Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Preliminary Draft
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
El Centro Sector, California
FME003438
COVER SHEET
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 Worth
FME003442
District, Engineering Construction Support Office, 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10,
Fort Worth, TX 76102, Fax: (757) 229-5585.
You may submit written comments to CBP by contacting the SBI Tactical
Infrastructure Program Office. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
Privacy Notice
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND OPERATION
OF TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
EL CENTRO SECTOR, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 2007
FME003444
FME003445
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FME003446
FME003447
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:
1 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary
2 to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in USBP El Centro
3 Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border activities
4 within the USBP El Centro Sector by improving enforcement, preventing
5 terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the
6 flow of illegal drugs, and enhancing response time, while providing a safer work
7 environment for USBP agents.
8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
9 CBP notified relevant Federal, state, and local agencies of the Proposed Action
10 and requested input regarding environmental concerns they might have. CBP
11 has coordinated with agencies such as the BLM; U.S. Environmental Protection
12 Agency (USEPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); California State
13 Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local
14 agencies. Input from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis
15 of potential environmental impacts.
16 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
17 in the Imperial Valley Press. This is done to solicit comments on the Proposed
18 Action and involve the local community in the decisionmaking process.
19 Comments from the public and other Federal, state, and local agencies will be
20 incorporated into the Final EA.
34 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
35 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
36 Under the No Action Alternative, proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
37 built and there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities
38 along the U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations
39 within USBP El Centro Sector. The No Action Alternative would not meet USBP
21 This alternative would also include construction and maintenance of access and
22 patrol roads. The patrol roads would be constructed between the primary and
23 secondary fences. The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative
24 would be similar to that of Alternative 2.
29 USBP would follow design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts and
30 would implement mitigation measures to further reduce or offset adverse
31 environmental impacts. Design criteria to reduce adverse environmental impacts
32 include consulting with Federal and state agencies and other stakeholders to
33 avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts and develop appropriate Best
34 Management Practices (BMPs), and avoiding physical disturbance and
35 construction of solid barriers in wetlands/riparian areas and streambeds. BMPs
36 would include implementation of a Construction Mitigation and Restoration
37 (CM&R) Plan; Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; Dust
38 Control Plan; Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; and Unanticipated
39 Discovery Plan for Cultural Resources to protect natural and cultural resources.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FME003454
FME003455
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
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 .................................................................................................. 3-55
TABLES
SECTION 1
Introduction
FME003460
FME003461
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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
7 pedestrian fence, lighting, and patrol roads; one section of lighting; and access
8 roads within USBP‟s El Centro Sector. Individual sections would range from
9 approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length (see Figure 1-1). The locations of the
10 individual tactical infrastructure sections were proposed based on the situational
11 and operational requirements of USBP El Centro Sector. Each tactical
12 infrastructure section represents an individual infrastructure project and could
13 proceed independent of the other sections. The proposed fence and tactical
14 infrastructure would cross multiple privately owned land parcels and public lands
15 managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
U.S./Mexico California r
Ri ve
International Border 30 ado
115 Salton
r
Sea
Arizona
Ports of Entry San
Co lo
Phoenix
Diego
B-1 Fence Section Label 111
Tijuana
Preliminary Draft EA
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
Ne
27
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
Hun t
Heber Rd
Heb e
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
November 2007
FME003463
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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.
20 The Proposed Action is needed to provide USBP agents with the tools necessary
21 to strengthen their control of the U.S. borders between POEs in the USBP
22 El Centro Sector. The Proposed Action would help to deter illegal cross-border
23 activities within the USBP El Centro Sector by improving enforcement, preventing
24 terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, reducing the
25 flow of illegal drugs, and enhancing response time, while providing a safer work
26 environment for USBP agents.
1 the proposed tactical infrastructure within the El Centro Sector. Details of the
2 Proposed Action are included in Section 2.2.2.
20 To comply with NEPA, the planning and decisionmaking process for actions
21 proposed by Federal agencies involves a study of other relevant environmental
22 statutes and regulations. The NEPA process, however, does not replace
23 procedural or substantive requirements of other environmental statutes and
24 regulations. It addresses them collectively in the form of an EA or EIS, which
25 enables the decisionmaker to have a comprehensive view of major
26 environmental issues and requirements associated with the Proposed Action.
27 According to CEQ regulations, the requirements of NEPA must be integrated
28 “with other planning and environmental review procedures required by law or by
29 agency so that all such procedures run concurrently rather than consecutively.”
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)
15 Through the public involvement process, USBP notified relevant Federal, state,
16 and local agencies of the Proposed Action and requested input regarding
17 environmental concerns they might have regarding the Proposed Action. The
1 public involvement process provides USBP with the opportunity to cooperate with
2 and consider state and local views in its decision regarding implementing this
3 Federal proposal. As part of the EA process, USBP has coordinated with
4 agencies such as the BLM; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA);
5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); California State Historic Preservation
6 Office (SHPO); and other Federal, state, and local agencies (see Appendix C).
7 Input from agency responses has been incorporated into the analysis of potential
8 environmental impacts.
9 A Notice of Availability (NOA) for this EA and proposed FONSI will be published
10 in the Imperial Valley Press. This is done to solicit comments on the Proposed
11 Action and involve the local community in the decisionmaking process.
12 Comments from the public and other Federal, state, and local agencies will be
13 incorporated into the Final EA and included in Appendix C.
14 Throughout the NEPA process, the public may obtain information concerning the
15 status and progress of the EA via the project Web site at
16 www.BorderFenceNEPA.com; by emailing information@BorderFenceNEPA.com;
17 or by written request to Mr. Charles McGregor, Environmental Manager, U.S.
18 Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Engineering and Construction
19 Support Office, 814 Taylor Street, Room 3B10, Fort Worth, TX 76102, and Fax:
20 (757) 299-5585.
29 The USACE-Los Angeles District Engineer has the authority to authorize actions
30 under Section 404 of the CWA. Applications for work involving the discharge of
31 fill material into waters of the United States will be submitted to the USACE-Los
32 Angeles District Regulatory Program Branch for review and a decision on
33 issuance of a permit will be reached.
34 Section 7 of the ESA (P.L. 93-205, December 28, 1973) states that any project
35 authorized, funded, or conducted by any Federal agency should not
36 “…jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened
37 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such
38 species which is determined … to be critical.” The USFWS is a cooperating
39 agency regarding this Proposed Action to determine whether any federally listed
40 or proposed endangered or threatened species or their designated critical
41 habitats would be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action, to streamline the
7 Along some of the proposed fence sections the tactical infrastructure would
8 follow rights-of-ways (ROWs) administered by the IBWC. The IBWC is an
9 international body composed of a U.S. Section and a Mexican Section, each
10 headed by an Engineer-Commissioner appointed by their respective president.
11 Each Section is administered independently of the other. The U.S. Section of the
12 IBWC is a Federal government agency headquartered in El Paso, Texas, and
13 operates under the foreign policy guidance of the Department of State (IBWC
14 2007). The U.S. Section of the IBWC would provide access and ROWs to
15 construct proposed tactical infrastructure within the El Centro Sector. It will also
16 ensure that design and placement of the proposed tactical infrastructure does not
17 impact flood control process and does not violate treaty obligations between the
18 United States and Mexico.
39
SECTION 2
Proposed Action and Alternatives
FME003470
FME003471
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
33
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.
Border Length of
Section General Land Type of Tactical
Patrol New Fence
Number Location Ownership Infrastructure
Station Section
Pedestrian fence,
El West of Public: BLM-
B-1 lighting, patrol road, 11.3 miles
Centro Pinto managed
access roads
Monument
Pedestrian fence,
El 224 to Public: BLM-
B-2 lighting, patrol road, 2.4 miles
Centro West of managed
access roads
Calexico
West of Public: BLM-
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 Design criteria that have been established based on USBP operational needs
3 require that, at a minimum, any fencing must meet the following requirements:
11 Typical pedestrian fence designs that could be used are included in Appendix A.
12 The combined preliminary estimate to construct the proposed individual tactical
13 infrastructure sections is approximately (b) (4)
10 Wherever possible, existing roads and previously disturbed areas would be used
11 for construction access and staging areas. If fill material was needed, the
12 construction contractor would use clean material from commercially available
13 sources that do not pose an adverse impact on biological or cultural resources.
14 Figure 2-1 shows a typical schematic of temporary and permanent impact areas
15 for tactical infrastructure.
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).
NOT TO SCALE
57
PEDESTRIAN FENCE
OA
PA RO
6 E MANEN M AC AREA
United tates
M
4 Figure 2-2 shows a schematic of typical project corridor areas for this alternative.
5 The design of the tactical infrastructure for this alternative would be similar to that
6 of Alternative 2.
30 This alternative was determined not to meet the screening criteria of USBP
31 operational requirements. The physical presence of an increased number of
32 agents could provide an enhanced level of deterrence against illegal entry into
33 the United States, but the use of additional agents alone, in lieu of the proposed
34 tactical infrastructure, would not provide a practical solution to achieving effective
35 control of the border in the El Centro Sector. The use of physical barriers has
36 been demonstrated to slow cross-border violators and provide USBP agents with
37 additional time to make apprehensions (USACE 2000).
38
NOT TO SCALE
SE ONDA Y FENCE
R MARY FENCE
PATROL ROAD
3
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
2-7
FME003478
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Description Five individual tactical Five individual tactical
infrastructure sections infrastructure sections composed
composed of pedestrian fence, of primary and secondary
lighting, and patrol roads; one pedestrian fence constructed 130
section of lighting; and access feet apart, lighting, and patrol
roads roads between fences; 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 Project 324 acres 810 acres
Corridor
2
12
SECTION 3
Affected Environment and Consequences
FME003482
FME003483
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
2 All potentially relevant resource areas were initially considered in this EA. Some
3 were eliminated from detailed examination because of their inapplicability to this
4 proposal. General descriptions of the eliminated resources and the basis for
5 elimination are described below.
6 In compliance with NEPA, the CEQ guidelines, and DHS MD 5100.1, the
7 following evaluation of environmental impacts focuses on those resources and
8 conditions potentially subject to impacts, on potentially significant environmental
9 issues deserving of study, and deemphasizes insignificant issues. Some
10 environmental resources and conditions that are often analyzed in an EA have
11 been omitted from detailed analysis. The following provides the basis for such
12 exclusions:
13 Climate. The Proposed Action would neither affect nor be affected by the
14 climate. Emissions and their impact on air quality are discussed in Section 3.10.
15 Utilities and infrastructure. The Proposed Action would not be located in any
16 utility corridors, and would not impact utilities or similar infrastructure. Operation
17 and maintenance of the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be connected
18 to any utilities.
11 The term “land use” refers to real property classifications that indicate either
12 natural conditions or the types of human activity occurring on a parcel. In many
13 cases, land use descriptions are codified in local zoning laws. There is, however,
14 no nationally recognized convention or uniform terminology for describing land
15 use categories. As a result, the meanings of various land use descriptions,
16 “labels,” and definitions vary among jurisdictions.
17 Two main objectives of land use planning are to ensure orderly growth and
18 compatible uses among adjacent property parcels or areas. Tools supporting
19 land use planning include master plans/management plans and zoning
20 regulations. Land use constraints due to sound are described in Section 3.11.
35 Government Special Public Use Zones are areas for the construction,
36 development, and operation of governmental facilities and special public
37 facilities, such as security facilities, jails, solid and hazardous wastes facilities,
38 and other similar special public benefit uses (ICDP 1998).
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.
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 remote rural area that is managed by BLM, including 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.
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.
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.
39
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
percent Permeability is
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
percent Permeability is
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
percent Permeability is
sand Drained
rapid.
Farmland
Name Type Slope Drainage Hydric* Properties
Importance
Found on
Loamy Somewhat
0–2 basin floors.
Superstition fine Excessively No Prime
percent Permeability is
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.
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.
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
3-7
FME003490
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
3-8
FME003491
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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.
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).
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.
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. Approximately, XXX gallons of water would
5 be needed for the construction of the proposed 44.6 miles of fence. Water not
6 lost to evaporation from watering of surfaces during construction would
7 potentially contribute to aquifer recharge through downward seepage.
25 Waters of the United States are defined within the CWA, as amended, and
26 jurisdiction is addressed by the USEPA and the USACE. These agencies assert
27 jurisdiction over (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to
28 navigable waters, (3) non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that
29 are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-around or have
30 continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months), and (4) wetlands
31 that directly abut such tributaries (USDOJ 2007).
32 The CWA (as amended in 1977) established the basic structure for regulating
33 discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States (USEPA 2007a).
34 The CWA objective is restoration and maintenance of chemical, physical, and
35 biological integrity of the Nation‟s waters (USDOJ 2007). To achieve this
36 objective several goals were enacted, including (1) discharge of pollutants into
37 navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; (2) water quality which provides for the
38 protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
1 recreation in and on the water be achieved by 1983; (3) the discharge of toxic
2 pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited; (4) Federal financial assistance be
3 provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works; (5) the national
4 policy that areawide waste treatment management planning processes be
5 developed and implemented to ensure adequate control of sources of pollutants
6 in each state; (6) the national policy that a major research and demonstration
7 effort be made to develop technology necessary to eliminate the discharge of
8 pollutants into navigable waters, waters of the contiguous zone, and the oceans;
9 and (7) the national policy that programs be developed and implemented in an
10 expeditious manner so as to enable the goals to be met through the control of
11 both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. The USACE regulates the
12 discharge of dredged and fill material (e.g., concrete, riprap, soil, cement block,
13 gravel, sand) into waters of the United States including adjacent wetlands under
14 Section 404 of the CWA and work on/or structures in or affecting navigable
15 waters of the United States under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
16 1899.
17 Wetlands and riparian habitats represent some of the most ecologically important
18 and rare vegetation communities on desert landscapes. They provide keystone
19 habitat for a wide array of plant and animal species including resident and
20 migrating birds, amphibian and fish species, mammals, and insects. Vegetation
21 production and diversity are usually very high in and around these mesic to
22 aquatic sites, with many plant species adapted only to these unique
23 environments. In addition, wetlands and riparian zones provide a variety of
24 hydrologic functions vital to ecosystem integrity. These include water filtration of
25 sediment, groundwater recharge, and nutrient/chemical capture (USFS 1995).
26 Development and conversion of wetlands and riparian zones affects wildlife
27 diversity, carrying capacity, and hydrologic regime. Changes to and removal of
28 wetlands can cause effects that are proportionally greater than elsewhere in an
29 ecosystem (Graber 1996).
30 Wetlands are a protected resource under EO 11990, issued in 1977 “to avoid to
31 the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the
32 destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of
33 new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.”
34 Wetlands have been defined by agencies responsible for their management. The
35 term “wetland” used herein, is defined using USACE conventions. The USACE
36 has jurisdiction to protect wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA using the
37 following definition:
7 Wetlands are protected as a subset of “the waters of the United States” under
8 Section 404 of the CWA. The term “waters of the United States” has a broad
9 meaning under the CWA and incorporates deepwater aquatic habitats and
10 special aquatic habitats (including wetlands).
11 Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
12 Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill materials
13 into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, Section 404
14 of the CWA also grants states with sufficient resources the right to assume these
15 responsibilities.
16 Section 401 of the CWA gives the state board and regional boards the authority
17 to regulate through water quality certification any proposed federally permitted
18 activity that could result in a discharge to water bodies, including wetlands. The
19 state may issue certification, with or without conditions, or deny certification for
20 activities that might result in a discharge to water bodies.
22 Surface Water
23 The Alamo River, All-American Canal, and Pinto Wash occur in the Salton Sea
24 watershed, which is bordered on the northwest by the San Gorgonio Mountains,
25 on the west by the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Peninsular
26 Range, and on the east by the Little San Bernardino and Chocolate Mountains.
27 On the south the watershed includes the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys through
28 which the Alamo and New Rivers flow from Mexico (USBR 2001).
29 Alamo River. The Alamo River begins as a small stream near the U.S./Mexico
30 international border near and perpendicular to the All-American Canal and flows
31 northward approximately 60 miles to its discharge point into the Salton Sea.
32 Flows consist of a high percentage of irrigation runoff or wastewater. Daily mean
33 flows over a 40-year period ranged from 45 to 1,140 cubic feet per second (ft3/s)
34 (LeBlanc et al. 2004). The flow is initially formed and sustained by return
35 irrigation water from the Mexicali Valley where approximately 700,000 acre-feet
36 of pumped ground water and 1.5 million acre-feet of New Alamo Canal water
37 diverted from the Colorado River at Morales Dam is used to irrigate crops
38 annually (USBR 2005). Pumping of groundwater for irrigation from thick sand
39 and gravel aquifers of the eastern portion of the Mexicali Valley began during the
3 Wetlands are present on the banks of the Alamo River in the proposed project
4 corridor, supported by surface flows and seepage into the groundwater table.
5 Described in more detail below, the wetlands consist predominantly of stands of
6 arrow weed short shrubs and common reed, a tall grass. Tamarisk or salt-cedar,
7 an invasive shrub, has also become established on Alamo River wetland
8 margins.
9 Alamo River water was sampled at the international boundary and analyzed for
10 various parameters in the early 2000s (LeBlanc et al. 2004). Suspended
11 sediment concentration was determined from a point sample and bottom
12 sediment sampling was conducted by compositing five grab samples. At Harris
13 Road, downstream from the international border, the Alamo River discharge was
14 440 ft3/s. The water temperature at this site was 19.1 degrees Celsius (oC),
15 specific conductivity measured 2,660 microsiemens per centimeter (cm), and the
16 dissolved oxygen was 9.8 parts per million (ppm). The composition of
17 suspended solids of Alamo River water at the international border measured 53
18 percent fines and 47 percent sand and the concentration of suspended solids
19 measured 27 ppm.
1 433,226-acres of farmland in the Imperial Valley (USBR 2001, IID 2005). The
2 All-American Canal was authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act (P.L. 70-
3 642), constructed during the decade of the 1930s, and delivered water by the
4 1940s (USBR 2005). It is apportioned to deliver 3,100,000 acre-feet of water
5 annually to the Imperial Irrigation District agricultural service area. Its diversion
6 capacity is 15,155 ft3/s, the water depth is 21 feet, and the average bottom width
7 is 160 feet (Stene Undated). Electricity is also generated in the Imperial Irrigation
8 District system by directing canal flows through electric utility plant turbines
9 located at (1) Brawley, (2) Coachella, (3) Double Weir, (4) Drop 1, (5) Drop 2,
10 (6) Drop 3, (7) Drop 4, (8) Drop 5, (9) East Highline, (10) El Centro, (11) Pilot
11 Knob, (12) Rockwood, and (13) Turnip (EIA 2000).
12 In the Imperial Valley, only surface water from the All-American Canal is applied
13 to agricultural fields. Water is distributed via a network of canals and ditches to
14 irrigate fields where a portion is consumed by plants, while the remainder
15 percolates through the soil and is captured by tile drains at about 6 to 10 feet
16 deep. This unused water contains dissolved salts and agricultural chemicals and
17 is discharged directly to the Alamo and New rivers which flow to the Salton Sea
18 or further north it is discharged directly from field drains into the Salton Sea
19 (USBR 2001).
31 In 2003, the Imperial Irrigation District entered into a package of decisions and
32 agreements known collectively as the Quantification Settlement Agreement and
33 Related Agreements, which include long-term transfer of water to the San Diego
34 County Water Authority and the Coachella Valley Water District (IID 2007). By
35 2026, the Imperial Irrigation District must conserve and transfer 303,000 acre-
36 feet of Colorado River water annually, approximately 10 percent of the total
37 annual diversion. Transferred water is to be generated through efficiency
38 conservation, which includes both improvements in the Imperial Irrigation
39 District‟s delivery system and improvements in on-farm irrigation practices.
40 Within the proposed El Centro Section B-2, an irrigation ditch carries water from
41 the All-American Canal westward for about ½ mile and in Section B-4, surface
42 water flows northward in the Alamo River (originating from Mexico) and westward
43 in the All-American Canal. Wetlands are associated with the surface flows and
1 underground seepage from the river, the riprap-lined earthen canal, and the
2 irrigation ditch. Flows in the Alamo River are conveyed under the All-American
3 Canal via a concrete box culvert constructed in the United States to the
4 international boundary. Within proposed Section B-1, Pinto Wash has an
5 identified 100-year floodplain but carries only ephemeral flows.
6 The All-American Canal surface flows can be a dangerous barrier for cross-
7 border violators and they represent somewhat of an “attractive nuisance” in that
8 flowing water within this desert environment is unusual. The canal system is
9 posted on both sides of the border with danger signs warning of the deep, fast-
10 flowing water and with “No Trespassing” signs.
11 Wetlands have become established on the banks of the All-American Canal and
12 between the canal and the international border in the proposed project corridor,
13 supported by surface flows and underground seepage. Described in more detail
14 below, they consist predominantly of stands of arrow weed, common reed,
15 Bermuda grass, and tamarisk.
16 Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is California‟s largest lake with a surface area of
17 243,718 acres (381 square miles) and a surface elevation of 229 feet below sea
18 level (SSA 1997, IID 2005). Its average depth is 31 feet and its maximum depth
19 is 51 feet. It is a federally designated repository to receive and store agricultural,
20 surface, and subsurface drainage waters from the Imperial and Coachella
21 Valleys (IID 2005). The annual inflow is estimated at approximately 1,300,000
22 acre-feet of water carrying approximately 4,000,000 tons of dissolved salt.
23 Salinity within the Salton Sea is approximately 46,000 ppm, compared to ocean
24 waters, which average approximately 35,000 ppm (USBR 2001, IID 2005). High
25 salinity levels, when combined with nutrients from agricultural return flows that
26 cause eutrophic conditions, have reduced the wildlife habitat and recreational
27 values of the Salton Sea.
28 Pinto Wash. Pinto Wash is approximately 2,500 feet wide where the proposed
29 Section B-1 crossing occurs. The wash drains into the United States. towards
30 the northeast and is mapped as a 100-year floodplain by the Federal Emergency
31 Management Agency (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Pinto
32 Wash is normally dry and is subject to flash flooding when torrential rainstorms
33 occur in the drainage area. There are no wetlands associated with Pinto Wash;
34 rather it supports sparse tall shrubs of creosotebush, honey mesquite, and
35 ironwood.
37 Wetland and riparian habitats occur within the eastern one-fourth of Section B-2
38 and the western two-thirds of Section B-4 as proposed and are supported by
39 surface flows and underground seepage from the Alamo River, the All-American
40 Canal, and an irrigation ditch. Surface water occurs only in the river channel,
41 canal, and ditch because Pinto Wash only intermittently carries surface flows.
13 Wetland soils that support the wetland and riparian vegetation alliances and plant
14 associations described below are discussed more fully under Section 3.2
15 Geology and Soils. Within the project corridor as proposed, soils include
16 (1) Badland; (2) Holtville Silty Clay, wet; (3) Imperial – Glenbar Silty Clay Loams,
17 wet; (4) Indio Loam, wet; (5) Meloland Very Fine Sandy Loam, wet; (6) Meloland
18 and Holtville Loams, wet; (7) Rositas Sand; (8) Vint Loamy Very Fine Sand, wet;
19 and (9) Vint and Indio Very Fine Sandy Loams, wet.
20 Wetland and riparian habitats and vegetation stands sampled in the field are
21 discussed in this section and they are also presented as plant associations under
22 the Section 3.6. Only a few trees of Fremont cottonwood (FACW), Goodding
23 willow (OBL), Athel tamarisk (FACW-), and date palms were observed within and
24 near the proposed project corridor in Sections B-2 and B-4 and these were
25 mostly in Mexico. Individual wetland plant species named in this report were
26 provided a wetland indicator code appropriate for California (USDA-NRCS
27 2007b), as described in Table 3.4-1.
28 Vegetation alliances and plant associations (NatureServe 2007) that have been
29 identified within the proposed project vicinity include aquatic bed, herbaceous
30 graminoids, and shrublands, as follows:
38
3 One stand of unclassified alkali mallow also occurs within the wetland/riparian
4 habitats of the proposed Section B-4. It is described under the Herbaceous
5 Wetlands and Riparian Types.
3 Herbaceous Wetlands and Riparian Types. The tall grass, common reed
4 (FACW) and the short grass, Bermuda grass (FAC) have become established on
5 the banks of the All-American Canal, in the ditch between the canal bank and the
6 berm that demarcates the international border, and in the irrigation ditch in
7 Section B-2. Common reed also occurs along both banks of the Alamo River
8 south of the international border in Mexico. The forb alkali mallow (FAC*) occurs
9 as one small stand between the canal bank and the international border berm of
10 Section B-4.
11 Common reed is a tallgrass that has colonized reaches of the canal and ditch
12 banks where it is sometimes codominant with the short shrub arrow weed
13 (FACW). At a few canal-bank sites, common reed stands also support small
14 patches of the graminoid, broad-leafed cattail (OBL). Within Section B-4,
15 common reed stands are the second most common wetland and riparian
16 vegetation type in terms of area occupied, next to more extensive stands of
17 arrow weed. The stands are usually monotypic, however patches of Bermuda
18 grass or heliotrope could occasionally occur along the margins of the tall grass.
19 Stands are dense (up to 80 percent cover on the more mesic canal bank) to
20 moderate in terms of cover (up to 45 percent) in the drier landscape of the
21 adjacent ditch. It is likely that common reed became established on the
22 permanently saturated canal banks (above ordinary high water) historically, then
23 spread vegetatively under the canal bank road into the adjacent ditch via deep,
24 stout rhizomes. It is unclear whether the principal water source currently is the
25 permanently saturated canal bank or if the common reed plants within the ditch
26 have independently established groundwater contact.
3 Shrub-Scrub Wetland and Riparian Types. The native short (1–3 meters tall)
4 shrub arrow weed (FACW) and the nonnative, invasive tall (2–6 meters tall)
5 shrub tamarisk or salt-cedar (FAC) represent the most common woody species
6 within Section B-4, as proposed. They occur on the banks of the All-American
7 Canal and Alamo River and they occupy the ditch and berms between the canal
8 and the international border. Together, they provide the most common wetland
9 and riparian cover in the proposed project area. West of the Alamo River,
10 wetland shrub stands are almost entirely composed of arrow weed. East of the
11 Alamo River, stands of tamarisk become more common, but they typically
12 support an understory of arrow weed.
13 Arrow weed short shrubs from 1–3 meters tall line the entire north bank of the All-
14 American Canal and most of the south bank, providing up to 80 percent cover
15 and sometimes more in this mesic habitat. On the south canal bank, arrow weed
16 shrubs are occasionally replaced by narrow linear stands of common reed and
17 the two species occasionally intermingle in variably sized ecotones. Arrow weed
18 commonly occurs in the broad ditch between the canal bank and the berm on the
19 international border where the shrubs are of shorter stature (1–1.5 meters tall)
20 and cover values range from 10–45 percent and up to 75 percent.
21 Wherever arrow weed stands occur they are monotypic probably because of the
22 amount of shade cast on the ground surface which precludes establishment of
23 other plant species. When other species occur (common reed, tamarisk, alkali
24 mallow) they provide less than 1 percent cover. On the eastern portion of
25 proposed Section B-4 within this shrubs‟ distribution, it becomes understory to
26 codominant with tamarisk shrubs and forms a narrow ecotone with creosotebush
27 and fourwing saltbush where the desert uplands and riparian lowlands meet.
28 This ecotone and transition to creosotebush–dominated desert uplands occurs
29 where the All-American Canal diverges to the north and underground seepage
30 no longer influences vegetation distribution.
31 It is likely that arrow weed became established on the saturated canal banks
32 from seed then spread to the drier habitats south of the canal via underground
33 rhizomes. It is unknown if the majority of water supporting arrow weed stands is
34 provided directly from plants along the canal bank or if individual shrubs within
35 the drier ditch have tapped the groundwater table resulting from seepage through
36 the riprap-lined earth canal.
1 vegetation types and most stands of tamarisk, which provide from 50–80 percent
2 cover, also have low understory cover by arrow weed ranging from 5–15 percent
3 cover. When a rare tree of Athel tamarisk, date palm, Fremont cottonwood, or
4 Goodding willow is present in this tall shrub type, the most diverse wildlife habitat
5 structure within proposed Section B-4 occurs.
6 Near the terminus of the wetland and riparian vegetation distribution in proposed
7 Section B-4, a moderately large playa has formed on the international boundary.
8 Although mostly devoid of vegetation across the playa bottom, tamarisk,
9 including a stand of Athel tamarisk, has become established around the playa
10 margin. Some of these tall shrubs have attained heights up to 6–7 meters tall.
17 There would be no effect to the Section B-1 Pinto Wash under the No Action
18 Alternative; it would remain dry until torrential rains occur in its watershed. There
19 would be no effect to the Section B-4 playa under the No Action Alternative. It
20 would fill rarely when natural precipitation events produced enough moisture for
21 run-in to occur then dry through evaporation.
22 Waters of the United States. Under the No Action Alternative there would be
23 no effect on submerged aquatic wetlands within the All-American Canal.
24 Herbaceous and shrub-scrub wetlands on the canal and ditch banks of Sections
25 B-1 and B-4 would continue to receive insignificant to low adverse effects from
26 humans accessing the canal bank and trampling plants; however, this effect
27 could be raised to moderate or high and adverse if the Imperial Irrigation District
28 maintains the canal bank wetland vegetation by mowing or dredging to reduce
29 water loss through evapotranspiration.
37 There would be no effect on shrub-scrub wetlands that occur on the banks of the
38 Alamo River under the No Action Alternative. These wetlands would continue to
39 be subject to low to moderate, short-term, adverse effects when maintenance
1 activities are required to clean debris from the mouth of the culvert, clear the
2 channel at the culvert mouth to improve flow, or otherwise repair the culvert.
10 Pedestrian fence construction across the Alamo River at the international border
11 would be designed to accommodate cleaning and maintenance of the culvert
12 mouth, however there would be insignificant effects on surface water flow
13 volume, duration, and water quality.
20 Pedestrian fence construction would bisect the playa east of the Alamo River in
21 Section B-4 resulting in intermittent, insignificant to low, adverse effects on
22 ponded water when present. If sufficiently bermed, pedestrian fence construction
23 could fill the northern edge of this playa, reducing it in overall size.
1 impacts on water quality associated with erosion and sedimentation during and
2 following implementation of the Proposed Action.
3 Waters of the United States. Under the Proposed Action there would be no
4 effect on submerged aquatic wetlands within the All-American Canal. An
5 insignificant to low, long-term, beneficial effect on canal bank wetland
6 communities would result from eliminating or reducing significantly the human
7 access of the canal bank and resultant trampling of plants. However this effect
8 could be raised to moderate or high and adverse if the Imperial Irrigation District
9 maintains the canal bank wetland vegetation by mowing or dredging to reduce
10 water loss through evapotranspiration.
31 Pedestrian fence construction across the Alamo River at the international border
32 would be designed to accommodate cleaning and maintenance of the culvert
33 mouth resulting in long-term, low to moderate adverse effects due to permanent
34 shrub-scrub wetland removal to accommodate the fence, access road, and
35 maintenance activities. A formal delineation and jurisdictional determination of
36 the extent of the scrub-shrub wetlands that are likely to be impacted by
37 implementation of the Proposed Action has not been conducted. The acreage of
38 wetlands or other waters of the United States that occur in the project area will be
39 determined following a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination from
40 USACE.
1 Action has not been conducted. The extent of jurisdictional wetlands, washes, or
2 other waters of the United States that occur in the project area will be determined
3 following a formal delineation and jurisdictional determination from USACE.
14 Alternative 3 would result in impacts on surface waters and waters of the United
15 States similar to those described for Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of
16 the impacts would affect a larger area due to the additional fence and wider
17 corridor. Approximately 810 acres of soils would be disturbed by construction. A
18 Construction General Permit would be required to address the development and
19 implementation of SWPPPs with BMPs to reduce the impacts of storm water
20 runoff. A larger area of wetlands would also be impacted under this alternative.
21 Additionally, CWA Section 404 and Section 401(a) authorizations would be
22 obtained, as required, for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the
23 United States. A wetlands mitigation and restoration plan to compensate for
24 unavoidable impacts will be developed by the applicant and submitted to the
25 USACE-Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch for approval prior to
26 implementation. Appropriate mitigation would be developed to compensate for
27 unavoidable impacts.
28 3.5 FLOODPLAINS
29 Definition of the Resource
30 Floodplains are areas of low-level ground present along rivers, stream channels,
31 or coastal waters. Such lands might be subject to periodic or infrequent
32 inundation due to rain or melting snow. Risk of flooding typically hinges on local
33 topography, the frequency of precipitation events, and the size of the watershed
34 above the floodplain. Flood potential is evaluated by FEMA, which defines the
35 100-year floodplain. The 100-year floodplain is the area that has a 1 percent
36 chance of inundation by a flood event in a given year. Certain facilities inherently
37 pose too great a risk to be in either the 100- or 500-year floodplain, such as
38 hospitals, schools, or storage buildings for irreplaceable records. Federal, state,
39 and local regulations often limit floodplain development to passive uses, such as
40 recreational and preservation activities, to reduce the risks to human health and
41 safety.
13 According to the March 15, 1984, FEMA FIRM Panel No. 0600651025B for
14 Imperial County, California; a small portion of the proposed project corridor for B-
15 4 is within the 100-year floodplain associated with the banks of the Alamo River
16 where it emerges from a culvert under the northern side of the All-American
17 Canal and continues its flow north to the Salton Sea (FEMA 1984). Based on
18 review of the FIRM for the project area, the All-American Canal and areas south
19 to the United States border are outside of the 100-year floodplain.
12 Vegetation resources include native or naturalized plants and serve as habitat for
13 a variety of animal species. Wetlands are discussed in Section 3.4. This
14 section describes the affected environment for native and nonnative vegetation
15 followed by potential impacts on those resources from each alternative. This
16 analysis is based on site surveys conducted in September and October 2007.
17 More detailed information on vegetation resources, including vegetation
18 classification, species observed, and the survey methodology is contained in the
19 Biological Survey Report (Appendix D).
21 The vegetation in the El Centro Sector of southern California has generally been
22 classified under the Dry Domain (300), Tropical / Subtropical Desert Division
23 (320) of Bailey (1995). The project area is more finely classified as the American
24 Semidesert and Desert Province (322). The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1996)
25 describes vegetation geography using combined features of the natural
26 landscape including natural vegetation types and plant communities, and
27 geologic, topographic, and climatic variation. This geographic system places the
28 project area in the Desert Province and Sonoran Desert Region (also referred to
29 locally and regionally as the Colorado Desert).
30 Occurring within the Salton Trough, the drainage of the project area in general
31 and the Alamo River located within Section B-4, flows from south-to-north to the
32 Salton Sea. Overall, the project area is located on an extensive plain of arid
33 desert that is gently undulating. Bailey (1995) describes the vegetation pattern
34 as dry-desert, a class of xerophytic plants that are widely dispersed and provide
35 negligible ground cover. The climate is continental desert, is of extreme aridity,
36 and results in high air and soil temperatures. Summers are long and hot
37 however the brief winter is moderate in terms of temperature. There are typically
38 no summer rains and the average annual precipitation of the area is
39 approximately 2.6 inches. The evaporation rate during the summer season is
40 very high, even more so due to light to moderate winds.
15 Habitats observed, sampled, and photographed within the project corridor range
16 from active sand dunes of the Imperial Dune system, Signal Mountain toeslopes,
17 the ephemeral Pinto Wash, and saturated and aquatic types of the All-American
18 Canal. Habitats of the easternmost portion of the project receive some form of
19 regular or intermittent disturbance that ranges from camping and all-terrain
20 vehicle use in the desert upland types of Sections B-5A and B-5B to berm
21 construction and canal bank clearing between the border and the canal in
22 Section B-4. Much of the habitat of Sections B-4 and B-5A and B-5B is strewn
23 with trash left by aliens making border crossings and by seasonal recreationists.
24 Several areas of the proposed El Centro Sector corridor are unvegetated due to
25 development and disturbance. Unvegetated sites included access roads within
26 all sections, power line and tower access roads and construction sites (Section
27 B-5B), a large area cleared by the Imperial Irrigation District to reclaim canal
28 seepage on Section B-5B, a natural-appearing playa on Section B-4, and
29 excavations and berms along Sections B-2 and B-4. On the eastern terminus of
30 Section B-5B, active sand flats and dunes support no to < 1 percent vegetative
31 cover. An unvegetated playa approximately midway along Section B-4, east of
32 the Alamo River, is devoid of vegetation due to seasonal flooding and
33 accumulation of salts. Berms and ditches along the western portion of Section B-
34 4 are often unvegetated and the soil appears compacted. The Imperial Irrigation
35 District is currently undertaking canal seepage recovery resulting in many acres
36 of complete surface disturbance resulting in vegetation removal and precluding
37 the establishment of vegetation at this time. Agricultural fields occur along the
38 eastern terminus of Section B-2.
12 The western end of Section B-1, west of Pinto Wash, supports sparse
13 creosotebush scrub flats or plains. Pinto Wash contains sparse woodlands of
14 creosotebush, honey mesquite, and ironwood tall shrubs and small trees.
15 Section B-1 east of Pinto Wash represents diverse topography of flats, slopes,
16 rock outcrops, small desert washes, and small sand dunes dominated by sparse
17 creosotebush, white bursage, and shrubby coldenia. The west end of Section B-
18 2 is located on the toeslope of Signal Mountain and is characterized by sparse
19 creosotebush and white bursage shrubs on the uplands and a mixed shrub and
20 herbaceous community in a wash that occurs at the base of the mountain and
21 supports honey mesquite, ocotillo, white bursage, and creosotebush. The
22 eastern portion of Section B-2 is heavily disturbed by road maintenance or
23 supports ditchbank wetlands and agricultural crops. The eastern one-third of
24 Section B-4 supports sparse creosotebush shrubs associated with fourwing
25 saltbush, longleaf jointfir, and white bursage where sandier soils occur.
26 Scattered areas of gravel-armored desert pavement are interspersed and
27 support sparse creosotebush shrubs with herbaceous desert annuals in years
28 with sufficient precipitation for the seeds to germinate.
29 Section B-5A and the western three-fourths of Section B-5B support sparse
30 creosotebush shrubs associated with longfleaf jointfir where sandier soils occur.
31 Scattered areas of gravel-armored desert pavement are interspersed and
32 support sparse creosotebush shrubs with herbaceous desert annuals in years
33 with sufficient precipitation for the seeds to germinate. The eastern one-fourth of
34 Section B-5B occupies active sand dunes located on the edge of the Imperial
35 Sand Dune system that are devoid of vegetation; support sparse longleaf jointfir
36 shrubs; or support sparse creosotebush, longleaf jointfir, and desert buckwheat
37 shrubs. Sections B-5A and B-5B in their entirety lie within the BLM‟s Buttercup
38 Recreation Management Area, designated Multiple-use Class I “Intensive” and is
39 used for camping, off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding, sightseeing, commercial
40 vending, education, filming, and ROWs (BLM 2003a). A detailed description of
41 vegetation resources can be found in the Biological Survey Report (see
42 Appendix D).
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.
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
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.
29 Under this alternative, the impact corridor would increase to 130 feet (slightly
30 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on vegetative
31 habitat would be similar to those described for the proposed action, but more
32 extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated
33 with the larger footprint of this alternative, moderate to major short- and long-term
34 adverse impacts would be anticipated. These impacts would be offset by long-
35 term beneficial impacts due to reduction of foot and vehicular traffic through
36 habitat north of the corridor.
1 The MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703–712) as amended, implements various treaties for the
2 protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing
3 migratory birds is unlawful without a valid permit. Under EO 13186,
4 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, the USFWS has
5 the responsibility to administer, oversee, and enforce the conservation provisions
6 of the MBTA, which include responsibility for population management (e.g.,
7 monitoring), habitat protection (e.g., acquisition, enhancement, and modification),
8 international coordination, and regulations development and enforcement. The
9 MBTA defines a migratory bird as any bird listed in 50 CFR 10.13, which includes
10 nearly every native bird in North America.
11 The MBTA and EO 13186 require Federal agencies to minimize or avoid impacts
12 on migratory birds listed in 50 CFR 10.13. If design and implementation of a
13 Federal action cannot avoid measurable negative impact on migratory birds,
14 EO 13186 requires the responsible agency to consult with the USFWS and
15 CDFG and obtain a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit.
21 The Imperial Desert occurs within the Colorado Desert Bioregion and supports
22 more than 15 species of amphibians including the common bullfrog (Rana
23 catesbeiana) and Couch‟s spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus couchi); more than 60
24 species of mammals including the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), kit fox
25 (Vulpes macrotis), roundtail ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus), and
26 black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); more than 430 species of birds
27 including neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, raptors, and waterfowl; and 70
28 species of reptiles including desert iguana (Dipsosaurus dorsalis), zebra-tailed
29 lizard (Callisaurus draconoides), and western whiptail lizard (Aspidoscelis tigris).
30 The majority of the bird species are present in the spring and fall, when migrants
31 on the Pacific Flyway pass through on their way to either summer breeding or
32 wintering grounds, and during winter when summer residents from the north
33 arrive to spend the winter.
34 The most common fish in the All-American Canal and associated laterals is the
35 triploid grass carp, a sterile form of the nonnative grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
36 idella) from Asia. This sterile form is actively raised and introduced to the canal
37 system by the Imperial Irrigation District to control hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata),
38 an invasive nonnative species of aquatic vascular plant.
39 Mammals and birds observed during the September, October, and November
40 2007 surveys included ground squirrel (Spermophilus sp.), black-tailed jackrabbit
41 (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus
11 Under the No Action Alternative, new tactical infrastructure would not be built and
12 there would be no change in fencing, access roads, or other facilities along the
13 U.S./Mexico international border in the proposed project locations within the
14 USBP El Centro Sector. Anticipated continuation or even increases in cross-
15 border violator traffic would be expected to have some adverse impacts on
16 wildlife and aquatic resources of the region. These impacts are anticipated to be
17 short- and long-term, minor to moderate, and adverse.
19 Under the Proposed Action, existing border access roads would be widened from
20 approximately 16 feet to approximately 20 feet resulting in the loss of
21 approximately 5.3 acres of habitat. Additional loss of habitat resulting from
22 clearing of lay-down areas for construction materials and maintenance and
23 storage areas for heavy equipment would be minimal as previously disturbed
24 areas would be selected for these functions to the extent practicable. Potential
25 impacts on wildlife and aquatic life include habitat loss, noise and physical
26 disturbance associated with construction and subsequent maintenance activities,
27 and beneficial impacts due to reduced cross-border violator traffic.
37 Impacts on migratory birds could occur, given the potential timing of fence
38 construction. However, implementation of BMPs to avoid or minimize adverse
1 impacts could markedly reduce their intensity. The following is a list of BMPs
2 recommended for reduction or avoidance of impacts on migratory birds:
19 Because not all of the above BMPs can be fully implemented due to time
20 constraints of fence construction, a Migratory Bird Depredation Permit would be
21 obtained from USFWS.
28 Under this alternative, the impact corridor would increase to 130 feet (slightly
29 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on wildlife,
30 aquatic species, and migratory birds would be similar to those described for the
31 Proposed Action, but more extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat
32 disturbance and loss associated with the larger footprint of this alternative,
33 moderate to major short- and long-term adverse impacts would be anticipated.
34 These impacts would be offset by long-term beneficial impacts due to reduction
35 of foot and vehicular traffic through habitat north of the corridor.
1 designated management area. Each group has its own definitions, and
2 legislative and regulatory drivers for consideration during the NEPA process;
3 these are briefly described below.
12 Section 7 of the ESA directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities
13 to conserve threatened and endangered species and, in consultation with the
14 USFWS, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize listed species or destroy
15 or adversely modify critical habitat. Section 7 applies to management of Federal
16 lands as well as other Federal actions that might affect listed species, such as
17 approval of private activities through the issuance of Federal permits, licenses, or
18 other actions.
19 Under the ESA, a Federal endangered species is defined as any species which
20 is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The
21 ESA defines a Federal threatened species as any species which is likely to
22 become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
23 significant portion of its range.
24 The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) states that all native species of
25 fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their
26 habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline
27 which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will
28 be protected or preserved.
29 Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits “take” of any
30 species that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a
31 threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as
32 “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or
33 kill.” CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects.
34 CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare,
35 endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation
36 planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and their
37 essential habitats.
1 Trees associated with wet areas south of the All-American Canal, and which
2 probably established and survive based on seepage water from that canal, are a
3 mixture dominated by salt cedar. Density and distribution of these trees is not
4 perceived to provide suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher.
5 Potential habitat for the Algodones Dunes sunflower and Peirson‟s milkvetch
6 occurs along the proposed fence alignment in Section B-5B which enters into the
7 west side of the Algodones Dunes. Further details on the natural history of these
8 two species are provided in Appendix D. Two proposed fence sections occur
9 within designated management areas for the flat-tailed horned lizard (FTHL).
10 Sections B-1 and B-5A are within the Yuha Desert and East Mesa FTHL
11 management areas, respectively.
22 Under the Proposed Action, new boundary roads and construction access would
23 occur and the existing international border access road segments would be
24 widened from approximately 16 feet to approximately 20 feet resulting in the loss
25 of approximately 5.3 acres of sparse creosotebush shrub communities corridor-
26 wide; approximately 3.4 acres of desert wash vegetation in Pinto Wash of
27 Section B-1; and approximately 8.3 acres of active sand dune communities
28 adjacent to proposed Sections B-4, B-5A, and B-5B. Additional loss of habitat
29 resulting from clearing of lay-down areas for construction materials and
30 maintenance and storage areas for heavy equipment would be minimal as
31 previously disturbed areas would be selected for these functions to the extent
32 practicable. Potential impacts on listed species include habitat loss, noise and
33 physical disturbance associated with construction and subsequent maintenance
34 activities, and beneficial impacts due to reduced cross-border violator traffic.
1 corridor for Section B-5B. As such, the following BMPs identified by the USFWS
2 Carlsbad Office for Peirson‟s milkvetch would be implemented to the extent
3 practicable and would serve to reduce impacts on Algodones dunes sunflower as
4 well.
24 (b) Ensure that all project-related activities comply with these measures.
25 The biological monitor shall have the authority and responsibility to halt
26 activities that are in violation of these terms and conditions.
32 (d) Work with the project supervisor to take steps, as necessary, to avoid
33 disturbance to FTHLs and their habitat. If avoiding disturbance to a
34 FTHL is not possible or if an FTHL is found trapped in an excavation,
35 the affected lizard shall be captured by hand and relocated.
1 occur can be enclosed with FTHL barrier fencing to prevent lizards from
2 wandering onto the project site where they could be subject to collection,
3 death, or injury. Barrier fencing should be in accordance with the
4 standards outlined in Appendix 7 of the Management Strategy. After
5 clearing the area of FTHLs (also see Appendix 7 [BLM 2003b]), no on-site
6 monitor is required (see Measure 7).
20 10. Construction of new paved roads shall include a lizard barrier fence on
21 each side of the road that is exposed to occupied FTHL habitat.
22 Exceptions might occur in accordance with the following evaluation, to be
23 applied separately to each side of the road. This prescription can also be
24 applied to canals or other fragmenting projects.
25 If the side is made nonviable for FTHLs even if connected to the other
26 side:
1 lands; and existing scientific evidence of edge effects on FTHL. Culvert design
2 will be provided by the FTHL Interagency Coordinating Committee.
10 Under this alternative, the impact corridor would increase to 130 feet (slightly
11 more than double that of the Proposed Action [60 feet]). Impacts on listed
12 species would be similar to those described for the Proposed Action, but more
13 extensive in nature. Given the extensive habitat disturbance and loss associated
14 with the larger footprint of this alternative, moderate to major short- and long-term
15 adverse impacts would be anticipated. Moderate long-term beneficial impacts
16 due to reduction of cross-border violator traffic through habitat north of the
17 corridor would be anticipated.
1 consist of deposits of artifacts, such as flaked and ground stone tools; bone or
2 shell ornaments or tools; dietary refuse such as bone, shells, or burned seeds;
3 and occasionally features such as house floors, hearths, bedrock milling
4 elements, or human remains. Archaeological resources dating to the historic
5 period might consist of structural remains such as foundations, cisterns, or
6 privies; features such as roads, railroad grades, or water canals; or deposits of
7 artifacts representing domestic, commercial, or other activities.
19 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for cultural resources consists of the
20 approximately 44.6-mile corridor of proposed tactical infrastructure along the
21 U.S./Mexico international border in the El Centro Sector of the USBP including
22 any construction related areas. The project is entirely within California, near
23 Calexico, in Imperial County. The proposed tactical infrastructure would consist
24 of pedestrian fence, vehicle barriers, and supporting patrol roads and other
25 protection elements over four sections. Individual sections would range from
26 approximately 2.4 to 19.3 miles in length. The APE for cultural resources
27 concerns was determined to be a corridor with a width of 300 feet to the north of
28 the U.S./Mexico international border, with the border as the southern limit. This
29 corridor was determined based on the construction needs and description
30 provided. The APE was defined to be sufficiently large to include all of the
31 anticipated activities for access, construction and ongoing maintenance of the
32 proposed infrastructure.
34 The Proposed Action would occur in Imperial County, California, along the
35 U.S./Mexico international border. The sections range from the western end of
36 the Imperial Valley to the eastern edge, near the border with Arizona. A project-
37 specific cultural resources survey was prepared in support of this project. The
38 APE for the proposed project includes lands owned or managed by the BLM,
39 Bureau of Reclamation, IBWC, and private property. The results of the
40 archaeological survey assessment are summarized below and included in
41 Appendix E.
18 The record search results indicate that there are 106 sites in the general study
19 area, 11 of which are plotted in or immediately adjacent to the proposed APE
20 (Table 3.9-1). While this is a large number of sites, the recorded resources are
21 generally characterized as isolated prehistoric artifacts (prehistoric pottery
22 sherds, flakes, flaked stone tools), features associated with the All-American
23 Canal, historic trash dumps, or artifacts associated with the historic Plank Road.
24 A total of 21 of the recorded resources are categorized as isolated finds,
25 meaning there were fewer than three items found at the location. As the
26 definition of a cultural resources site by the BLM is three or more artifacts in a 50-
27 square-meter area, many of these sites represent the minimal number of items
28 needed to qualify as an archaeological site and, in fact, under other site
29 definitions would not have been recorded as sites.
31
32
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
3-42
FME003525
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 None of the sites on Table 3.9-1 have been evaluated for NRHP eligibility. In
2 2003 a survey by the BLM (Hangan 2003) was completed with the intent to
3 relocate sites CA-IMP-4479, -4481, -4758, -4760, and -4761; no evidence of the
4 sites was found within a 50-m radius of where they are plotted on the site
5 records. The status of the remaining sites is not known.
18 An intensive pedestrian survey of the APE was conducted in October 2007 under
19 BLM Cultural Resource Use Permit CA-08-03 and a Fieldwork Authorization
20 Permit. The survey covered an area approximately 90 m (300 feet) in width
21 along the designated corridor of access and proposed construction. The survey
22 corridor was intensively examined using pedestrian transects that did not exceed
23 10 m between team members. Areas of substantial disturbance or alteration
24 were spot-checked for evidence of archaeological materials. The ground surface
25 visibility was excellent and survey conditions were optimal.
26 None of the 11 previously recorded sites (Table 3.9-1) were relocated within the
27 survey corridor. It is likely that none of these sites are in the precise locations
28 that are plotted on the original site records. It is also possible that the alteration
29 and dynamic conditions of the survey area could have buried or obscured these
30 sites since their original recording, or that the original surveyors could have
31 collected the materials visible on the surface, thereby leaving no discernable
32 evidence of the site behind.
18 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
19 built and there would be no change in fencing, lights, patrol roads, or other
20 facilities within the USBP El Centro Sector. Since there would be no tactical
21 infrastructure built, cultural, historical, and archeological resources would
22 continue to be affected by cross-border violator activities.
24 There are no archaeological sites within the APE for the Proposed Action. Of the
25 archaeological resources adjacent to the APE, none have been assessed for
26 NRHP eligibility or are determined to be eligible to the NRHP. The two newly
27 discovered resources are adjacent to the APE and have not been evaluated for
28 NRHP eligibility. No historic architectural resources or resources of traditional,
29 religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes are known to be within
30 the APE.
31 Accordingly, the Proposed Action does not have the potential to impact
32 archaeological or architectural resources. Impacts on resources of traditional,
33 religious, or cultural significance to Native American tribes cannot be assessed
34 until such time as replies are received from tribes having ancestral ties to the
35 lands within the APE. No additional archaeological survey work is recommended
36 prior to implementation of this project. Due to the low potential for inadvertent
37 discovery of previously unidentified, buried, or masked cultural resources within
38 the project, archaeological monitoring is not recommended for project-related
39 excavation or other ground-disturbing construction activities. It is recommended
8 In accordance with Federal CAA requirements, the air quality in a given region or
9 area is measured by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere.
10 The measurements of these “criteria pollutants” in ambient air are expressed in
11 units of ppm, micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3), or milligrams per cubic meter
12 (mg/m3).
13 The CAA directed USEPA to develop National Ambient Air Quality Standards
14 (NAAQS) for pollutants that have been determined to affect human health and
15 the environment. NAAQS are currently established for six criteria air pollutants:
16 ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
17 respirable particulate matter (including particulates equal to or less than 10
18 microns in diameter [PM10] and particulates equal to or less than 2.5 microns in
19 diameter [PM2.5]), and lead (Pb). The primary NAAQS are ambient air quality
20 standards of which maintenance is required to protect the public health, with an
21 adequate margin of safety. Secondary NAAQS specify levels of air quality of
22 which maintenance is required to protect the public welfare. This maintenance
23 includes effects on vegetation, crops, wildlife, economic values, and visibility.
24 The CAA requires states to designate any area that does not meet (or that
25 contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the
26 national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for a criteria pollutant
27 as a nonattainment area. For O3, the CAA requires that each designated
28 nonattainment area be classified as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or
29 extreme, based on ambient O3 concentrations. The Cal/EPA, California Air
30 Resources Board (CARB) has delegated responsibility for implementation of the
31 Federal CAA and California CAA to local air pollution control agencies. The
32 Proposed Action is in the Imperial County Air Quality Control District (ICAQCD)
33 and is subject to rules and regulations developed by the Imperial County Air
34 Pollution Control District (ICAPCD).
35 The State of California adopted the NAAQS and promulgated additional State
36 Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) for criteria pollutants. The California
37 standards are more stringent than the Federal primary standards. Table 3.10-1
38 presents the primary and secondary USEPA NAAQS and SAAQS.
39
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
3-45
FME003528
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 These programs are detailed in State Implementation Plans (SIPs), which are
2 required to be developed by each state or local regulatory agency and approved
3 by USEPA. A SIP is a compilation of regulations, strategies, schedules, and
4 enforcement actions designed to move the state into compliance with all NAAQS.
5 Any changes to the compliance schedule or plan (e.g., new regulations,
6 emissions budgets, controls) must be incorporated into the SIP and approved by
7 USEPA. USEPA has delegated the authority for ensuring compliance with the
8 NAAQS to the CARB. Therefore, the Proposed Action is subject to rules and
9 regulations developed by the CAA.
10 USEPA classifies the air quality in an air quality control region (AQCR), or in
11 subareas of an AQCR, according to whether the concentrations of criteria
12 pollutants in ambient air exceed the NAAQS. All areas within each AQCR are
13 therefore designated as either “attainment,” “nonattainment,” “maintenance,” or
14 “unclassified” for each of the six criteria pollutants. Attainment means that the air
15 quality within an AQCR is better than the NAAQS, nonattainment indicates that
16 criteria pollutant levels exceed NAAQS, maintenance indicates that an area was
17 previously designated nonattainment but is now attainment, and unclassified
18 means that there is not enough information to appropriately classify an AQCR, so
19 the area is considered attainment.
1 emissions from the action meet or exceed 10 percent of the AQCR‟s total
2 emissions inventory for that nonattainment pollutant.
9 In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that carbon dioxide (CO 2) and
10 other greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the CAA. The Court declared
11 that the USEPA has the authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks
12 under the landmark environment law.
13 Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. The sources of the majority
14 of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed
15 to by human activity. Additional information on sources of greenhouse gases is
16 included in Appendix F.
18 The Proposed Action is within Imperial County, California, within the Southeast
19 Desert Air Quality Control Region (SDAQCR). The SDAQCR is composed of
20 Imperial County, and portions of Riverside County, California. Imperial County is
21 within a Federal marginal and state moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour O3,
22 Federal serious and state nonattainment area for PM10, and is in
23 attainment/unclassified for all other criteria pollutants. Therefore, the General
24 Conformity Rule applies to the Proposed Action (USEPA 2007b, CARB 2007).
25 Although O3 is considered a criteria air pollutant and is measurable in the
26 atmosphere, it is not often considered a regulated air pollutant when calculating
27 emissions because O3 is typically not emitted directly from most emissions
28 sources. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
29 involving sunlight and previously emitted pollutants or “O3 precursors.” These O3
30 precursors consist primarily of nitrogen oxides (NO x) and volatile organic
31 compounds (VOCs) that are directly emitted from a wide range of emissions
32 sources. For this reason, regulatory agencies attempt to limit atmospheric O 3
33 concentrations by controlling VOC pollutants (also identified as reactive organic
34 gases) and NO2.
35 The Proposed Action is within the ICAPCD. The ICAPCD has established air
36 pollution control regulations in CCR Titles 13 and 17. The ICAPCD has also
37 promulgated rules regulating the emissions of toxic substances which are defined
38 as those chemicals listed in California Health and Safety Code, Division 26 Air
39 Resources, Part 2 State Air Resources Board, Chapter 3.5 Toxic Air
40 Contaminants plus any other air pollutant that is considered a health hazard, as
41 defined by OSHA.
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
1 Regulated pollutant emissions from the Proposed Action would not contribute to
2 or affect local or regional attainment status with the NAAQS. The Proposed
3 Action would generate air pollutant emissions from the proposed construction
4 projects and the operation of generators to supply power to construction
5 equipment.
31 For purposes of this analysis, the project duration and affected project site area
32 that would be disturbed (presented in Section 2.2.2) was used to estimate
33 fugitive dust and all other criteria pollutant emissions. The construction
34 emissions presented in Table 3.10-3 include the estimated annual construction
35 PM10 emissions associated with the Proposed Action. These emissions would
36 produce slightly elevated short-term PM10 ambient air concentrations. However,
37 the effects would be temporary, and would fall off rapidly with distance from the
38 proposed construction sites. Construction emissions resulting from the Proposed
39 Action would not exceed the de minimis threshold limits and would not exceed
40 10 percent of the regional air emissions values.
1 operating permit (ICAPCD 2007). USBP would coordinate with the ICAPCD for
2 all necessary operating permits for these generators.
3 USEPA has estimated that the total greenhouse emissions for California were
4 427 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 1990 (CARB 2007b). Of this, an
5 estimated 3.3 million tons of CO2 are associated with the SDAQCR regions.
6 Therefore construction emissions of CO2 represent less than 10 percent of the
7 regional emissions.
37 As shown in Table 3.10-4, the emissions of NAAQS pollutants are high and
38 could contribute to the deterioration of the air quality in the region. Alternative 3
39 emissions would exceed the de minimis threshold limit for PM10. The impact of
40
Preliminary Draft EA November 2007
3-52
FME003535
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
3 this alternative on air quality does not exceed 10 percent of the regional values.
4 However, because Alternative 3 emissions would exceed a de minimis threshold
5 level, a General Conformity Determination in accordance with 40 CFR 93-153(1)
6 would be required prior to commencing construction activities associated with
7 Alternative 3.
1 3.11 NOISE
2 Definition of the Resource
3 Noise and sound share the same physical aspects, but noise is considered a
4 disturbance while sound is defined as an auditory effect. Sound is defined as a
5 particular auditory effect produced by a given source, for example the sound
6 resulting from rain hitting a metal roof. Noise is defined as any sound that is
7 undesirable because it interferes with communication, is intense enough to
8 damage hearing, or is otherwise annoying. Sound or noise (depending on one‟s
9 perception) can be intermittent or continuous, steady or impulsive, and can
10 involve any number of sources and frequencies. It can be readily identifiable or
11 generally nondescript. Human response to increased sound levels varies
12 according to the source type, characteristics of the sound source, distance
13 between source and receptor, receptor sensitivity, and time of day. How an
14 individual responds to the sound source will determine if the sound is viewed as
15 music to one‟s ears or an annoying noise. Affected receptors are specific
16 (e.g., schools, churches, or hospitals) or broad (e.g., nature preserves or
17 designated districts) in which occasional or persistent sensitivity to noise above
18 ambient levels exists.
26 Noise levels in residential areas vary depending on the housing density, location,
27 and surrounding use. As shown in Figure 3.11-1, a quiet urban area in the
28 daytime is about 50 dBA, which increases to 65 dBA for a commercial area, and
29 80 dBA for a noisy urban daytime area.
1
2 Source: Landrum & Brown 2002
3 The construction corridor associated with the Proposed Action is adjacent to both
4 urban/mixed use areas and rural/undeveloped areas. The areas north of the
5 U.S./Mexico international border are largely rural/undeveloped areas. The most
6 prominent sources of noise in these areas would be from vehicle traffic and
7 agricultural equipment. Expected daytime noise levels in these areas would be
8 approximately 50 dBA or less. The closest populations on the U.S. side of the
9 construction corridor are several unidentified buildings approximately 400 feet
10 north of the proposed construction corridor. The areas south of the western end
11 of the construction corridor, in Mexicali, Mexico, are urban/mixed use areas. The
12 city of Mexicali, Mexico has a population of approximately 1 million. The most
13 prominent sources of noise in this area would be from vehicle traffic and local
14 industry. Expected daytime noise levels in these areas could range from 60 dBA
15 to 80 dBA. The closest populations in Mexicali, Mexico, are approximately 50
16 feet from the proposed construction corridor. Moving east along the construction
17 corridor, once outside of the city of Mexicali, Mexico, the areas are largely
18 rural/undeveloped. The most prominent sources of noise in these areas would
19 be from vehicle traffic and agricultural equipment. Expected daytime noise levels
20 in these areas would be approximately 50 dBA or less.
3 Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed tactical infrastructure would not be
4 built and there would be no change in USBP operations. No noise impacts are
5 anticipated under the No Action Alternative.
11 In order to meet its responsibility to maintain the scenic values of public lands,
12 BLM has developed a Visual Resource Management (VRM) system based on
13 human perceptions and expectations in the context of the existing landscape.
14 Different levels of scenic values require different levels of management.
15 Determining how an area should be managed first requires an assessment of the
16 area‟s scenic values. For management purposes, BLM has developed Visual
17 Resource Classes.
29 Class III Objective. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing
30 character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape
31 should be moderate. Management activities might attract attention but should
32 not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic
33 elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic
34 landscape. New projects can be approved that are not large scale, dominating
35 features.
5 As listed in Table 2-1, the majority of the Proposed Action would be on Federal
6 lands managed by BLM. At this time, BLM has not classified the landscapes in
7 the areas of the proposed tactical infrastructure. It is likely that the areas around
8 Calexico (B-3, B-4, and western portion of B-5a) would be Class III or Class IV.
9 Remote areas such as the western portion of B-1, eastern portion of B-5a, and B-
10 5b might be Class II or Class III.
11 [[Preparer’s Note: e²M has contacted BLM El Centro Field Office for input
12 on visual classifications to include in this EA]].
15 To properly assess the contrasts between the existing conditions and the
16 Proposed Action, it is necessary to break each down into the basic features
17 (i.e., landform/water, vegetation, and structures) and basic elements (i.e., form,
18 line, color, and texture) so that the specific features and elements that cause
19 contrast can be accurately identified.
20 General criteria and factors used when rating the degree of contrast are as
21 follows:
28 When applying the contrast criteria, the following factors are considered:
1 3. Length of Time the Project Is In View. If the viewer can only view the
2 Proposed Action for a short period of time, the contrast may not be of
3 great concern. If the Proposed Action can be viewed for a long period of
4 time, the contrast could be very significant.
5 4. Relative Size or Scale. The contrast created by the Proposed Action is
6 directly related to its size and scale as compared to the immediate
7 surroundings.
8 5. Season of Use. Contrast ratings should consider the physical conditions
9 that exist during the heaviest or most critical visitor-use season, such as
10 snow cover and tree defoliation during the winter, leaf color in the fall, and
11 lush vegetation and flowering in the spring.
12 6. Light Conditions. The amount of contrast could be substantially affected
13 by the light conditions. The direction and angle of light can affect color
14 intensity, reflection, shadow, form, texture, and many other visual aspects
15 of the landscape. Light conditions during heavy periods must be a
16 consideration in contrast ratings.
17 7. Recovery Time. The amount of time required for successful revegetation
18 should be considered. Few projects meet the VRM objectives during
19 construction activities. Recovery usually takes several years and goes
20 through several phrases (e.g., bare ground to grasses, to shrubs, to
21 trees).
22 8. Spatial Relationships. The spatial relationship within a landscape is a
23 major factor in determining the degree of contrast.
24 9. Atmospheric Conditions. The visibility of a Proposed Action due to
25 atmospheric conditions such as air pollution or natural haze should be
26 considered.
27 10. Motion. Movements such as waterfalls, vehicles, or plumes draw attention
28 to a Proposed Action (BLM 1986b).
39 The construction activity associated with the Proposed Action would result in
40 both temporary and permanent moderate contrasts to Class III and Class IV
1 Visual Resources. Pedestrian fence in areas such as the western portion of B-1,
2 eastern portion of B-5a, and B-5b would be a moderate to strong contrast.
3 However, public viewing is limited in this area because of low visitation frequency
4 and limited line of sight from other locations.
5 [[Preparer’s Note: e²M has contacted BLM El Centro Field Office for input
6 on visual classifications. More detailed viewshed analysis will be
7 provided.]]
9 The increased width of corridor associated with this alternative would increase
10 the contrast impact and be visible to a greater extent than that demonstrated for
11 Alternative 2. Over time, the changes to the landscape caused by construction
12 and repair of this alternative would dissipate significantly; therefore reducing the
13 contrast of viewable sections of both sections, but it would always be greater
14 than in the Proposed Action. This alternative would however be even more
15 effective at protecting the area‟s natural vistas from continuing degradation by
16 garbage, foot trails, and wildfires associated with cross-border violators.
1 §1317(a); (5) any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the CAA (42
2 U.S.C. §7412); and (6) any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture
3 with respect to which the Administrator of USEPA has taken action pursuant to
4 15 U.S.C. §2606. The term hazardous substance does not include petroleum
5 products and natural gas.
21 Toxic substances are regulated under TSCA (15 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.), which
22 was enacted by Congress to give USEPA the ability to track the approximately
23 75,000 industrial chemicals currently produced or imported into the United
24 States. USEPA screens these chemicals and can require reporting or testing of
25 those that might pose an environmental or human-health hazard. USEPA can
26 ban the manufacture and import of those chemicals that pose an unreasonable
27 risk. Asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are among the chemicals
28 regulated by TSCA.
24 The No Action Alternative would result in continuation of the existing solid waste
25 management and hazardous materials and waste management and their
26 associated impacts, as discussed in Section 3.13.1. No additional effects on
27 solid waste management or hazardous materials and waste management would
28 be expected as a result of the Proposed Action not being implemented.
1 not result in exceeding the capacity of any landfill or the violation of any permit
2 for any landfill.
17 There are no known USTs, ASTs, or hazardous waste clean-up sites within the
18 construction corridor.
37 Data in three areas provide key insights into socioeconomic conditions that might
38 be affected by a proposed action. Data on employment identify gross numbers
39 of employees, employment by industry or trade, and unemployment trends. Data
40 on personal income in a region can be used to compare the “before” and “after”
8 Socioeconomic data shown in this chapter are presented at census tract, county,
9 municipality, and state levels to characterize baseline socioeconomic conditions
10 in the context of regional and state trends. Data have been collected from
11 previously published documents issued by Federal, state, and local agencies;
12 and from state and national databases (e.g., U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis‟
13 Regional Economic Information System).
38 Employment types in the ROI vary (see Table 3.14-1). The largest employment
39 type in the ROI, Imperial County, and California is educational, health, and social
40 services (18.4, 22.0, and 18.5 percent, respectively). Other employment types in
41 the ROI resemble the percentages of Imperial County and California (U.S.
25 The ROI has a lower percentage of minority populations than Imperial County.
26 Approximately 35.7 percent of the population in the ROI and 39.1 percent of the
27 population in California are reported as “Some other race,” as compared to 16.8
28 percent in Imperial County (see Table 3.14-2). The economic characteristics of
29 the ROI are similar to those of Imperial County. However, the economic
30 characteristics of both the ROI and Imperial County are slightly lower than
31 California (see Table 3.14-2). Residents living in the ROI and Imperial County
32 have a lower median household incomes and per capita incomes than the state
33 of California (see Table 3.14-2) (Fedstats Undated). In the ROI and Imperial
34 County, 18.1 percent and 22.6 percent of the residents are living below the
35 poverty level, respectively as compared to 14.2 percent in the state of California
36 (see Table 3.14-2).
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.
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.
15
SECTION 4
Cumulative and Other Impacts
FME003554
FME003555
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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.
34 Past Actions. Past actions are those within the cumulative effects analysis
35 areas that have occurred prior to the development of this EA. The effects of
36 these past actions are generally described in Section 3. For example, extensive
37 OHV use in the Algodones Dunes has contributed to the existing environmental
38 conditions of the area.
16 Table 4.0-1 presents the cumulative effects that might occur from implementation
17 of the Proposed Action.
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects
Actions
Activities
Land Use Commercial and Commercial and USBP purchase of Commercial and Moderate adverse
residential residential land 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
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects
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
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects
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
Current
Known Future
Resource Past Actions Background Alternative 2 Cumulative Effects
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
7 Potential cumulative adverse effects on Alamo River surface water flow volume,
8 duration, and water quality could result from the AACRP to the east that would
9 reduce canal seepage to the groundwater table in the Mexicali Valley by up to
10 68,000 acre-feet annually, potentially reducing the volume, duration, and quality
11 of irrigation return water into the Alamo River.
12 4.5 FLOODPLAINS
13 Minor adverse effects from proposed construction adjacent to the 100-year
14 floodplain and from a small portion of Segment B-4 within the 100-year floodplain
15 could occur. Continued development, AACRP, and proposed Lower Colorado
16 River Storage Reservoir could affect flood dynamics, though it is assumed that
17 floodplain management would be incorporated as appropriate into all
18 development projects to reduce the potential for adverse effects on the 100-year
19 floodplain. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have a negligible long-
20 term effect on floodplain resources.
26 4.11 NOISE
27 Negligible cumulative effects on ambient noise would be expected. The
28 Proposed Action would result in noise from construction, maintenance, and
29 operation of tactical infrastructure, but other known activities in the vicinity of the
30 Proposed Action would not be expected to contribute noticeably to the overall
31 noise environment.
20 The cumulative impacts of USBP activities to reduce the flow of illegal drugs,
21 terrorists, and terrorist weapons into the United States and the concomitant
22 effects upon the Nation's health and economy, drug-related crimes, community
23 cohesion, property values, and traditional family values would be long-term and
24 beneficial, both nationally and locally. Residents of adjacent towns would benefit
25 from increased security, a reduction in illegal drug-smuggling activities and the
26 number of violent crimes, less damage to and loss of personal property, and less
27 financial burden for entitlement programs. This would be accompanied by the
28 concomitant benefits of reduced enforcement and insurance costs. There could
29 be an adverse cumulative effect on agriculture and other employers of low-
30 income workers if the labor pool of illegal aliens was substantially reduced.
31 Operation and maintenance of the tactical infrastructure has little potential for
32 cumulative impacts on socioeconomics.
9 Energy Resources. Energy resources utilized for the Proposed Action would be
10 irretrievably lost. These include petroleum-based products (e.g., gasoline and
11 diesel) and electricity. During construction, gasoline and diesel would be used
12 for the operation of construction vehicles. USBP operations would not change
13 and the amount of fuel used to operate government-owned vehicles might
14 decrease slightly due to increased operational efficiencies. Consumption of
15 these energy resources would not place a significant demand on their availability
16 in the region. Therefore, no significant impacts would be expected.
SECTION 5
Mitigation Plan and CEQA Findings
FME003568
FME003569
El Centro Sector Proposed 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 TBD
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
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
WATER RESOURCES
Water 1 Refueling of vehicles Significant (CEQA CBP would comply with its SPCC Plan. This includes Less than TBD
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 TBD
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
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.
November 2007
FME003572
Preliminary Draft EA
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio 1 The primary impact of Significant (CEQA CBP would minimize the area of new disturbance and Less than TBD
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
activities.
Bio 2 Removal of existing Significant (CEQA CBP would reduce the potential to spread noxious weeds Less than TBD
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
November 2007
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
Bio 3 Fires inadvertently Significant (CEQA CBP would implement its Fire Prevention and Less than TBD
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 Less than TBD
Significant (CEQA TBD based on USFWS Biological Assessment/Biological
Bio 4 sensitive species could significant
Class II) Opinion
occur. (CEQA Class III)
VISUAL RESOURCES
Significance Significance
Mitigation Monitoring
Impact Before Mitigation Measure After
Number Responsibility
Mitigation Mitigation
AIR QUALITY
Air 1 Construction of the Less than Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would Less than
Proposed Action would significant (CEQA be minimized by the implementation of USBP‟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
SECTION 6
References
FME003576
FME003577
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
1 6. REFERENCES
SECTION 7
List of Preparers
FME003586
FME003587
El Centro Sector Proposed Tactical Infrastructure
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
1 (b) (6)
2 M.S. Environmental Science and
3 Education
4 B.S. Biology
5 Years of Experience: 9
6 (b) (6)
7 B.S. Environmental Studies
8 Years of Experience: 3
9 (b) (6)
10 M.S. Biology
11 B.S. Biology
12 Years of Experience: 32
13 (b) (6)
14 B.S. Environmental Science
15 Years of Experience: 5
16 (b) (6)
17 M.S. Resource
18 Economics/Environmental
19 Management
20 B.A. Political Science
21 Years of Experience: 32
22 (b) (6)
23 M.S. Fisheries Science
24 B.S. Marine Science
25 Years of Experience: 12
APPENDIX A
Standard Design for Tactical Infrastructure
FME003592
FME003593
APPENDIX A
STANDARD DESIGN FOR TACTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
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: pedestrian fences that are built on the border, and secondary
fences that are constructed parallel to the 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 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
structures offering visual transparency, allowing observation of activities
developing on the other side of the border.
A-1
FME003594
Over the past decade, USBP has deployed a variety of types of fencing, such as
pedestrian fence (see Figures A-1 through A-4), pedestrian fence with wildlife
migratory portals (see Figures A-5 and A-6), vehicle barrier with pedestrian
fence (see Figures A-7 through A-9), and bollard fencing (see Figure A-10).
A-2
FME003595
A-3
FME003596
A-4
FME003597
A-5
FME003598
A-6
FME003599
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 pedestrian fence. Patrol roads are
typically unpaved, but in some cases “all-weather” roads are necessary to ensure
continual USBP access (INS 2002).
Lighting
A-7
FME003600
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-8
FME003601
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. Environmental
2004 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-9
FME003602
A-10
FME003603
APPENDIX B
Applicable Laws and Executive Orders
FME003604
FME003605
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).
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
FME003606
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.
B-2
FME003607
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 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.
B-3
FME003608
B-4
FME003609
B-5
FME003610
B-6
FME003611
APPENDIX C
Public Involvement and
Agency Coordination
FME003612
FME003613
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-1
FME003614
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-2
FME003615
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b)
C-3
FME003616
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-4
FME003617
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-5
FME003618
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-6
FME003619
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-7
FME003620
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-8
FME003621
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-9
FME003622
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-10
FME003623
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-11
FME003624
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-12
FME003625
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-13
FME003626
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-14
FME003627
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-15
FME003628
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
C-16
FME003629
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-17
FME003630
FME003631
APPENDIX D
Biological Survey Report
FME003632
FME003633
Draft
Prepared by
NOVEMBER 2007
FME003634
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
FME003637
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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, maintenance, and operation 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
FME003638
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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 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 El Centro
15 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 El Centro sector. The following is a
19 general description of each section:
November 2007 2
FME003639
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
39
November 2007 3
FME003640
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 4
FME003641
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 5
FME003642
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003643
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
November 2007 7
FME003644
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 8
FME003645
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 9
FME003646
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 10
FME003647
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 11
FME003648
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 12
FME003649
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003650
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 vegetation type occurs within the North American Warm Desert Riparian
2 Woodland and Shrubland ecological system of NatureServe (2007).
November 2007 14
FME003651
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 15
FME003652
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 16
FME003653
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 17
FME003654
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 18
FME003655
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
4
5
November 2007 19
FME003656
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 20
FME003657
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003658
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
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
FME003659
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
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
FME003660
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
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
FME003661
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
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
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
FME003662
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
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
FME003663
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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).
November 2007 27
FME003664
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003665
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003666
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 30
FME003667
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 31
FME003668
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 11. Any night lighting for the construction of the project will be selectively
2 placed, shielded, and directed away from all native vegetative
3 communities. If lighting is part of the project, special bulbs designed to
4 ensure no increase in ambient light conditions will be used.
5 12. The project proponent will monitor light levels to ensure that light levels do
6 not illuminate native vegetation.
7 13. No off-road vehicle activity will occur outside of the project footprint by the
8 project proponent, project workers, and project contractors.
9 14. No pets owned or under the care of the project proponent or any and all
10 construction workers will be permitted inside the project’s construction
11 boundaries, adjacent native habitats, or other associated work areas.
12 15. Light poles and other pole-like structures will be designed to discourage
13 roosting by birds, particularly ravens or other raptors that might use the
14 poles for hunting perches.
15 16. Ambient noise levels will be determined prior to the start of construction.
16 All areas where vireos, gnatcatchers, and flycatchers might be present or
17 have historically occurred will have ambient noise level contours along the
18 proposed project corridors determined prior to the start of construction.
19 17. All excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2 feet deep will
20 either be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or will be
21 constructed with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or
22 wooden planks. The ramps will be located at no greater than 1,000-foot
23 intervals and will be sloped less than 45 degrees. Each morning before
24 the start of construction and before they are filled, the holes and trenches
25 will be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals. Any animals discovered
26 will be allowed to escape voluntarily (by escape ramps or temporary
27 structures), without harassment, before construction activities resume, or
28 they will be removed from the trench or hole by a qualified biologist and
29 allowed to escape unimpeded.
November 2007 32
FME003669
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
22
November 2007 33
FME003670
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003671
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
Permits
Issuing
Permit Type Reason Legislation
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
FME003672
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
Permits
Issuing
Permit Type Reason Legislation
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
FME003673
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1
Notification
Agency Contact Information
USFWS – Regional Kurt Roblek
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
Office 760-431-9440 ext. 308
Fax 760-431-5902
BLM Jesse Irwin
Wildlife Biologist
El Centro Field Office
Bureau of Land Management
1661 South 4th Street
El Centro, California 92243
Office 760-337-4452
Fax 760-337-4490
Jesse_Irwin@ca.blm.gov
Bureau of Reclamation Sean Torpey, Environmental Manager
or
Anna Pinnell, Realty Specialist
Bureau of Reclamation
7301 Calle Agua Salada
Yuma, AZ 85364
Office 928-343-8514
Fax 928-343-8320
Email: storpey@lc.usbr.gov
Email: apinnell@lc.usbr.gov
2
Additional Studies
Agency Study
USACE Wetland Delineation and Determination
3
November 2007 37
FME003674
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 8. List of Preparers
2 (b) (6) 26 (b) (6)
3 B.A. Geography 27 A.A.S. Nursing
4 Years of Experience: 2 28 Years of Experience: 17
November 2007 38
FME003675
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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
FME003676
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 40
FME003677
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTION OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES
FME003678
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
FME003679
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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).
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
FME003680
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
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:
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.
A-2
FME003681
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
Natural History:
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.
A-3
FME003682
Draft Biological Survey Report El Centro Sector Tactical Infrastructure EA
A-4
FME003683
APPENDIX E
Cultural Resource Survey
FME003684
FME003685
Draft
Prepared for
Prepared by
NOVEMBER 2007
FME003686
1 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
2 DATABASE INFORMATION
3 Report Author: (b) (6)
14 USGS Quadrangle
15 Maps: Coyote Wells, Yuha Basin, Mount Signal, Calexico, Bonds
16 Corner, Midway Well NW, Midway Well, Grays Well 7.5
21
November 2007
FME003688
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007
FME003689
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
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
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
26 APPENDIX
34
35
November 2007 i
FME003692
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 FIGURES
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
FME003693
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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. The proposed
4 construction corridor is to the southeast of Calexico, California, and north and
5 northwest of Mexicali, Mexico. A project-specific archaeological assessment was
6 prepared in support of the El Centro sector of the construction and operation of
7 approximately 26 miles of tactical infrastructure in the Imperial Valley, California.
8 The APE for the Proposed Action includes lands owned or managed by the
9 Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation, International
10 Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), and private property. The tactical
11 infrastructure would consist of patrol roads, pedestrian fence, vehicle barriers,
12 and other infrastructure such as lighting.
13 Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) within
14 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have multiple missions including
15 the following:
22 USBP’s new and traditional missions are complementary: to identify and control
23 who and what are entering the United States.
24 USBP is specifically responsible for patrolling nearly 6,000 miles of Mexican and
25 Canadian international land borders and more than 2,000 miles of coastal waters
26 surrounding the Florida Peninsula and the island of Puerto Rico. USBP
27 accomplishes its missions by maintaining surveillance, conducting investigations,
28 responding to electronic sensor alarms and aircraft sightings, interpreting and
29 following tracks, maintaining traffic checkpoints along highways leading from
30 border areas, and conducting city patrol and transportation checks. Electronic
31 sensors are placed at strategic locations along the border to detect people or
32 vehicles entering the country illegally. Video monitors and night vision scopes
33 are also used to detect illegal entries. Agents patrol the border in vehicles,
34 boats, and aircraft; on foot; and on horseback. Recently, USBP has added air
35 surveillance capabilities by deploying unmanned aerial vehicles.
November 2007 1
FME003694
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
5 USBP has nine administrative sectors along the U.S./Mexico international border.
6 The USBP El Centro Sector provides law enforcement support for the counties of
7 Imperial and Riverside, California. USBP is proposing to install and operate
8 tactical infrastructure consisting of pedestrian, aesthetic, or hybrid fence; access
9 roads; patrol roads; lights; and other tools along the U.S./Mexico international
10 border within the El Centro Sector, California (see Figure 1-1). Construction and
11 operation of the new tactical infrastructure would impact an area approximately
12 60 feet wide along its approximately 26-mile length.
13 The USBP El Centro Sector has identified areas for improvements that will help it
14 gain operational control of the border. These improvements include installation
15 of “primary fence” sections (areas of the border that are not currently fenced).
16 These sections of primary fence are designated as sections B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5B,
17 and B-5A on Figure 1-1. See Table 1-1 for a general description of the
18 proposed tactical infrastructure sections.
19 USBP currently uses the following three main types of barriers along the border:
20 • Primary fencing
21 • Secondary double fencing to complement the primary fencing
22 • Vehicle barriers meant to stop vehicles, but not people on foot.
23 There are several types of primary border fence designs that USBP can select
24 for construction depending on various ground conditions and law enforcement
25 tactics employed. Each option offers relative advantages and disadvantages.
26 Fencing based on concrete panels, for example, is among the more cost-
27 effective solutions but USBP agents cannot see through this type of barrier.
28 USBP prefers fencing structures that offer visual transparency, which offer USBP
29 agents a tactical advantage to observe activities developing on the other side of
30 the border.
31 Over the past decade, USBP has used a variety of types of primary fencing, such
32 as bollard-type, ornamental picket, landing mat, and chain-link. Bollard fencing
33 has been effective in its limited deployment and can be seen through. However,
34 it is expensive to install and to maintain. Landing mat fencing is composed of
35 military surplus carbon steel landing mats, which were used to create landing
36 strips during the Vietnam War. Chain-link fencing is relatively economical, but
37 more easily compromised. In selecting particular fencing designs, USBP has to
38 weigh various factors such as their utility as a law enforcement tool, costs
39 associated with construction and maintenance, potential environmental impacts,
40 and public concerns. USBP is continuing to develop different types of fence
41 designs that could best address these competing objectives and constraints.
November 2007 2
2
1
FME003695
U.S./Mexico
ve
i
International Border 30
do R
November 2007
115 Salton
ra
Sea
Arizona
Ports of Entry San
Co lo
Phoenix
Diego
B-1 Fence Section Label 111
Tijuana
Miles
26
Cultural Resources Study
0 2.5 5 10 El Centro
Scale Sector
Projection: Albers
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
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
3
El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
Border Length of
Section General Land Type of Tactical
Patrol New Fence
Number Location Ownership Infrastructure
Station Section
Pedestrian fence,
West of Public: BLM-
B-1 El Centro lighting, patrol road, 11.3 miles
Pinto managed
access roads
Monument Pedestrian fence,
Public: BLM-
B-2 El Centro 224 to West lighting, patrol road, 2.4 miles
managed
of Calexico access roads
West of Public: BLM-
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.
November 2007 4
FME003697
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
10 In addition to the barriers, USBP uses the following for their interdiction efforts:
15 Support Facilities
16 • Construction materials, storage, and equipment staging areas
17 Utilities Network
18 • Portable packaged power generator and distribution
19 • Security lighting
20 • Water wells, storage, and underground distribution piping
21 • Septic and sewage treatment
22 Communication networks
23 • Antenna towers
24 • Underground utility lines
25 Transportation nodes
26 • Helipad
27 • Boat ramps and docks.
37
November 2007 5
FME003698
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 2. SETTING
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
FME003699
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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)
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
FME003700
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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
FME003701
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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
FME003702
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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 Cupeňo, Gabrielino, and the
32 Luiseno (Shipley 1978).
November 2007 10
FME003703
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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
FME003704
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003705
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 13
FME003706
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 3. METHODS
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.
November 2007 14
FME003707
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003708
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
18 There are 37 reports on file with the Southeastern Information Center for the
19 project area:
November 2007 16
FME003709
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 • Data Recovery and Analysis for 4-IMP-4830 West Mesa. Imperial County,
2 California, Cornerstone Research, 1982
3 • 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 • Sand Hills to the Colorado River Data Recovery Program APS/SDG&E
7 Interconnection Project (now Southwest Powerlink). Wirth Environmental
8 Services, 1982
9 • 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 • Southwest Powerlink Cultural Resources Management Plan. Wirth
13 Environmental Services, 1984
14 • 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 • Archaeological Investigations in the Picacho Basin: Southwest Powerlink
19 Project-Sand hills to the Colorado River Section. Wirth Environmental
20 Services, 1984
21 • Cultural Resource Study of the Imperial County Prison Alternatives. Imperial
22 County, California, WESTEC Services, Inc.,1988
23 • 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 • Archaeological Examinations of Bravo Ranch, Imperial County, California.
27 Imperial Valley College Desert Museum, 1992
28 • 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 • 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 • Cultural Resource Survey for the Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility for
35 the New Calexico Port of Entry, Imperial County, California.CalTrans,1994
36 • 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 • 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
FME003710
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 • 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 • 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 • Overview and Cultural Resources Survey for the De Anza Natural Gas
8 Pipeline. KEA Environmental, Inc.,2000
9 • Archaeological Examinations of Aggregate Products, Inc. Conveyor Belt
10 Project at the All-American Canal, Imperial County, California. Jay Von
11 Werlhof, 2000
12 • The All-American Canal: An Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation,
13 Imperial County, California. ASM Affiliates, 2001
14 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • 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 • A Class I Cultural Resources Inventory for the All-American Canal Lining
34 Project, ASM Affiliates, 2004
35 • 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
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.
10 Table 4-2. Recorded Sites within 0.5 miles of the Project APE
November 2007 19
FME003712
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 20
FME003713
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 21
FME003714
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 22
FME003715
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 23
FME003716
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
11 Margaret Hangan, 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
FME003717
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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
FME003718
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003719
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003720
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003721
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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 David Kim of the El Centro
4 Sector. Agent Kim 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
FME003722
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003723
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003724
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 None of the previously identified sites within the survey corridor (see Table 4-1)
2 were relocated during the current survey.
23
24 Photograph 5-6. U.S./Mexico Border Monument #217,
25 Approximately 35 m Southwest of Site Datum
November 2007 32
FME003725
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
2
3 Photograph 5-7. Example of Historic Transfer Ware (ceramics)
4
5 Photograph 5-8. Examples of Bottle Finishes
November 2007 33
FME003726
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003727
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1
2 Figure 5-2. Site Map
3
4 Photograph 5-9. Example of Chipping Waste (red metavolcanic stone)
5
November 2007 35
FME003728
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
FME003729
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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 infrastructure project does not represent a potential
31 impact on known significant or eligible archaeological sites or features. The area
32 has been examined for evidence of archaeological sites, features, and isolates
33 and none were identified within the project APE. The known sites are outside of
34 the proposed alignment and maximum extent of the construction zone as
35 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
FME003730
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 38
FME003731
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 7. REFERENCES
2 Apple, Rebecca
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.
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
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
FME003732
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
8 Dominici, Debra A
9 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Sand Hills Interchange
10 Project
21 Gallegos, Dennis
22 1980 Class II Cultural Resource Inventory of the East Mesa and West Mesa
23 Regions, Imperial Valley, California
28 Hangan, Margaret
29 2003 Bureau of Land Management 110 Survey 2003
33 Holland
34 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
35 California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
November 2007 40
FME003733
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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.
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,
36 Imperial County, California
November 2007 41
FME003734
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
35 Schaefer, Jerry
36 2001 The All-American Canal: An Historic Properties Inventory and
37 Evaluation, Imperial County, California
November 2007 42
FME003735
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
14 Sturm, Bradley L.
15 1995 Cultural Resources Assessment: Southern California Gas Company
16 Natural Gas Transmission Line 6902 Revised Border Crossing,
17 Imperial 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.
November 2007 43
FME003736
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
10 Wade, Charles
11 1979 Environmental Impact Report for Big Chief Claims Group (Glamis)
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.
23 Wirth Associates
24 1982 Sand Hills to the Colorado River Data recovery Program APS/SDG&E
25 Interconnection Project (now Southwest Powerlink)
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
FME003737
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
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
19 Southeastern Information Center
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
25 Southeastern Information Center
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
34 Southeastern Information Center
November 2007 45
FME003738
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 Dolan, Christy
2 2000 DPR Form CA-IMP-7130H Update. On file at Southeastern Information
3 Center
4 Gallegos, Dennis
5 1979 BLM California Desert Survey Record Form 4-IMP-3979. On file at
6 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
18 1981 DPR Form 4-IMP-4398. On 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
32 1981 DPR Form 4-IMP-6174. 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
FME003739
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1 Sturm, Bradley L.
2 1995 DPR Forms CA-IMP-7130H Update, -7363H and -7364H. On file at
3 Southeastern Information Center
4 Thesken, Thomas
5 1984 DPR Form 4-IMP-5649. On file at Southeastern Information Center
6 Vogel
7 1978 Imperial Valley College Museum Form 4-IMP-3047. On file at
8 Southeastern Information Center
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
21 Southeastern Information Center
22 Wessel
23 1976 DPR Form 4-IMP-1386. On file at Southeastern Information Center
24 York, Andrew, Rebecca McCorkle Apple, Alex Kirkish and Jackson Underwood
25 2000 DPR Form CA-IMP-7130H Update. On file at Southeastern Information
26 Center
30
November 2007 47
FME003740
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
November 2007 48
FME003741
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
1
FME003743
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b)
A-1
FME003744
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-2
FME003745
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
A-3
FME003746
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-4
FME003747
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-5
FME003748
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-6
FME003749
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-7
FME003750
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-8
FME003751
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-9
FME003752
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-10
FME003753
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-11
FME003754
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b)
(6)
A-12
FME003755
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-13
FME003756
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-14
FME003757
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-15
FME003758
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-16
FME003759
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-17
FME003760
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-18
FME003761
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-19
FME003762
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-20
FME003763
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-21
FME003764
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-22
FME003765
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-23
FME003766
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
A-24
FME003767
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-25
FME003768
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-26
FME003769
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-27
FME003770
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-28
FME003771
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-29
FME003772
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-30
FME003773
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
A-31
FME003774
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
A-32
FME003775
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
7
FME003776
Cultural Resources Study El Centro Tactical Infrastructure EA
2
FME003778
APPENDIX F
Air Quality Emissions Calculations
FME003780
FME003781
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.
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
FME003782
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.
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
FME003783
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
FME003784
F-4
FME003785
Fugitive Estimates fine particulate emissions from earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust
Grading Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving
dust emissions
Generator Emissions Estimates the total emissions from emergency generators to power construction equipment.
AQCR Summarizes total emissions for the Southeast Desert AQCR Tier Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to
Tier Report regional emissions.
Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2001 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as
an approximation of the regional inventory. Because the Proposed Action is several orders of magnitude below significance,
the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used.
Includes:
Assumptions:
Total ground disturbance for pedestrian fence and patrol road would be 44.6 miles long by 60 feet wide (14,129,280 ft 2).
No grading would be required in construction staging areas.
Patrol road would be graded and lined with gravel. No paving would be included in Alternative 2.
Construction would occur between March and December 2008 for a total of 190 working days.
Emission factors are taken from Table 3-2. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are
from Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted.
Grading
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Bulldozer 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
Total per 10 acres of activity 3 60.51 9.02 70.69 1.21 2.03
Paving
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Paver 1 7.93 1.37 11.62 0.16 0.22
Roller 1 5.01 0.86 7.34 0.10 0.14
Total per 10 acres of activity 2 12.94 2.23 18.96 0.26 0.36
Demolition
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Loader 1 7.86 1.35 11.52 0.16 0.22
Haul Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
Total per 10 acres of activity 2 28.75 4.95 42.14 0.58 0.80
Building Construction
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
d
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Stationary
Generator Set 1 11.83 1.47 10.09 0.24 0.47
Industrial Saw 1 17.02 2.12 14.52 0.34 0.68
Welder 1 4.48 0.56 3.83 0.09 0.18
Mobile (non-road)
Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.84 0.58
Forklift 1 4.57 0.79 6.70 0.18 0.13
Crane 1 8.37 1.44 12.27 0.33 0.23
Total per 10 acres of activity 6 67.16 9.98 78.03 2.02 2.27
Architectural Coatings
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Air Compressor 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
Total per 10 acres of activity 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activitiy, assuming 10 acres of that activity,
(e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment
in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be
three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project.
b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC.
c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not provide SO2 emission factors. For this worksheet, SO2 emissions have been estimated
based on approximate fuel use rate for diesel equipment and the assumption of 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. For the average of
the equipment fleet, the resulting SO2 factor was found to be approximately 0.04 times the NOx emission factor for the mobile equipment (based
upon 2002 USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance") and 0.02 times the NOx emission factor for all other equipment (based on AP-42, Table 3.4-1)
d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was
assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance.
NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS
Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square
feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative.
The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005
MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height
of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove
Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition.
The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known.
CO2 Emissions
It is assumed that 30 vehicles consisting of bulldozer, grader, forklift, cranes, rollers, and light duty trucks would be used for this project.
It is further assumed that the total approximate average miles per day per vehicle would be 10 miles.
It is assumed that the average vehicle will produce 19.5 pounds of CO 2 per gallon of gas used. (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients)
Example: (30 vehicles) x (10 miles/day/vehicle) x (190 days working) x (1 gal/10 miles) x (19.5 lb CO 2/gal x ton/2000lb) = 55.575 tons CO2
Estimate emissions of CO2 for SDAQCR region is 3.3 million tons per year
AP-42 Section
Operation Empirical Equation Units (5th Edition)
Bulldozing 0.75(s1.5)/(M1.4) lbs/hr Table 11.9-1, Overburden
Grading (0.60)(0.051)s2 0 lbs/VMT Table 11.9-1,
Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) [(k(s/12)a (W/3)b)] [(365-P)/365] lbs/VMT Section 13.2.2
Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. I, USEPA AP-42, Section 11.9 dated 10/98 and Section 13.2 dated 12/03
Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface
Reference: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
Soil piles area fraction: 0.10 (Fraction of site area covered by soil piles)
Soil Piles EF = 1.05 lbs/day/acres graded
Input Parameters
Construction area: 36.04 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combustion" Worksheet)
Qty Equipment: 10.81 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres)
Assumptions.
Terrain is mostly flat.
An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed.
200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing.
300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill.
Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting.
Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each.
Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site.
Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area.
Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.
Acres/yr
Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days
Means Line No. Operation Description Output Units equip-day) per acre specific) per year
2230 200 0550 Site Clearing Dozer & rake, medium brush 8 acre/day 8 0.13 36.04 4.51
2230 500 0300 Stripping Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil 1,650 cu. yd/day 2.05 0.49 36.04 17.62
2315 432 5220 Excavation Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul 800 cu. yd/day 0.99 1.01 18.02 18.17
2315 120 5220 Backfill Structural, common earth, 150' haul 1,950 cu. yd/day 2.42 0.41 18.02 7.45
2315 310 5020 Compaction Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes 2,300 cu. yd/day 2.85 0.35 36.04 12.64
TOTAL 60.39
Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage.
(Equip)(day)/yr: 60.39
Qty Equipment: 10.81
Grading days/yr: 5.59
The Proposed Action would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. These generators would operate approximately
8 hours per day for 190 working days.
Number of Generators 6
Maximum Hours of Operation 8 hrs/day
Number of Construction Days 190
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)
Emissions (Diesel)
NOx 10.581 tpy
VOC 0.864 tpy
CO 2.279 tpy
SOx 0.696 tpy
PM10 0.744 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)
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.
Number of Generators 30
Maximum Hours of Operation 12 hrs/day
Number of Operational Days 190
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)
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
SOURCE:
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html
USEPA - AirData NET Tier Report
*Net Air pollution sources (area and point) in tons per year (2001)
Site visited on 2 October 2007.
Southeast Desert AQCR (40 CFR 81.167): Imperial County, portions of Kern County, portions of Los Angeles County, portions of Riverside County,
and portions of San Bernardino County, California
Fugitive Estimates fine particulate emissions from earthmoving, vehicle traffic, and windblown dust
Grading Estimates the number of days of site preparation, to be used for estimating heavy equipment exhaust and earthmoving
dust emissions.
Generator Emissions Estimates the total emissions from emergency generators to power construction equipment.
AQCR Summarizes total emissions for the Southeast Desert AQCR Tier Reports for 2001, to be used to compare project to
Tier Report regional emissions.
Since future year budgets were not readily available, actual 2001 air emissions inventories for the counties were used as
an approximation of the regional inventory. Because Alternative 3 is several orders of magnitude below significance,
the conclusion would be the same, regardless of whether future year budget data set were used.
Includes:
Assumptions:
Total ground disturbance for pedestrian fence and patrol road would be 44.6 miles long by 150 feet wide (35,323,200 ft 2).
No grading would be required in construction staging areas.
Patrol road would be graded and lined with gravel. No paving would be included in Alternative 2.
Construction would occur between March and December 2008 for a total of 190 working days.
Emission factors are taken from Table 3-2. Assumptions regarding the type and number of equipment are
from Table 3-1 unless otherwise noted.
Grading
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Bulldozer 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
Total per 10 acres of activity 3 60.51 9.02 70.69 1.21 2.03
Paving
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Paver 1 7.93 1.37 11.62 0.16 0.22
Roller 1 5.01 0.86 7.34 0.10 0.14
Total per 10 acres of activity 2 12.94 2.23 18.96 0.26 0.36
Demolition
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Loader 1 7.86 1.35 11.52 0.16 0.22
Haul Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.42 0.58
Total per 10 acres of activity 2 28.75 4.95 42.14 0.58 0.80
Building Construction
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
d
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Stationary
Generator Set 1 11.83 1.47 10.09 0.24 0.47
Industrial Saw 1 17.02 2.12 14.52 0.34 0.68
Welder 1 4.48 0.56 3.83 0.09 0.18
Mobile (non-road)
Truck 1 20.89 3.60 30.62 0.84 0.58
Forklift 1 4.57 0.79 6.70 0.18 0.13
Crane 1 8.37 1.44 12.27 0.33 0.23
Total per 10 acres of activity 6 67.16 9.98 78.03 2.02 2.27
Architectural Coatings
No. Reqd.a NOx VOCb CO SO2c PM10
Equipment per 10 acres (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day) (lb/day)
Air Compressor 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
Total per 10 acres of activity 1 6.83 0.85 5.82 0.14 0.27
a) The SMAQMD 2004 guidance suggests a default equipment fleet for each activitiy, assuming 10 acres of that activity,
(e.g., 10 acres of grading, 10 acres of paving, etc.). The default equipment fleet is increased for each 10 acre increment
in the size of the construction project. That is, a 26 acre project would round to 30 acres and the fleet size would be
three times the default fleet for a 10 acre project.
b) The SMAQMD 2004 reference lists emission factors for reactive organic gas (ROG). For the purposes of this worksheet ROG = VOC.
c) The SMAQMD 2004 reference does not provide SO2 emission factors. For this worksheet, SO2 emissions have been estimated
based on approximate fuel use rate for diesel equipment and the assumption of 500 ppm sulfur diesel fuel. For the average of
the equipment fleet, the resulting SO2 factor was found to be approximately 0.04 times the NOx emission factor for the mobile equipment (based
upon 2002 USAF IERA "Air Emissions Inventory Guidance") and 0.02 times the NOx emission factor for all other equipment (based on AP-42, Table 3.4-1)
d) Typical equipment fleet for building construction was not itemized in SMAQMD 2004 guidance. The equipment list above was
assumed based on SMAQMD 1994 guidance.
NOTE: The 'Total Days' estimate for paving is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.21 acres/day, which is a factor derived from the 2005 MEANS
Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Edition, for 'Asphaltic Concrete Pavement, Lots and Driveways - 6" stone base', which provides an estimate of square
feet paved per day. There is also an estimate for 'Plain Cement Concrete Pavement', however the estimate for asphalt is used because it is more conservative.
The 'Total 'Days' estimate for demolition is calculated by dividing the total number of acres by 0.02 acres/day, which is a factor also derived from the 2005
MEANS reference. This is calculated by averaging the demolition estimates from 'Building Demolition - Small Buildings, Concrete', assuming a height
of 30 feet for a two-story building; from 'Building Footings and Foundations Demolition - 6" Thick, Plain Concrete'; and from 'Demolish, Remove
Pavement and Curb - Concrete to 6" thick, rod reinforced'. Paving is double-weighted since projects typically involve more paving demolition.
The 'Total Days' estimate for building construction is assumed to be 230 days, unless project-specific data is known.
CO2 Emissions
It is assumed that 75 vehicles consisting of bulldozer, grader, forklift, cranes, rollers, and light duty trucks would be used for this project.
It is further assumed that the total approximate average miles per day per vehicle would be 10 miles.
It is assumed that the average vehicle will produce 19.5 pounds of CO 2 per gallon of gas used. (www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients)
Example: (75 vehicles) x (10 miles/day/vehicle) x (190 days working) x (1 gal/10 miles) x (19.5 lb CO 2/gal x ton/2000lb) = 138.938 tons CO2
Estimate emissions of CO2 for SDAQCR region is 3.3 million tons per year
AP-42 Section
Operation Empirical Equation Units (5th Edition)
Bulldozing 0.75(s1.5)/(M1.4) lbs/hr Table 11.9-1, Overburden
Grading (0.60)(0.051)s2 0 lbs/VMT Table 11.9-1,
Vehicle Traffic (unpaved roads) [(k(s/12)a (W/3)b)] [(365-P)/365] lbs/VMT Section 13.2.2
Source: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Vol. I, USEPA AP-42, Section 11.9 dated 10/98 and Section 13.2 dated 12/03
Emissions Due to Wind Erosion of Soil Piles and Exposed Graded Surface
Reference: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993.
Soil piles area fraction: 0.10 (Fraction of site area covered by soil piles)
Soil Piles EF = 1.05 lbs/day/acres graded
Input Parameters
Construction area: 90.10 acres/yr (from "CY2008 Combustion" Worksheet)
Qty Equipment: 27.03 (calculated based on 3 pieces of equipment for every 10 acres)
Assumptions.
Terrain is mostly flat.
An average of 6" soil is excavated from one half of the site and backfilled to the other half of the site; no soil is hauled off-site or borrowed.
200 hp bulldozers are used for site clearing.
300 hp bulldozers are used for stripping, excavation, and backfill.
Vibratory drum rollers are used for compacting.
Stripping, Excavation, Backfill and Compaction require an average of two passes each.
Excavation and Backfill are assumed to involve only half of the site.
Calculation of days required for one piece of equipment to grade the specified area.
Reference: Means Heavy Construction Cost Data, 19th Ed., R. S. Means, 2005.
Acres/yr
Acres per equip-days (project- Equip-days
Means Line No. Operation Description Output Units equip-day) per acre specific) per year
2230 200 0550 Site Clearing Dozer & rake, medium brush 8 acre/day 8 0.13 90.10 11.26
2230 500 0300 Stripping Topsoil & stockpiling, adverse soil 1,650 cu. yd/day 2.05 0.49 90.10 44.05
2315 432 5220 Excavation Bulk, open site, common earth, 150' haul 800 cu. yd/day 0.99 1.01 45.05 45.43
2315 120 5220 Backfill Structural, common earth, 150' haul 1,950 cu. yd/day 2.42 0.41 45.05 18.64
2315 310 5020 Compaction Vibrating roller, 6 " lifts, 3 passes 2,300 cu. yd/day 2.85 0.35 90.10 31.60
TOTAL 150.97
Calculation of days required for the indicated pieces of equipment to grade the designated acreage.
(Equip)(day)/yr: 150.97
Qty Equipment: 27.03
Grading days/yr: 5.59
Alternative 3 would require six diesel powered generators to power construction equipment. These generators would operate approximately
8 hours per day for 190 working days.
Number of Generators 6
Maximum Hours of Operation 8 hrs/day
Number of Construction Days 190
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)
Emissions (Diesel)
NOx 10.581 tpy
VOC 0.864 tpy
CO 2.279 tpy
SOx 0.696 tpy
PM10 0.744 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)
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.
Number of Generators 30
Maximum Hours of Operation 12 hrs/day
Number of Operational Days 365
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)
Emissions (Diesel)
NOx 16.355 tpy
VOC 1.335 tpy
CO 3.523 tpy
SOx 1.076 tpy
PM10 1.150 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
SOURCE:
http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html
USEPA - AirData NET Tier Report
*Net Air pollution sources (area and point) in tons per year (2001)
Site visited on 2 October 2007.
Southeast Desert AQCR (40 CFR 81.167): Imperial County, portions of Kern County, portions of Los Angeles County, portions of Riverside County,
and portions of San Bernardino County, California
Alternative 3: Secure Fence Act Alignment Alternative F-32 AQCR Tier Report