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

Comment
16. What is the cumulative impact of
Freeport McMoRan mining operations,
a proposed sustainable agriculture
program, and the proposed CBP
housing?
17. A cultural resources survey of the area
should be completed and submitted to
SHPO. Impacts are not fully evaluated.
18. The GSA did not gather data and
details on historic buildings in the
55 Sahuaro St. area.
19. The Hia Ced O’odham people were not
contacted.
20. States there is an “inherent concern”
and “image” about CBP employees.
Believes a “gated community” will
further add to the “poor image.” To
build a more positive image, infill
property development would enhance
neighborhoods and businesses.
21. Guest House Inn (bed and breakfast)
may be subjected to noise interference
by the occupants of the new housing,
and a sight/sound barrier should be
constructed.
Response
The level and scale of the cumulative analysis should be
commensurate with the proposed project’s potential impacts,
scale, and other factors. Based on the Council of Environmental
Quality guidance, NEPA documents should consider those past,
present, and future actions that incrementally contribute to the
cumulative effects on resources affected by the proposed action.
Impacts of mining operations and agricultural programs would not
likely be similar in nature to those of the Preferred Alternative,
which would be located on previously developed land within a
developed urban center. The project would not affect sensitive or
critical resources, lead to a wide range of effects, induce
population growth, lead to further development, or require
expansion of development infrastructure. Impacts from
implementation of the Preferred Alternative are expected to be
negligible on a cumulative basis, except for the minor localized
effects on air quality, noise, and visual resources during
construction.
The GSA concluded that an archaeological survey was not
warranted. In the consultation letter to SHPO, the GSA noted that
it had contacted the Arizona State Museum. The museum had
noted that a search for the archaeological records retained at the
museum found the proposed project area had never been inspected
for cultural resources, and no sites are recorded within the project
boundary. Consultation with SHPO was completed on November
23, 2010. SHPO concurred that no historic properties are present.
This information was added to Section 4.5.
The GSA inventoried the buildings and structures within the
subject parcel, documented the results in its consultation letter to
SHPO, and concluded that no historic properties are present within
the Area of Potential Effects. Section 4.5 documents this
determination. SHPO concurred with this determination on
November 23, 2010. The SHPO concurrence letter has been added
to the Final EA (Appendix C).
The Tohono O’odham Nation is the official contact for the Hia
Ced O’odham people. The GSA coordinated with the Tohono
O’odham Tribe by letter and received no response.
The intent of the comment is unclear. The GSA is not aware of
image concerns for CBP employees within the community. No
gated or walled community is proposed for the project site, and
development of the mostly vacant mobile home park provides an
infill opportunity.
The planned housing would be constructed on a previously
developed residential development. The future land use would be
similar to the existing land use, and no increase in residential
density is planned. No new roadway access is planned that would
bring traffic closer to the Guest House Inn. Noise generated by
occupants would be expected to be similar to that generated today
in surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Environmental Assessment 42 Ajo Housing Development Project