US Customs and Border Protection Ajo Housing Development ... - GSA

Chapter 4.5 Cultural Resources
There is a clear misunderstanding of the concept of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and
the range of potential effects regarding historic properties. These are serious flaws in the
Draft EA. To state that "GSA has determined that this undertaking will not have an effect
on the Ajo Townsite Historic District, therefore is not included within the APE" indicates a
lack of comprehension regarding APE and effect considerations under 36 CFR 800. Federal
regulations at 36 CFR 800.16 state "Area of potential effects means the geographic area
or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the
character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential
effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for
different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking." Federal regulations at 36 CFR
800.5(a)(2)(v) state that adverse effects on historic properties include the "introduction of
visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's
significant historic features, and regulations in 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)(iv) state that adverse
effects on historic properties include "change of the character of the property's use or
physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance."
This APE in the Draft EA is the preferred alternative purchase area. That, however, is only
a direct effect of the proposed undertaking. It is well established that the APE regarding
indirect effects for many undertakings is much larger than the direct effect (or footprint) of
a project when issues such as visual, audible, and atmospheric effects are considered. In
the case of the preferred alternative, the visual, audible, and atmospheric effects of the
proposed undertaking must be considered in the National Register listed Ajo Townsite,
including the components of the listed property to the southeast of the proposed
undertaking. In fact, the preferred alternative is essentially enclosed by the listed Ajo
Townsite to its northeast, east and southeast. The Draft EA and the consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) completely fails to address the scale of the APE
regarding indirect effects of the proposed undertaking and the nature of the potential
effects of the undertaking on the listed Ajo Townsite, an omission that must be addressed
to adequately comply with 36 CFR 800.
Another inadequacy of the Draft EA and the GSA consultation with the SHPO is that there
has been insufficient effort made to identify historic properties within the direct impact
APE. It is clearly stated in the two documents that no historic properties are present within
this APE. However, this statement is made in the absence of a historic properties inventory
identification survey. In the absence of such an identification survey, how can anyone
know what historic properties may be present in this APE? Given the many thousands of
years of Native American occupation in the area, it is entirely possible that Native
American archaeological remains are present. If they are present, this may well be an issue
of concern to the consulting Native American Tribes. In addition, the proximity to the listed
Ajo Townsite and many mines may result in early 20th Century or 19th Century features in
this APE. The lack of an adequate historic properties identification effort must be remedied
through the conduct of an inventory survey and a report documenting the results. Until this
identification effort is concluded, any finding of "no historic properties affected" is an
unsupported and unfounded assertion.
There is also a misunderstanding of the role and involvement of local governments in the
consultation process under 36 CFR 800. In 36 CFR 800.2(c)(3) it is stated that "a
4