972 Temalpakh: Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Use of Plants. Banning:

14 Malki Museum Press
15 Barrows, David
16 1900 The Ethno-Botany of the Cahuilla Indians. University of Chicago Press
17 Berryman, Judy
18 2001 Cultural Resource Survey of a 230-kV Transmission Line Corridor from
19 the Imperial Valley Substation to the International Border with Mexico
20 Berryman, Judy
21 2001 Cultural Resource Treatment Plan in Support of the Construction of
22 Two 230-kV Transmission Lines from the Imperial Valley Substation to
23 the International Border with Mexico
24 Bettinger and Taylor

25 1974
26 (b) (6)
27 2002 Results of an Archaeological Survey for the Border Remote Video
28 Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County, California
29 California Office of Historic Preservation

30 2000
31 Childers, W. Morkin
32 1977 New Evidence of Early Man in the Yuha Desert
33 Crafts, Karen C.
34 1994 Cultural Resource Survey for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection
35 Facility for the New Calexico Port of Entry, Imperial County, California
November 2007 39
FME003055
1 Cultural Systems Research, Inc.

2 1982 Archaeological Field Investigation of Cultural Resources Associated
3 with the Proposed Imperial Valley Substation (7A) Access Road
4 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)

5 2006
6 Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)

7 2007
8 Dominici, Debra A
9 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Sand Hills Interchange
10 Project
11 Ellis, Robert R. and Robert Crabtree

12 1974 Archaeological Impact Statement on East Mesa Areas 1 and 2,
13 Imperial Valley, California
14 ESRI Streetmap USA

15 2006
16 Fickel Jr., William

17 2002 Proposed Placement of Permanent Lighting Systems near Calexico
18 along the All-American Canal, Imperial County, California
19 Flennikan and Wilke

20 1989
21 Gallegos, Dennis
22 1980 Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the East Mesa and West Mesa
23 Regions, Imperial Valley, California
24 Gallegos & Associates

25 1997 Cultural Resource Survey for the Gateway of the Americas Specific
26 Plan and Constraint Study for the Proposed State Route 7 Corridor,
27 Imperial County, California
28 Hangan, Margaret
29 2003 Bureau of Land Management 110 Survey 2003
30 Heizer and Hester

31 1978 Great Basin Projectile Points: Forms and Chronology. Ballena press,
32 Socorro, New Mexico.
33 Holland
34 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
35 California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
November 2007 40
FME003056
1 Krantz, Timothy and Brian Black

2 2007 "Lake Cahuilla, United States." In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler
3 J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition,
4 National Council for Science and the Environment). [First published
5 October 17, 2006; Last revised March 25, 2007; Retrieved October 26,
6 2007]. <http://www.eoearth.org/article/Lake Cahuilla, United States>
7 Laylander, Don
8 1997 The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast
9 Archaeological Society Quarterly 33(1/2):1-138.
10 McDonald, Meg and Ken Victorino

11 1997 Archaeological Survey of Two Segments of the Interstate 8 Right-Of-
12 Way, Imperial County, California
13 Morton
14 1977 Geology and Mineral Resources of Imperial County. California Division
15 of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, Ca.
16 Moratto
17 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press. New York.
18 Moslak, Ken
19 2007 Cultural Resource Study for Proposed Development of Industrial
20 Entitlements at the East Calexico Port of Entry, Imperial County,
21 California
22 Norwood, Richard
23 1982 Data Recovery and Analysis for 4-IMP-4830, West Mesa, Imperial
24 County, California
25 Pallette, Drew
26 1997 A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial
27 Irrigation District’s A3-Line Transmission Route, Imperial County,
28 California
29 Pendleton, Lorann
30 1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Picacho Basin: Southwest
31 Powerlink Project-Sand hills to the Colorado River Segment
32 PHR Associates
33 1989 The Plank Road of Imperial County
34 Pigniolo, Andrew
35 1988 Cultural Resource Study of the Imperial County Prison Alternatives,
November 2007 41
FME003057
1 Pigniolo, Andrew
2 1990 Cultural Resource Study of the Mount Signal and Dixie Ranch Imperial
3 County Prison Alternatives, Imperial County, California
4 Rogers, Malcolm
5 1929 The Stone Art of the San Dieguito Plateau. American Anthropologist
6 31:454-467.
7 Rogers, Malcolm
8 1945 An Outline of Yuman Prehistory. Southwestern Journal of
9 Anthropology 1:167-198
10 Shackley, M. Steven
11 1982 Archaeological Survey of the Mountain Springs (Jade) to Sand Hills
12 Portion of the SDG&E Interconnection Project 500 KV Transmission
13 Line
14 Shackley, M. Steven
15 1984 Archaeological Investigations in the Western Colorado Desert: A
16 Socioecological Approach, Data Recovery on the Mountain Spring
17 (Jade) to Sand Hills Segment: Southwest Powerlink Project
18 Schaefer, Jerome
19 1981 Phase II Archaeological Survey of the La Rosita 230 Kv
20 Interconnection Project
21 Schaefer, Jerry
22 1983 Cultural Resource Survey of the APS/SDG&E 500kV Transmission
23 Line Right-Of-Way Sand Hills to the Colorado River, Imperial County,
24 California
25 Schaefer, Jerry
26 1986 Late Prehistoric Adaptations During the Final Recessions of Lake
27 Cahuilla: Fish Camps and Quarries on West Mesa, Imperial County,
28 California. Mooney-Levine and Associates, San Diego.
29 Schaefer, Jerry
30 1998 A History and Evaluation of the Old Coachella Canal
31 Schaefer, Jerry, Drew Pallette, Collin O’Neill, and Jim Eighmey

32 1998 A Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation of the Imperial
33 Irrigation District’s C-Line Pole Replacement Project, Imperial County,
34 California
35 Schaefer, Jerry
36 2001 The All-American Canal: An Historic Properties Inventory and
37 Evaluation, Imperial County, California
November 2007 42
FME003058
1 Schaefer, Jerry, and Mark Giambastiani

2 2004 A Class I Cultural Resources Inventory for the All-American Canal
3 Lining Project, Imperial County, California
4 Schaefer, Jerry, Sherri Andrews and Drew Pallette

5 2004 Class II and III Cultural Resources Inventory for the All-American
6 Canal Lining Project, Imperial County, California
7 Shipley, William
8 1978 Native Languages of California: In R. F. Heizer, vol. ed., Handbook of
9 North American Indians, Vol. 8. California: 80-90. Washington, D. C.:
10 Smithsonian Institution
11 Singer, Clay A., John E. Atwood and Shelley Marie Gomes

12 1993 Cultural Resource Records Search and Survey for the Southern
13 California Gas Company Line 6902 South, Imperial County, California
14 Sturm, Bradley L.
15 1995 Cultural Resources Assessment: Southern California Gas Company
16 Natural Gas Transmission Line 6902 Revised Border Crossing,
18 Sturm, Bradley L., Deborah B. McLean and Ivan H. Strudwick

19 1996 Cultural Resources Assessment: Southern California Gas Company
20 Natural Gas Transmission Line 6902, El Centro to Mexicali, Imperial
21 County, California.
22 Thomas
23 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada.
24 Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:1.
25 U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

26 Management, El Centro
27 2001 Environmental Assessment for Presidential Permit Applications for
28 Baja California Power, Inc. and SEMPRA Energy Resources
29 U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land

30 Management, El Centro
31 2004 Environmental Impact Statement for the Imperial-Mexicali 230 kV
32 Transmission Lines
33 Van Wormer, Stephen and James Newland

34 1996 The History of Hedges and the Cargo Muchacho Mining District Part I:
35 A Case Study of the Lives of Mexican Miners in a Company Town of
36 the Southern California Desert. The Journal of San Diego History,
37 Volume 42, No. 2.
November 2007 43
FME003059
1 Von Werlhof, Jay

2 1981 Archaeological Examinations of a Proposed Sand and Gravel
3 Operation near Mount Signal: A Report.
4 Von Werlhof, Jay

5 1992 Archaeological Examinations of Bravo Ranch, Imperial County,
6 California
7 Von Werlhof, Jay

8 2000 Archaeological Examinations of Aggregate Products, Inc. Conveyor
9 Belt Project at All-American Canal, Imperial County, California
10 Wade, Charles
11 1979 Environmental Impact Report for Big Chief Claims Group (Glamis)
12 Walker, Carol, Charles S. Bull, and Jay Von Werlhof

13 1981 Cultural Resource Study of a Proposed Electric Transmission Line
14 from Jade to the Sand Hills, Imperial County, California
15 Weide
16 1976 Regional Environmental History of the Yuha Desert. In Background to
17 Prehistory of the Yuha Desert Region, edited by P.J. Wilke, pp. 9-20,
18 95-97. Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
19 White, Robert S. and Laurie S. White

20 1992 Cultural Resource Study of the New Port of Entry and State Route 7
21 Situated Between the International Border and State Route 98,
22 Calexico, Imperial County, California
23 Wirth Associates
24 1982 Sand Hills to the Colorado River Data recovery Program APS/SDG&E
25 Interconnection Project (now Southwest Powerlink)
26 Wilke, Phillip and H. Lawton

27 1975 Early Observations on the Cultural Geography of Coachella Valley.
28 Ramona: Ballena Press Anthropological Papers 3(1):1-43.
29 York, Andrew, Rebecca McCorkle Apple, Alex Kirkish and Jackson Underwood
30 2000 Overview and Cultural Resources Survey for the De Anza Natural Gas
31 Pipeline
32
November 2007 44
FME003060
1 8. LIST OF SITE RECORDS
2 Ainsworth, P.
3 1981 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-4495. On file at
4 Southeastern Information Center
5 Andrews, Sherri
6 2004 DPR Form CA-IMP-3057 Update, -3065 Update, -4757 Update, -8286,
7 -8287, -8288, -8292, -8293, -8294, -8303H, -8304H, -8309H, -8321,
8 -8322, -8323, -8335, -8336, -8361, -8362H, P-13-008910,
9 P-13-008935 and P-13-008970. On file at Southeastern Information
10 Center
11 Apple, Rebecca
12 2005 DPR Form CA-IMP-4764H Update. On file at Southeastern Information
13 Center
14 Banks, Thomas
15 1979 DPR Form 4-IMP-3794 and -3800. On file at Southeastern Information
16 Center
17 Berryman, Judy
18 2001 DPR Form 4-IMP-4479 Update, and -4481 Update. On file at
20 Carrico, Susan
21 1979 BLM California Desert Survey Record Form 4-IMP-3978 and -3981.
22 On file at Southeastern Information Center
23 Childers
24 N.D. Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-805. On file at
26 Collins, G. Edward
27 1981 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-4478 and -4480. On file
28 at Southeastern Information Center
29 Collins, G. Edward
30 1997 DPR Form CA-IMP-7685 and -7709. On file at Southeastern
31 Information Center
32 Corbin
33 1976 DPR Forms 4-IMP-1383, -1384, -1385, -1387, and 1388. On file at
35 Crabtree, R, and Ellis, B.

36 N.D. Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-319. On file at
November 2007 45
FME003061
1 Dolan, Christy
3 Center
4 Gallegos, Dennis
5 1979 BLM California Desert Survey Record Form 4-IMP-3979. On file at
7 Garst, Hahn, and Simmons

8 1981 DPR Form 4-IMP-6173. On file at Southeastern Information Center
9 Hangan, Margaret
10 2003 DPR Form CA-IMP-1391 Update, -1392 Update, -1393 Update, -3052
11 Update, -3053 Update, -3054 Update, -3055 Update, -3056 Update, -
12 3123 Update, -3124 Update, -3127 Update, -3649 Update, -3796
13 Update, -3797 Update, -3798 Update, -3799 Update, -3801H Update, -
14 3802 Update, -3803 Update, -3804 Update, -3814 Update, -3816
15 Update, -4758H Update, -4760 Update, -4760 Update and -4761
16 Update. On file at Southeastern Information Center
17 Kasper, Jan
19 McLean, Deborah B. and Ivan H. Strudwick

20 1996 DPR Forms CA-IMP-7563H, -7120H Update, -7564H and -7565H. On
21 file at Southeastern Information Center
22 Pallette, Drew
23 1997 DPR Forms CA-IMP-7649 and P-13-007806. On file at Southeastern
24 Information Center
25 Pallette, Drew
26 2004 DPR Forms CA-IMP-4397 Update, -8306H, -8308H, P-13-008865,
27 and P-13-008977.On file at Southeastern Information Center
28 Palmer, K.
29 1981 Imperial Valley College Museum Forms 4-IMP-4759, -4762 and -4763.
30 On file at Southeastern Information Center
31 Richardson, Lindia
33 Schaefer, Jerry, Sherri Andrews and Drew Pallette

34 2004 DPR Form CA-IMP-8314. On file at Southeastern Information Center
35 Schultz, Richard
36 2007 DPR Form CA-IMP-9304. On file at Southeastern Information Center
November 2007 46
FME003062
1 Sturm, Bradley L.
2 1995 DPR Forms CA-IMP-7130H Update, -7363H and -7364H. On file at
4 Thesken, Thomas
6 Vogel
7 1978 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-3047. On file at
9 Von Werlhof, Jay

11 Von Werlhof, Jay

13 Walker, Carol
14 1979 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-3811, -3812, -3813 and -
15 3815. On file at Southeastern Information Center
16 Welch, Pat
17 1982 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-4829, -4830, -4831, -
18 4832 and -4833. On file at Southeastern Information Center
19 Wheelock, Naomi
20 1979 BLM California Desert Survey Record Form 4-IMP-3980H. On file at
22 Wessel
24 York, Andrew, Rebecca McCorkle Apple, Alex Kirkish and Jackson Underwood
26 Center
27 York, Andrew and Norwood, K.

29 Center
30
November 2007 47
FME003063
November 2007 48
FME003064
1 CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

2 APPENDIX A
3 CONSULTATION LETTERS WITH ASSOCIATED NATIVE AMERICAN GROUPS
4
FME003065
1
FME003066
(b) (6)
(b)
A-1
FME003067
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-2
FME003068
A-3
FME003069
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-4
FME003070
A-5
FME003071
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-6
FME003072
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-7
FME003073
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
A-8
FME003074
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-9
FME003075
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-10
FME003076
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-11
FME003077
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-12
FME003078
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-13
FME003079
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-14
FME003080
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-15
FME003081
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-16
FME003082
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-17
FME003083
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-18
FME003084
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-19
FME003085
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-20
FME003086
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-21
FME003087
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-22
FME003088
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-23
FME003089
(b) (6)
A-24
FME003090
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-25
FME003091
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-26
FME003092
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-27
FME003093
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-28
FME003094
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-29
FME003095
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-30
FME003096
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-31
FME003097
A-32
FME003098

2 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 1
3 UPDATED SITE RECORD FORMS
4
5 RESERVED
7
FME003099

2 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT 2
3 UPDATED SITE RECORD FORMS
4
5 RESERVED
6
FME003100
2
FME003101

FME003102
APPENDIX F
Air Quality Emissions Calculations
FME003103
FME003104
APPENDIX F
AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS
Greenhouse Gases
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other
greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court declared
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has the authority to regulate
emissions from new cars and trucks under the landmark environment law.
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.”
These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the
Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat).
Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere.
Over time, the trapped heat results in the phenomenon of global warming.
Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority of
greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by
human activity and are shown in Figure F-1. It is not possible to state that a specific
gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect because the influences of the
various gases are not additive.
Source: Energy Information Administration 2003
Figure F-1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Burning of Gas

(Million Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent)
Figure F-2 displays the annual greenhouse gas emissions by sector in the United
States. Most government agencies and military installations are just beginning to
establish a baseline for their operations and their impact on the greenhouse effect.
Since the USEPA has not promulgated an ambient standard or de minimis level for CO2
emissions for Federal actions, there is no standard value to compare an action against
F-1
FME003105
in terms of meeting or violating the standard. Hence, we shall attempt to establish the
effects on air quality as a result of the amount of CO2 produced by the Federal action
and what could be done to minimize the impact of these emissions.
Source: Rosmarino 2006
Figure F-2. Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
References
Energy Information Administration. 2003. “Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy.”
EIA Brochure. 2003. Available online: <http://www.eia.doe.
gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html>. Last updated April 2, 2004. Accessed November 4,
2007.
F-2
FME003106
Tanyalynnette Rosmarino, Director of Field Engineering, Northeast, BigFix, Inc. 2006. “A Self-
Funding Enterprise Solution to Reduce Power Consumption and Carbon Emissions.” Slide
presentation for the NYS Forum’s May Executive Committee Meeting Building an Energy Smart
IT Environment. 2006. Available online:
<http://www.nysforum.org/documents/html/2007/execcommittee/may/
enterprisepowerconsumptionreduction_files/800x600/slide1.html>. Accessed November 4,
2007.
F-3
FME003107
F-4
Summary Summar zes tota em ss ons by ca endar year.
Combustion Est mates em ss ons from non-road equ pment exhaust as we as pa nt ng.
FME003108
Fugitive Est mates f ne part cu ate em ss ons from earthmov ng, veh c e traff c, and w ndb own dust
Grading Est mates the number of days of s te preparat on, to be used for est mat ng heavy equ pment exhaust and earthmov ng
dust em ss ons
Generator Emissions Est mates the tota em ss ons from emergency generators to power construct on equ pment.
AQCR Summar zes tota em ss ons for the Southeast Desert AQCR T er Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to
Tier Report reg ona em ss ons.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-5 Summary

Air Quality Emissions from Proposed Action
NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
(ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton)
CY2008 Construct on Combust on 2.617 0.390 3.057 0.052 0.088
Construct on Fug t ve Dust 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.029
FME003109
Generator Em ss ons 19.095 1.559 4.113 1.256 1.342

TOTAL CY2008 21.712 1.949 7.171 1.308 46.459
S nce future year budgets were not read y ava ab e, actua 2001 a r em ss ons nventor es for the count es were used as
an approx mat on of the reg ona nventory. Because the Proposed Act on s severa orders of magn tude be ow s gn f cance,
the conc us on wou d be the same, regard ess of whether future year budget data set were used.
Southeast Desert AQCR

Point and Area Sources Combined
NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
2001 87,859 52,726 263,307 5,731 59,359
Source: USEPA-A rData NET T er Report (http://www.epa.gov/a r/data/geose .htm ). S te v s ted on 2 October 2007.
Determination Significance (Significance Threshold = 10%) for Construction Activities

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
M n mum - 2001 87,859 52,726 263,307 5,731 59,359
2008 Em ss ons 21.712 1.949 7.171 1.308 46.459
Proposed Act on % 0.025% 0.004% 0.003% 0.023% 0.078%
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-6 Summary

Construction Combustion Emissions for CY 2008
Combust on Em ss ons of VOC, NOx, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Construct on
Inc udes:
FME003110
100% of Construct Pedestr an Fences and Patro Road 14,129,280 ft2
Assumpt ons:
Tota ground d sturbance for pedestr an fence and patro road wou d be 44.6 m es ong by 60 feet w de (14,129,280 ft 2).
No grad ng wou d be requ red n construct on stag ng areas.
Patro road wou d be graded and ned w th grave . No pav ng wou d be nc uded n A ternat ve 2.
Construct on wou d occur between March and December 2008 for a tota of 190 work ng days.
Tota Bu d ng Construct on Area: 0 ft2 (none)

Tota Demo shed Area: 0 ft2 (none)
Tota Paved Area: 0 ft2 (none)
Tota D sturbed Area: 1,569,920 ft2 (per month)
Construct on Durat on: 0.8 year(s)
Annua Construct on Act v ty: 190 days/yr
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-7 CY2008 Combustion

Emission Factors Used for Construction Equipment
Reference: Gu de to A r Qua ty Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004
Em ss on factors are taken from Tab e 3-2. Assumpt ons regard ng the type and number of equ pment are
FME003111
from Tab e 3-1 un ess otherw se noted.
Grading
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equ pment per 10 acres ( b/day) ( b/day) ( b/day) ( b/day)
Bu dozer 1 29.40 3.66 25.09 0.59 1.17
Motor Grader 1 10.22 1.76 14.98 0.20 0.28
Water Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
Tota per 10 acres of act v ty 3 60.51 9.02 70.69 1.21 2.03
Paving
Paver 1 7.93 1.37 11.62 0.16 0.22
Ro er 1 5.01 0.86 7.34 0.10 0.14
Demolition
Loader 1 7.86 1.35 11.52 0.16 0.22
Hau Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
d
Stat onary
Generator Set 1 11.83 1.47 10.09 0.24 0.47
Industr a Saw 1 17.02 2.12 14.52 0.34 0.68
We der 1 4.48 0.56 3.83 0.09 0.18
Mob e (non-road)
Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.84 0.58
Fork ft 1 4.57 0.79 6.70 0.18 0.13
Crane 1 8.37 1.44 12.27 0.33 0.23
Note: Footnotes for tab es are on fo ow ng page

Architectural Coatings
A r Compressor 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
FME003112
a) The SMAQMD 2004 gu dance suggests a defau t equ pment f eet for each act v t y, assum ng 10 acres of that act v ty,
(e.g., 10 acres of grad ng, 10 acres of pav ng, etc.). The defau t equ pment f eet s ncreased for each 10 acre ncrement
n the s ze of the construct on project. That s, a 26 acre project wou d round to 30 acres and the f eet s ze wou d be
three t mes the defau t f eet for a 10 acre project.
b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference sts em ss on factors for react ve organ c gas (ROG). For the purposes of th s worksheet ROG = VOC.
c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not prov de SO 2 em ss on factors. For th s worksheet, SO 2 em ss ons have been est mated
based on approx mate fue use rate for d ese equ pment and the assumpt on of 500 ppm su fur d ese fue . For the average of
the equ pment f eet, the resu t ng SO2 factor was found to be approx mate y 0.04 t mes the NOx em ss on factor for the mob e equ pment (based
upon 2002 USAF IERA "A r Em ss ons Inventory Gu dance") and 0.02 t mes the NOx em ss on factor for a other equ pment (based on AP-42, Tab e 3.4-1)
d) Typ ca equ pment f eet for bu d ng construct on was not tem zed n SMAQMD 2004 gu dance. The equ pment st above was
assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 gu dance.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY
Equ pment SMAQMD Em ss on Factors ( b/day)

Source Mu t p er* NOx VOC CO SO2** PM10
Grad ng Equ pment 4 872.322 130.034 1019.078 17.446 29.265
Pav ng Equ pment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demo t on Equ pment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Bu d ng Construct on 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
A r Compressor for Arch tectura Coat ng 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Arch tectura Coat ng** 0.000
*The equ pment mu t p er s an nteger that represents un ts of 10 acres for purposes of est mat ng the number of equ pment requ red for the project
**Em ss on factor s from the evaporat on of so vents dur ng pa nt ng, per "A r Qua ty Thresho ds of S gn f cance", SMAQMD, 1994
Examp e: SMAQMD Em ss on Factor for Grad ng Equ pment NOx = (Tota Grad ng NOx per 10 ac*((tota d sturbed area/43560)/10))*(Equ pment Mu t p er)

Summary of Input Parameters
Tota Area Tota Area Tota Days
(ft2) (acres)
Grad ng: 1,569,920 36.04 6 (from "CY2008 Grad ng" worksheet)
Pav ng: 0 0.00 0
FME003113
Demo t on: 0 0.00 0

Bu d ng Construct on: 0 0.00 0
Arch tectura Coat ng 0 0.00 0 (per the SMAQMD "A r Qua ty of Thresho ds of
S gn f cance", 1994)
NOTE: The 'Tota Days' est mate for pav ng s ca cu ated by d v d ng the tota number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, wh ch s a factor der ved from the 2005 MEANS
Heavy Construct on Cost Data, 19th Ed t on, for 'Aspha t c Concrete Pavement, Lots and Dr veways - 6" stone base', wh ch prov des an est mate of square
feet paved per day. There s a so an est mate for 'P a n Cement Concrete Pavement', however the est mate for aspha t s used because t s more conservat ve.
The 'Tota 'Days' est mate for demo t on s ca cu ated by d v d ng the tota number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, wh ch s a factor a so der ved from the 2005
MEANS reference. Th s s ca cu ated by averag ng the demo t on est mates from 'Bu d ng Demo t on - Sma Bu d ngs, Concrete', assum ng a he ght
of 30 feet for a two-story bu d ng; from 'Bu d ng Foot ngs and Foundat ons Demo t on - 6" Th ck, P a n Concrete'; and from 'Demo sh, Remove
Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" th ck, rod re nforced'. Pav ng s doub e-we ghted s nce projects typ ca y nvo ve more pav ng demo t on.
The 'Tota Days' est mate for bu d ng construct on s assumed to be 230 days, un ess project-spec f c data s known.
Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Grad ng Equ pment 5,233.93 780.20 6,114.47 104.68 175.59
Pav ng - - - - -
Demo t on - - - - -
Bu d ng Construct on - - - - -
Arch tectura Coat ngs - - - - -
Total Emissions (lbs): 5,233.93 780.20 6,114.47 104.68 175.59
Results: Total Project Annual Emission Rates

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Tota Project Em ss ons ( bs) 5,233.93 780.20 6,114.47 104.68 175.59
Tota Project Em ss ons (tons) 2.62 0.39 3.06 0.05 0.09

CO2 Emissions
It s assumed that 30 veh c es cons st ng of bu dozer, grader, fork ft, cranes, ro ers, and ght duty trucks wou d be used for th s project.
It s further assumed that the tota approx mate average m es per day per veh c e wou d be 10 m es.
FME003114
It s assumed that the average veh c e w produce 19.5 pounds of CO 2 per ga on of gas used. (www.e a.doe.gov/o af/1605/coeff c ents)
Tota CO2 Em ss ons for A ternat ve 2 55.575 tpy
Examp e: (30 veh c es) x (10 m es/day/veh c e) x (190 days work ng) x (1 ga /10 m es) x (19.5 b CO 2/ga x ton/2000 b) = 55.575 tons CO2
Estimate emissions of CO2 for SDAQCR region is 3.3 million tons per year

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions for CY 2008
Ca cu at on of PM10 Em ss ons Due to S te Preparat on (Uncontro ed).

FME003115
User Input Parameters / Assumpt ons

Acres graded per year: 36.04 acres/yr (From "CY2008 Combust on" worksheet)
Grad ng days/yr: 5.59 days/yr (From "CY2008 Grad ng worksheet)
Exposed days/yr: 90 assumed days/yr graded area s exposed
Grad ng Hours/day: 8 hr/day
So p es area fract on: 0.10 (assumed fract on of s te area covered by so p es)
So percent s t, s: 8.5 % (mean s t content; expected range: 0.56 to 23, AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-1)
So percent mo sture, M: 25 % (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/so mst/w.shtm )
Annua ra nfa days, p: 30 days/yr ra nfa exceeds 0.01 nch/day (AP-42 F g 13.2.2-1)
W nd speed > 12 mph %, I: 23 % Ave. of w nd speed at San D ego, CA
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/w ndr/23188.g f)
Fract on of TSP, J: 0.5 per Ca forn a Env ronmenta Qua ty Act (CEQA) A r Qua ty Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993, p. A9-99
Mean veh c e speed, S: 5 m /hr (On-s te)
Dozer path w dth: 8 ft
Qty construct on veh c es: 10.81 veh c es (From "CY2008 Grad ng worksheet)
On-s te VMT/veh c e/day: 5 m /veh/day (Exc ud ng bu dozer VMT dur ng grad ng)
PM10 Adjustment Factor k 1.5 b/VMT (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
PM10 Adjustment Factor a 0.9 (d mens on ess) (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
PM10 Adjustment Factor b 0.45 (d mens on ess) (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
Mean Veh c e We ght W 40 tons assumed for aggregate trucks
TSP - Tota Suspended Part cu ate

VMT - Veh c e M es Trave ed
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-12 CY2008 Fugitive

Emissions Due to Soil Disturbance Activities
Operat on Parameters (Ca cu ated from User Inputs)

Grad ng durat on per acre 1.2 hr/acre
FME003116
Bu dozer m eage per acre 1 VMT/acre (M es trave ed by bu dozer dur ng grad ng)
Construct on VMT per day 54 VMT/day
Construct on VMT per acre 8.4 VMT/acre (Trave on unpaved surfaces w th n s te)
Equat ons Used (Corrected for PM10)
AP-42 Sect on
Operat on Emp r ca Equat on Un ts (5th Ed t on)
Bu doz ng 0.75(s1 5)/(M1 4) bs/hr Tab e 11.9-1, Overburden
Grad ng (0.60)(0.051)s2 0 bs/VMT Tab e 11.9-1,
Veh c e Traff c (unpaved roads) [(k(s/12)a (W/3)b)] [(365-P)/365] bs/VMT Sect on 13.2.2
Source: Comp at on of A r Po utant Em ss on Factors, Vo . I, USEPA AP-42, Sect on 11.9 dated 10/98 and Sect on 13.2 dated 12/03
Ca cu at on of PM10 Em ss on Factors for Each Operat on
Em ss on Factor Em ss on Factor
Operat on (mass/ un t) Operat on Parameter ( bs/ acre)
Bu doz ng 0.21 bs/hr 1.2 hr/acre 0.30 bs/acre
Grad ng 0.77 bs/VMT 1 VMT/acre 0.80 bs/acre
Veh c e Traff c (unpaved roads) 3.24 bs/VMT 8.4 VMT/acre 27.20 bs/acre

Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface
FME003117
Reference: Ca forn a Env ronmenta Qua ty Act (CEQA) A r Qua ty Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
So P es EF = 1.7(s/1.5)[(365 - p)/235](I/15)(J) = (s)(365 - p)(I)(J)/(3110.2941), p. A9-99.
So P es EF = 10.5 bs/day/acre covered by so p es
Cons der so p es area fract on so that EF app es to graded area
So p es area fract on: 0.10 (Fract on of s te area covered by so p es)

So P es EF = 1.05 bs/day/acres graded
Graded Surface EF = 26.4 bs/day/acre (recommended n CEQA Manua , p. A9-93).
Calculation of Annual PM10 Emissions
Graded Exposed Em ss ons Em ss ons

Source Em ss on Factor Acres/yr days/yr bs/yr tons/yr
Bu doz ng 0.30 bs/acre 36.04 NA 11 0.005
Grad ng 0.80 bs/acre 36.04 NA 29 0.014
Veh c e Traff c 27.20 bs/acre 36.04 NA 980 0.490
Eros on of So P es 1.05 bs/acre/day 36.04 90 3,406 1.703
Eros on of Graded Surface 26.40 bs/acre/day 36.04 90 85,632 42.816
TOTAL 90,058 45.03
So D sturbance EF: 28.30 bs/acre

W nd Eros on EF: 27.45 bs/acre/day
Back ca cu ate to get EF: 447.38 bs/acre/grad ng day

Construction (Grading) Schedule for CY 2008
Est mate of t me requ red to grade a spec f ed area.

FME003118
Input Parameters
Construct on area: 36.04 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combust on" Worksheet)
Qty Equ pment: 10.81 (ca cu ated based on 3 p eces of equ pment for every 10 acres)
Assumpt ons.
Terra n s most y f at.
An average of 6" so s excavated from one ha f of the s te and backf ed to the other ha f of the s te; no so s hau ed off-s te or borrowed.
200 hp bu dozers are used for s te c ear ng.
300 hp bu dozers are used for str pp ng, excavat on, and backf .
V bratory drum ro ers are used for compact ng.
Str pp ng, Excavat on, Backf and Compact on requ re an average of two passes each.
Excavat on and Backf are assumed to nvo ve on y ha f of the s te.
Ca cu at on of days requ red for one p ece of equ pment to grade the spec f ed area.
Reference: Means Heavy Construct on Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.
Acres/yr
Acres per equ p-days (project- Equ p-days
Means L ne No. Operat on Descr pt on Output Un ts equ p-day) per acre spec f c) per year
2230 200 0550 S te C ear ng Dozer & rake, med um brush 8 acre/day 8 0.13 36.04 4.51
2230 500 0300 Str pp ng Topso & stockp ng, adverse so 1,650 cu. yd/day 2.05 0.49 36.04 17.62
2315 432 5220 Excavat on Bu k, open s te, common earth, 150' hau 800 cu. yd/day 0.99 1.01 18.02 18.17
2315 120 5220 Backf Structura , common earth, 150' hau 1,950 cu. yd/day 2.42 0.41 18.02 7.45
2315 310 5020 Compact on V brat ng ro er, 6 " fts, 3 passes 2,300 cu. yd/day 2.85 0.35 36.04 12.64
TOTAL 60.39
Ca cu at on of days requ red for the nd cated p eces of equ pment to grade the des gnated acreage.
(Equ p)(day)/yr: 60.39

Qty Equ pment: 10.81
Grad ng days/yr: 5.59
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-15 CY2008 Grading

Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators
The Proposed Act on wou d requ re s x d ese powered generators to power construct on equ pment. These generators wou d operate approx mate y
8 hours per day for 190 work ng days.
FME003119
Number of Generators 6
Max mum Hours of Operat on 8 hrs/day
Number of Construct on Days 190
Tota Generator Capac ty 75 hp

Hour y Rate 0.5262 MMBtu/hr
Annua Use 4,799 MMBtu/yr
Examp e: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr

Hour y Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr
Annua Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operat on/Day * Number of Construct on Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr
Note: Generators horsepower output capac ty s on y 0.363 percent eff c ent (AP-42 Chapter 3.3).
Source: USEPA AP-42 Vo ume I, Stat onary Interna Combust on Sources, Tab e 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ch ef/ap42/ch03/f na /c03s03.pdf)
Generator Em ss on Factors (D ese )

NOx 4.41 b/MMBtu
VOC 0.36 b/MMBtu
CO 0.95 b/MMBtu
SOx 0.29 b/MMBtu
PM10 0.31 b/MMBtu
Em ss ons (D ese )
NOx 10.581 tpy
VOC 0.864 tpy
CO 2.279 tpy
SOx 0.696 tpy
PM10 0.744 tpy
Examp e: Tota NOx Em ss ons = (Annua MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (4,799*4.41)/2000 = 10.581 tpy
Source: Em ss on Factors: USEPA AP-42 Vo ume I, Stat onary Interna Combust on Sources, Tab e 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ch ef/ap42/ch03/f na /c03s03.pdf)
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-16 Generators

Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Portable Lights
To be conservative, it was assumed that up to 30 portable light units would be needed for construction. These portable lights are powered by a 6-kilowatt self-contained
diesel generators. Portable lights would generally operate continuously every night (approximately 12 hours) 365 days per year.
FME003120
Maximum Hours of Operation 12 hrs/day
Number of Operational Days 190
Total Generator Capacity 8 hp

Hourly Rate 0.0564 MMBtu/hr
Annual Use 3,861 MMBtu/yr
Example: 1hp=0.002546966 MMBtu/Hr

Hourly Rate (MMBtu) = (8 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) = 0.0564 MMBtu/hr
Annual Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operation/Day * Number of Operational Days) = (6*12*365*0.0564) = 7,417 MMBtu/yr
Note: Generators horsepower output capacity is only 0.363 percent efficient (AP-42 Chapter 3.3).
Source: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf)
Generator Emission Factors (Diesel)

NOx 4.41 lb/MMBtu
VOC 0.36 lb/MMBtu
CO 0.95 lb/MMBtu
SOx 0.29 lb/MMBtu
PM10 0.31 lb/MMBtu
Emissions (Diesel)
NOx 8.514 tpy
VOC 0.695 tpy
CO 1.834 tpy
SOx 0.560 tpy
PM10 0.598 tpy
Example: Total NOx Emissions = (Annual MMBtu/year*(EF)/2000 = (7,417*4.41)/2000 = 16.355 tpy
Source: Emission Factors: USEPA AP-42 Volume I, Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.3-1 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf)
CO2 Emissions
0.140 MMBTU/gallons of diesel fuel used
4,799 MMBTU/Year*gallons/0.140 = 34,278 gallons
34,278 gallons*21.3 pounds CO2/gallon = 730,133 pounds
730,133/2000 = 365 tons/year
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-17 Generators

Southeast Desert Air Quality Control Region
Area Source Em ss ons Po nt Source Em ss ons

Row # State County CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC
SORT
FME003121
1 CA Imper a Co 55,867 15,887 15,306 4,816 195 11,186 216 796 885 416 68.9 67.3
2 CA Kern Co 200,112 54,605 39,554 13,636 1,651 38,899 7,112 16,571 3,614 2,205 3,816 2,574
3 CA Los Ange es Co 1,544,169 254,667 63,478 28,466 7,461 232,906 18,187 21,335 5,022 4,474 9,170 18,649
4 CA R vers de Co 341,679 51,314 42,853 12,301 575 44,419 1,031 1,494 474 375 98.1 1,822
5 CA San Bernard no Co 331,485 81,596 33,305 13,727 1,602 46,991 6,769 27,891 5,764 4,728 1,646 3,298
Grand
Tota 255,979 70,492 54,860 18,452 1,846 50,085 7,328 17,367 4,499 2,621 3,885 2,641
SOURCE:
http://www.epa.gov/a r/data/geose .htm
USEPA - A rData NET T er Report
*Net A r po ut on sources (area and po nt) n tons per year (2001)
S te v s ted on 2 October 2007.
Southeast Desert AQCR (40 CFR 81.167): Imper a County, port ons of Kern County, port ons of Los Ange es County, port ons of R vers de County,
and portions of San Bernardino County, California
Alternative 2: Proposed Action F-18 AQCR Tier Report

Summary Summar zes tota em ss ons by ca endar year.
Combustion Est mates em ss ons from non-road equ pment exhaust as we as pa nt ng.
FME003122
Fugitive Est mates f ne part cu ate em ss ons from earthmov ng, veh c e traff c, and w ndb own dust
Grading Est mates the number of days of s te preparat on, to be used for est mat ng heavy equ pment exhaust and earthmov ng
dust em ss ons.
Generator Emissions Est mates the tota em ss ons from emergency generators to power construct on equ pment.
AQCR Summar zes tota em ss ons for the Southeast Desert AQCR T er Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to
Tier Report reg ona em ss ons.
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-19 Summary

Air Quality Emissions from Alternative 3
NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
(ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton)
CY2008 Construct on Combust on 16.356 2.438 19.108 0.327 0.549
Construct on Fug t ve Dust 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 112.563
FME003123
Generator Em ss ons 26.937 2.199 5.803 1.771 1.894

TOTAL CY2008 43.293 4.637 24.910 2.098 115.005
S nce future year budgets were not read y ava ab e, actua 2001 a r em ss ons nventor es for the count es were used as
an approx mat on of the reg ona nventory. Because A ternat ve 3 s severa orders of magn tude be ow s gn f cance,
the conc us on wou d be the same, regard ess of whether future year budget data set were used.
Southeast Desert AQCR

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Year (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy)
2001 87,859 52,726 263,307 5,731 59,359
Source: USEPA-A rData NET T er Report (http://www.epa.gov/a r/data/geose .htm ). S te v s ted on 2 October 2007.
Determination Significance (Significance Threshold = 10%) for Construction Activities

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
M n mum - 2001 87,859 52,726 263,307 5,731 59,359
2008 Em ss ons 43.293 4.637 24.910 2.098 115.005
A ternat ve 3% 0.049% 0.009% 0.009% 0.037% 0.194%
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-20 Summary

Construction Combustion Emissions for CY 2008
Combust on Em ss ons of VOC, NOx, SO2, CO and PM10 Due to Construct on
Inc udes:
FME003124
100% of Construct Pedestr an Fences and Patro Road 35,323,200 ft2
Assumpt ons:
Tota ground d sturbance for pedestr an fence and patro road wou d be 44.6 m es ong by 150 feet w de (35,323,200 ft 2).
No grad ng wou d be requ red n construct on stag ng areas.
Patro road wou d be graded and ned w th grave . No pav ng wou d be nc uded n A ternat ve 2.
Construct on wou d occur between March and December 2008 for a tota of 190 work ng days.
Tota Bu d ng Construct on Area: 0 ft2 (none)

Tota Demo shed Area: 0 ft2 (none)
Tota Paved Area: 0 ft2 (none)
Tota D sturbed Area: 3,924,800 ft2 (per month)
Construct on Durat on: 1.0 year(s)
Annua Construct on Act v ty: 190 days/yr
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-21 CY2008 Combustion

Emission Factors Used for Construction Equipment
Reference: Gu de to A r Qua ty Assessment, SMAQMD, 2004
Em ss on factors are taken from Tab e 3-2. Assumpt ons regard ng the type and number of equ pment are
FME003125
from Tab e 3-1 un ess otherw se noted.
Grading
Bu dozer 1 29.40 3.66 25.09 0.59 1.17
Motor Grader 1 10.22 1.76 14.98 0.20 0.28
Water Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
Paving
Paver 1 7.93 1.37 11.62 0.16 0.22
Ro er 1 5.01 0.86 7.34 0.10 0.14
Demolition
Loader 1 7.86 1.35 11.52 0.16 0.22
Hau Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
d
Stat onary
Generator Set 1 11.83 1.47 10.09 0.24 0.47
Industr a Saw 1 17.02 2.12 14.52 0.34 0.68
We der 1 4.48 0.56 3.83 0.09 0.18
Mob e (non-road)
Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.84 0.58
Fork ft 1 4.57 0.79 6.70 0.18 0.13
Crane 1 8.37 1.44 12.27 0.33 0.23
Note: Footnotes for tab es are on fo ow ng page

Architectural Coatings
A r Compressor 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
FME003126
a) The SMAQMD 2004 gu dance suggests a defau t equ pment f eet for each act v t y, assum ng 10 acres of that act v ty,
(e.g., 10 acres of grad ng, 10 acres of pav ng, etc.). The defau t equ pment f eet s ncreased for each 10 acre ncrement
n the s ze of the construct on project. That s, a 26 acre project wou d round to 30 acres and the f eet s ze wou d be
three t mes the defau t f eet for a 10 acre project.
b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference sts em ss on factors for react ve organ c gas (ROG). For the purposes of th s worksheet ROG = VOC.
c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not prov de SO 2 em ss on factors. For th s worksheet, SO 2 em ss ons have been est mated
based on approx mate fue use rate for d ese equ pment and the assumpt on of 500 ppm su fur d ese fue . For the average of
the equ pment f eet, the resu t ng SO2 factor was found to be approx mate y 0.04 t mes the NOx em ss on factor for the mob e equ pment (based
upon 2002 USAF IERA "A r Em ss ons Inventory Gu dance") and 0.02 t mes the NOx em ss on factor for a other equ pment (based on AP-42, Tab e 3.4-1)
d) Typ ca equ pment f eet for bu d ng construct on was not tem zed n SMAQMD 2004 gu dance. The equ pment st above was
assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 gu dance.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY
Equ pment SMAQMD Em ss on Factors ( b/day)

Source Mu t p er* NOx VOC CO SO2** PM10
Grad ng Equ pment 10 5452.012 812.711 6369.240 109.040 182.905
Pav ng Equ pment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Demo t on Equ pment 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Bu d ng Construct on 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
A r Compressor for Arch tectura Coat ng 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Arch tectura Coat ng** 0.000
*The equ pment mu t p er s an nteger that represents un ts of 10 acres for purposes of est mat ng the number of equ pment requ red for the project
**Em ss on factor s from the evaporat on of so vents dur ng pa nt ng, per "A r Qua ty Thresho ds of S gn f cance", SMAQMD, 1994
Examp e: SMAQMD Em ss on Factor for Grad ng Equ pment NOx = (Tota Grad ng NOx per 10 ac*((tota d sturbed area/43560)/10))*(Equ pment Mu t p er)

Summary of Input Parameters
Tota Area Tota Days
Tota Area (ft2) (acres)
Grad ng: 3,924,800 90.10 6 (from "CY2008 Grad ng" worksheet)
Pav ng: 0 0.00 0
FME003127
Demo t on: 0 0.00 0

Bu d ng Construct on: 0 0.00 0
Arch tectura Coat ng 0 0.00 0 (per the SMAQMD "A r Qua ty of Thresho ds of
S gn f cance", 1994)
NOTE: The 'Tota Days' est mate for pav ng s ca cu ated by d v d ng the tota number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, wh ch s a factor der ved from the 2005 MEANS
Heavy Construct on Cost Data, 19th Ed t on, for 'Aspha t c Concrete Pavement, Lots and Dr veways - 6" stone base', wh ch prov des an est mate of square
feet paved per day. There s a so an est mate for 'P a n Cement Concrete Pavement', however the est mate for aspha t s used because t s more conservat ve.
The 'Tota 'Days' est mate for demo t on s ca cu ated by d v d ng the tota number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, wh ch s a factor a so der ved from the 2005
MEANS reference. Th s s ca cu ated by averag ng the demo t on est mates from 'Bu d ng Demo t on - Sma Bu d ngs, Concrete', assum ng a he ght
of 30 feet for a two-story bu d ng; from 'Bu d ng Foot ngs and Foundat ons Demo t on - 6" Th ck, P a n Concrete'; and from 'Demo sh, Remove
Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" th ck, rod re nforced'. Pav ng s doub e-we ghted s nce projects typ ca y nvo ve more pav ng demo t on.
The 'Tota Days' est mate for bu d ng construct on s assumed to be 230 days, un ess project-spec f c data s known.
Total Project Emissions by Activity (lbs)

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Grad ng Equ pment 32,712.07 4,876.27 38,215.44 654.24 1,097.43
Pav ng - - - - -
Demo t on - - - - -
Bu d ng Construct on - - - - -
Arch tectura Coat ngs - - - - -
Total Emissions (lbs): 32,712.07 4,876.27 38,215.44 654.24 1,097.43
Results: Total Project Annual Emission Rates

NOx VOC CO SO2 PM10
Tota Project Em ss ons ( bs) 32,712.07 4,876.27 38,215.44 654.24 1,097.43
Tota Project Em ss ons (tons) 16.36 2.44 19.11 0.33 0.55

CO2 Emissions
It s assumed that 75 veh c es cons st ng of bu dozer, grader, fork ft, cranes, ro ers, and ght duty trucks wou d be used for th s project.
It s further assumed that the tota approx mate average m es per day per veh c e wou d be 10 m es.
FME003128
It s assumed that the average veh c e w produce 19.5 pounds of CO 2 per ga on of gas used. (www.e a.doe.gov/o af/1605/coeff c ents)
Tota CO2 Em ss ons for A ternat ve 3 138.938 tpy
Examp e: (75 veh c es) x (10 m es/day/veh c e) x (190 days work ng) x (1 ga /10 m es) x (19.5 b CO 2/ga x ton/2000 b) = 138.938 tons CO 2
Estimate emissions of CO2 for SDAQCR region is 3.3 million tons per year

Construction Fugitive Dust Emissions for CY 2008
Ca cu at on of PM10 Em ss ons Due to S te Preparat on (Uncontro ed).

FME003129
User Input Parameters / Assumpt ons

Acres graded per year: 90.10 acres/yr (From "CY2008 Combust on" worksheet)
Grad ng days/yr: 5.59 days/yr (From "CY2008 Grad ng worksheet)
Exposed days/yr: 90 assumed days/yr graded area s exposed
Grad ng Hours/day: 8 hr/day
So p es area fract on: 0.10 (assumed fract on of s te area covered by so p es)
So percent s t, s: 8.5 % (mean s t content; expected range: 0.56 to 23, AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-1)
So percent mo sture, M: 25 % (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/so mst/w.shtm )
Annua ra nfa days, p: 30 days/yr ra nfa exceeds 0.01 nch/day (AP-42 F g 13.2.2-1)
W nd speed > 12 mph %, I: 23 % Ave. of w nd speed at San D ego, CA
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/w ndr/23188.g f)
Fract on of TSP, J: 0.5 per Ca forn a Env ronmenta Qua ty Act (CEQA) A r Qua ty Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993, p. A9-99
Mean veh c e speed, S: 5 m /hr (On-s te)
Dozer path w dth: 8 ft
Qty construct on veh c es: 27.03 veh c es (From "CY2008 Grad ng worksheet)
On-s te VMT/veh c e/day: 5 m /veh/day (Exc ud ng bu dozer VMT dur ng grad ng)
PM10 Adjustment Factor k 1.5 b/VMT (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
PM10 Adjustment Factor a 0.9 (d mens on ess) (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
PM10 Adjustment Factor b 0.45 (d mens on ess) (AP-42 Tab e 13.2.2-2 12/03 for PM10 for unpaved roads)
Mean Veh c e We ght W 40 tons assumed for aggregate trucks
TSP - Tota Suspended Part cu ate

VMT - Veh c e M es Trave ed
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-26 CY2008 Fugitive

Emissions Due to Soil Disturbance Activities
Operat on Parameters (Ca cu ated from User Inputs)

Grad ng durat on per acre 0.5 hr/acre
FME003130
Bu dozer m eage per acre 1 VMT/acre (M es trave ed by bu dozer dur ng grad ng)
Construct on VMT per day 135 VMT/day
Construct on VMT per acre 8.4 VMT/acre (Trave on unpaved surfaces w th n s te)
Equat ons Used (Corrected for PM10)
AP-42 Sect on
Operat on Emp r ca Equat on Un ts (5th Ed t on)
Bu doz ng 0.75(s1 5)/(M1 4) bs/hr Tab e 11.9-1, Overburden
Grad ng (0.60)(0.051)s2 0 bs/VMT Tab e 11.9-1,
Veh c e Traff c (unpaved roads) [(k(s/12)a (W/3)b)] [(365-P)/365] bs/VMT Sect on 13.2.2
Source: Comp at on of A r Po utant Em ss on Factors, Vo . I, USEPA AP-42, Sect on 11.9 dated 10/98 and Sect on 13.2 dated 12/03
Ca cu at on of PM10 Em ss on Factors for Each Operat on
Em ss on Factor Em ss on Factor
Operat on (mass/ un t) Operat on Parameter ( bs/ acre)
Bu doz ng 0.21 bs/hr 0.5 hr/acre 0.10 bs/acre
Grad ng 0.77 bs/VMT 1 VMT/acre 0.80 bs/acre
Veh c e Traff c (unpaved roads) 3.24 bs/VMT 8.4 VMT/acre 27.20 bs/acre

Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface
FME003131
Reference: Ca forn a Env ronmenta Qua ty Act (CEQA) A r Qua ty Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
So P es EF = 1.7(s/1.5)[(365 - p)/235](I/15)(J) = (s)(365 - p)(I)(J)/(3110.2941), p. A9-99.
So P es EF = 10.5 bs/day/acre covered by so p es
Cons der so p es area fract on so that EF app es to graded area
So p es area fract on: 0.10 (Fract on of s te area covered by so p es)

So P es EF = 1.05 bs/day/acres graded
Graded Surface EF = 26.4 bs/day/acre (recommended n CEQA Manua , p. A9-93).
Calculation of Annual PM10 Emissions
Graded Exposed Em ss ons Em ss ons

Source Em ss on Factor Acres/yr days/yr bs/yr tons/yr
Bu doz ng 0.10 bs/acre 90.10 NA 9 0.005
Grad ng 0.80 bs/acre 90.10 NA 72 0.036
Veh c e Traff c 27.20 bs/acre 90.10 NA 2,451 1.225
Eros on of So P es 1.05 bs/acre/day 90.10 90 8,515 4.257
Eros on of Graded Surface 26.40 bs/acre/day 90.10 90 214,080 107.040
TOTAL 225,126 112.56
So D sturbance EF: 28.10 bs/acre

W nd Eros on EF: 27.45 bs/acre/day
Back ca cu ate to get EF: 447.35 bs/acre/grad ng day

Construction (Grading) Schedule for CY 2008
Est mate of t me requ red to grade a spec f ed area.

FME003132
Input Parameters
Construct on area: 90.10 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combust on" Worksheet)
Qty Equ pment: 27.03 (ca cu ated based on 3 p eces of equ pment for every 10 acres)
Assumpt ons.
Terra n s most y f at.
An average of 6" so s excavated from one ha f of the s te and backf ed to the other ha f of the s te; no so s hau ed off-s te or borrowed.
200 hp bu dozers are used for s te c ear ng.
300 hp bu dozers are used for str pp ng, excavat on, and backf .
V bratory drum ro ers are used for compact ng.
Str pp ng, Excavat on, Backf and Compact on requ re an average of two passes each.
Excavat on and Backf are assumed to nvo ve on y ha f of the s te.
Ca cu at on of days requ red for one p ece of equ pment to grade the spec f ed area.
Reference: Means Heavy Construct on Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.
Acres/yr
Acres per equ p-days (project- Equ p-days
Means L ne No. Operat on Descr pt on Output Un ts equ p-day) per acre spec f c) per year
2230 200 0550 S te C ear ng Dozer & rake, med um brush 8 acre/day 8 0.13 90.10 11.26
2230 500 0300 Str pp ng Topso & stockp ng, adverse so 1,650 cu. yd/day 2.05 0.49 90.10 44.05
2315 432 5220 Excavat on Bu k, open s te, common earth, 150' hau 800 cu. yd/day 0.99 1.01 45.05 45.43
2315 120 5220 Backf Structura , common earth, 150' hau 1,950 cu. yd/day 2.42 0.41 45.05 18.64
2315 310 5020 Compact on V brat ng ro er, 6 " fts, 3 passes 2,300 cu. yd/day 2.85 0.35 90.10 31.60
TOTAL 150.97
Ca cu at on of days requ red for the nd cated p eces of equ pment to grade the des gnated acreage.
(Equ p)(day)/yr: 150.97

Qty Equ pment: 27.03
Grad ng days/yr: 5.59
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-29 CY2008 Grading

Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators
A ternat ve 3 wou d requ re s x d ese powered generators to power construct on equ pment. These generators wou d operate approx mate y
8 hours per day for 190 work ng days.
FME003133
Number of Construct on Days 190


Hour y Rate (MMBtu) = (75 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) =0.5262 MMBtu/hr
Annua Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operat on/Day * Number of Construct on Days) = (6*8*190*0.5262) = 4,799 MMBtu/yr

NOx 4.41 b/MMBtu
VOC 0.36 b/MMBtu
CO 0.95 b/MMBtu
SOx 0.29 b/MMBtu
PM10 0.31 b/MMBtu
Em ss ons (D ese )
NOx 10.581 tpy
VOC 0.864 tpy
CO 2.279 tpy
SOx 0.696 tpy
PM10 0.744 tpy
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-30 Generators

Emissions from Diesel Powered Generators for Portable Lights
To be conservat ve, t was assumed that up to 30 portab e ght un ts wou d be needed for construct on. These portab e ghts are powered by a 6-k owatt se f-
conta ned d ese generators. Portab e ghts wou d genera y operate cont nuous y every n ght (approx mate y 12 hours) 365 days per year.
FME003134
Number of Operat ona Days 365


Hour y Rate (MMBtu) = (8 Hp/0.363)*(0.002546699 MMBtu/hr) = 0.0564 MMBtu/hr
Annua Use (MMBtu) = (Number of Generator * Hours Operat on/Day * Number of Operat ona Days) = (6*12*365*0.0564) = 7,417 MMBtu/yr

NOx 4.41 b/MMBtu
VOC 0.36 b/MMBtu
CO 0.95 b/MMBtu
SOx 0.29 b/MMBtu
PM10 0.31 b/MMBtu
Em ss ons (D ese )
NOx 16.355 tpy
VOC 1.335 tpy
CO 3.523 tpy
SOx 1.076 tpy
PM10 1.150 tpy
CO2 Emissions
0.140 MMBTU/ga ons of d ese fue used

4,799 MMBTU/Year*ga ons/0.140 = 34,278 ga ons
34,278 ga ons*21.3 pounds CO2/ga on = 730,133 pounds
730,133/2000 = 365 tons/year
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-31 Generators

Southeast Desert Air Quality Control Region
Area Source Em ss ons Po nt Source Em ss ons

Row # State County CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SO2 VOC
SORT
FME003135
1 CA Imper a Co 55,867 15,887 15,306 4,816 195 11,186 216 796 885 416 68.9 67.3
2 CA Kern Co 200,112 54,605 39,554 13,636 1,651 38,899 7,112 16,571 3,614 2,205 3,816 2,574
3 CA Los Ange es Co 1,544,169 254,667 63,478 28,466 7,461 232,906 18,187 21,335 5,022 4,474 9,170 18,649
4 CA R vers de Co 341,679 51,314 42,853 12,301 575 44,419 1,031 1,494 474 375 98.1 1,822
5 CA San Bernard no Co 331,485 81,596 33,305 13,727 1,602 46,991 6,769 27,891 5,764 4,728 1,646 3,298
Grand
Tota 255,979 70,492 54,860 18,452 1,846 50,085 7,328 17,367 4,499 2,621 3,885 2,641
SOURCE:
http://www.epa.gov/a r/data/geose .htm
USEPA - A rData NET T er Report
*Net A r po ut on sources (area and po nt) n tons per year (2001)
S te v s ted on 2 October 2007.
Southeast Desert AQCR (40 CFR 81.167): Imper a County, port ons of Kern County, port ons of Los Ange es County, port ons of R vers de County,
and portions of San Bernardino County, California
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-32 AQCR Tier Report

CREW: U.S. Department of Homeland Security: U.S. Customs and Border Protection: Regarding Border Fence: 12/22/10 - FME002758-FME003135 El Centro DEA - 01.03.08 (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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 - FME002758-FME003135 El Centro DEA - 01.03.08 (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FME002758

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

← continued from front cover RCRA Resource Conservation and

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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

Cooperating Agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), El Centro Field

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

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction, operation,

Report Designation: Draft Environmental Assessment (EA).

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

The EA will analyze and document potential environmental consequences

You may submit written comments on this Draft EA to CBP. To avoid

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

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

12 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their

22 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared through coordination

28 PURPOSE AND NEED

Draft EA January 2008

1 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border

23 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Draft EA January 2008

17 Alternative 2: Proposed Action

23 In alignment with Federal mandates, each proposed tactical infrastructure section

27 Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative

Draft EA January 2008

1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Draft EA January 2008

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

Draft EA January 2008

Draft EA January 2008

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................. INSIDE FRONT AND BACK COVERS

Draft EA January 2008

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................... 3-21

4.14 SOCIOECONOMIS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND PROTECTION OF

Draft EA January 2008

ES-1. Summary of Anticipated Environmental Impacts, by Alternative ............................................ 5

Draft EA January 2008

28 1.1 USBP BACKGROUND

34 • Establish substantial probability of apprehending terrorists and their

Figure 1-1. Locations of the Proposed Tactical Infrastructure

1 • Leverage “smart border” technology to multiply the effect of enforcement

14 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

23 The Proposed Action is needed because of high levels of illegal cross-border

32 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION

Draft EA January 2008

1 assessment of local operational requirements where such infrastructure would

10 1.4 FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

18 An EA is prepared when a proposed action is anticipated to have potentially

22 • Briefly provide evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare

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

Draft EA January 2008

10 Table 1-1. Major Permits, Approvals, and Interagency Coordination

11 1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

20 This Draft EA also serves as a public notice regarding impacts on floodplains.

Draft EA January 2008

12 1.6 COOPERATING AND COORDINATING AGENCIES

Draft EA January 2008

1 headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president.

10 1.7 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Draft EA January 2008

1 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

2 This section provides detailed information on CBP’s proposal to construct,