supplemental environmental assessment us border patrol, tucson ...

FONSI-2123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445• adequate space and facilities (e.g., administrative, living quarters, staff showers, diningfacilities, and lockers) for the forward deployment of USBP agents currently operatingout of USBP Douglas Station• facilities necessary for an increased effectiveness of USBP agents in the performance oftheir duties (e.g., vehicle parking, vehicle fuel facilities, helicopter pad and fuelingfacility, horse corral, and communications equipment and tower)• a more safe, effective, and efficient work environmentProposed Action: The Proposed Action includes the construction, operation, and maintenanceof a FOB at a location recommended by the Malpai Borderlands Group and referred to as theFloyd Pocket project area. The Malpai Borderlands Group is a grassroots, landowner-drivennonprofit organization with the goal of restoring and maintaining the natural processes thatcreate and protect a healthy, unfragmented landscape to support a diverse, flourishingcommunity of human, plant, and animal life in the Borderlands region. This nonprofitorganization works to encourage profitable ranching and other traditional livelihoods that willsustain the open space nature of land within the San Bernardino Valley in southeast Arizona.The Malpai Borderlands Group recommended the Floyd Pocket project area for construction ofthe FOB because it is located behind a small hill that will obscure the view of the FOB fromGeronimo Trail, the main route for vehicular access through the San Bernardino Valley.The Floyd Pocket project area is an approximately 7.5-acre tract of undeveloped land located inthe southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley in Cochise County, Arizona, approximately2.45 miles north of the United States/Mexico border within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR.Current access to the Floyd Pocket project area is restricted to an unimproved, two-track road offof Guadalupe Canyon Road located approximately 0.4 mile from the intersection of GeronimoTrail and Guadalupe Canyon Road.The Proposed Action Alternative also includes repair and improvements of the approximately0.5 mile of existing access road in order to move construction equipment, materials, andpersonnel to and from the FOB during construction and to provide ingress and egress for agentsonce the FOB is operational. Road improvements would occur within the existing road footprintand would include reconstruction, widening, straightening of the road, and improving the dirtsurface to a 6-inch compacted gravel surface. Approximately 60 linear feet of new access roadconstruction would also be required under the Proposed Action Alternative to connect theexisting access road to the FOB entrance. The new segment of access road would be constructedby mechanically removing vegetation, grading native soils, and improving the dirt surface to a 6-inch compacted gravel surface.The FOB would be designed with modular buildings for more efficient construction and costsand would include the following components: agent living quarters, dining facility,administration building, support/maintenance buildings, vehicle parking, all-terrain vehicle(ATV) storage, helicopter pad, horse corral, communications tower and facilities, remote videosurveillance system (RVSS), first aid facility, detention facilities, fuel facility, standby/backuppower generator(s), water well and water storage, septic system, stormwater retention system,water well and water storage, security lighting, and 8-foot chain-link security fencing.

FONSI-31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344Maintenance at the FOB would include refilling fuel storage tanks, delivery of food, equipment,and supplies, and, if necessary, water. The number of maintenance trips and refueling trips willvary depending on the number of agents stationed at the FOB and rate of fuel usage. It isanticipated that four vehicle trips per month to and from the FOB will be required formaintenance. Tanker trucks with dual rear tires and/or rear dual axles with a gross vehicleweight (GVW) of 30,000 pounds will be used to deliver fuel. A total of approximately 48vehicle trips per year will occur for maintenance activities.The continued maintenance, as well as potential renovations of or minor additions to the FOB,would be expected. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, minor renovations andadditions to buildings, such as realigning interior spaces of an existing building and adding asmall storage shed to an existing building. Other maintenance activities could include routineupgrade, repair, and maintenance of the FOB buildings, roofs, parking area, grounds, 0.5 mile ofexisting access road, or other facilities that would not result in a change in its functional use(e.g., replacing door locks or windows, painting interior or exterior walls, culvert maintenance,grounds maintenance, or replacing essential components such as an air conditioning unit).Alternatives Considered: In the September 2011 EA, four alternatives were identified andanalyzed: 1) the Proposed Action at the Alternative 1 site (Preferred Alternative); 2) theProposed Action at the Alternative 2 site (Alternative 2); 3) the Proposed Action at theAlternative 3 site (Alternative 3); and 4) the Utilization and Modification of the Alternative 4site, the Peterson/Lazy J Ranch (Alternative 4). The No Action Alternative was also evaluated,as required by NEPA. Following completion of the September 2011 EA, it was determined thata FOB at the Floyd Pocket project area would better meet the project purpose and need than theoriginal Preferred Alternative project area discussed in the September 2011 EA.There are two alternatives analyzed in this SEA: (1) the No Action Alternative, and (2) theProposed Action Alternative, as discussed above. The No Action Alternative would preclude theconstruction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed FOB, improvements to the existingaccess road, and construction of a new segment of access road. The No Action Alternativeserves as a baseline against which the impacts of the Proposed Action are evaluated.Affected Environment and Consequences: Implementation of the Proposed ActionAlternative would permanently disturb approximately 7.5 acres of undeveloped land for theplacement of FOB facilities, including approximately 0.04 acre disturbed due to construction of anew segment of access road. The Proposed Action Alternative would potentially result in minorimpacts, including temporarily increased air pollution from soil disturbance, permanent loss ofvegetation and wildlife habitat, and minor increases in water use and ambient noise.Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would also result in minor increases in theneed for utilities and associated infrastructure; temporary, minor increases in runoff and soilerosion; and minor impacts on visual and aesthetic resources. No cultural resources sites eligiblefor listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are located within the FloydPocket project area boundaries. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would notadversely affect socioeconomics, environmental justice, or protection of children.

FONSI-4123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adverselyaffect, the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) or its designated critical habitat.No suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog exists within the 7.5-acreFloyd Pocket project area. However, there is permanent, standing water and suitable habitatpresent approximately 900 feet (0.15 mile) south of the proposed project area in and around themetal stock trough and stock pond.The following conservation measures were compiled from previous consultations with USFWSregarding the Chiricahua leopard frog, the USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation(IPaC) System, and through consultation with the USFWS for this project, and will beimplemented at the Floyd Pocket project area:1. Implement surveys for Chiricahua leopard frog, to protocol, in June 2012 and June 2013at the tank next to the FOB to determine the status of the Chiricahua leopard frog(whether present or not) and, if Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present, determine thesuitability of the site for Chiricahua leopard frogs to establish. These surveys will beconducted by surveyors permitted by the USFWS using the survey protocol described inthe Chiricahua leopard frog Recovery Plan, Appendix E. If Chiricahua leopard frogs arepresent, then CBP will contact USFWS to discuss the need for re-consultation andpossible conservation measures to minimize adverse effects on Chiricahua leopard frogsthat may be dispersing in the area.2. Educate construction workers and the USBP agents regarding the possibility ofChiricahua leopard frogs in the general area, and how to identify and report Chiricahualeopard frogs that may be observed in the general area.Additionally, some potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by runoff and erodedsediment downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists; however, several measureswould be in place at the FOB to limit erosion. Construction, operation, and maintenance of theFOB would result in a slight demand on groundwater supplies; however, it is very unlikely thatthe groundwater level would be lowered to the extent that the water flow from springs on SanBernardino NWR would be reduced. No significant decrease in overall water quality of aquatichabitats at or downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area is expected as a result of theProposed Action Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but wouldnot likely adversely affect, the beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, or Yaqui topminnow.Similarly, the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adversely affect,critical habitat for these fish.The Proposed Action Alternative would have temporary and minor impacts on air quality,roadways and traffic, and ambient noise levels during construction activities. No impacts onfloodplains would occur with implementation of the Proposed Action. Commercial grid powerwould not be adversely impacted as a result of the Proposed Action; however, long-termsocioeconomic benefits could occur. Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the number of tripstaken by agents from USBP Douglas Station to the proposed FOB along Geronimo Trail wouldbe reduced, as would CO 2 emissions. As such, greenhouse gas emissions in the San Bernardino

FONSI-5123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445Valley would likely be reduced. Similarly, operation of the FOB is anticipated to decreaseUSBP vehicular traffic along Geronimo Trail by approximately 12,000 trips per year.The Proposed Action would also result in overall beneficial impacts within the region through areduction in border area crime.No significant adverse effects on the natural or human environment, as defined in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations forImplementing NEPA, are expected upon implementation of the Proposed Action.Best Management Practices (BMPs): The following BMPs will be implemented to minimizeimpacts on the human and natural environment:General Construction ActivitiesBMPs will be implemented as standard operating procedures during all construction activities,such as proper handling, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous and/or regulated materials. Tominimize potential impacts from hazardous and regulated materials, all fuels, waste oils, andsolvents will be collected and stored in tanks or drums within a secondary containment systemthat consists of an impervious floor and bermed sidewalls capable of containing the volume ofthe largest container stored therein. The refueling of machinery will be completed followingaccepted guidelines, and all vehicles would have drip pans during storage to contain minor spillsand drips. Any spill of a reportable quantity will be contained immediately within an earthendike, and the application of an absorbent (e.g., granular, pillow, sock) will be used to absorb andcontain the spill. Any reportable spill of a hazardous or regulated substance will be reportedimmediately to on-site environmental personnel, who would notify appropriate Federal and stateagencies. In addition to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a Spill Prevention,Control, and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) will be in place prior to the start of construction, orprior to the start of operation and maintenance of equipment, and all personnel will be briefed onthe implementation and responsibilities of this plan.All waste oil and solvents will be recycled. All non-recyclable hazardous and regulated wasteswill be collected, characterized, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance withall Federal, state, and local regulations, including proper waste manifesting procedures.Non-hazardous solid waste (trash and waste construction materials) will be collected anddeposited in the on-site receptacles. Solid waste receptacles will be maintained, will becollected, and will be disposed of by a local waste disposal contractor.SoilsSuitable fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the facility to contain vehicles andpeople and prevent accidental impacts on soils or adjacent properties. Vehicular trafficassociated with the construction activities and operational support activities will remain onestablished roads to the maximum extent practicable. Areas with highly erodible soils will begiven special consideration when designing the proposed project to ensure incorporation ofvarious BMPs, such as straw bales, aggregate materials, and wetting compounds to decreaseerosion. A SWPPP will be prepared prior to construction activities, and BMPs described in theSWPPP will be implemented to reduce erosion. Furthermore, all areas not immediately

FONSI-612345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546developed will be planted with native plant species, landscaped, or allowed to naturallyrevegetate to minimize erosion potential.Biological ResourcesConstruction equipment will be cleaned prior to departing the project corridor to minimize thespread and establishment of non-native invasive plant species. Soil disturbances in temporarilyimpacted areas will be revegetated or landscaped. To minimize vegetation impacts, designatedtravel corridors off the main road will be marked with easily observed removable orbiodegradable markers, and travel will be restricted to the corridor, to the extent practicable.The Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires that Federal agencies coordinate with the USFWS if aconstruction activity would result in any harm to a migratory bird, including breeding andnesting activities. If construction or clearing activities were scheduled during the nesting season(typically February 1 through September 1), preconstruction surveys for migratory bird specieswould occur immediately prior to the start of any construction activity to identify active nests. Ifconstruction activities would result in the disturbance or harm of a migratory bird, thencoordination with USFWS and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) would occur, andapplicable permits for relocation of nests, eggs, or chicks would be obtained prior to constructionor clearing activities. In addition, where possible, buffer zones would be established aroundactive nests until nestlings have fledged and abandoned the nest. Another BMP that would beconsidered is to schedule clearing and grubbing activities outside the nesting season, negating therequirement for preconstruction nesting bird surveys.Based on guidance provided by USFWS, CBP will maintain a 100-foot buffer around any activeor potentially active burrowing owl burrows. If a 100-foot buffer cannot be maintained, or if aburrowing owl is detected within the project footprint during construction activities, CBP willfollow the guidelines outlined in the document entitled Burrowing Owl Project ClearanceGuidance for Landowners, which can be found on the AGFD’s website(http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/owl/burrowingowlclearanceprotocol.pdf).Shields would be installed on lights to prevent background lighting. Lights would also beinstalled such that the direction of illumination is downward toward the station facilities, andfugitive illumination beyond the site boundaries would be less than 2 lumens.Although the insignificant potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by sedimentationdownstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists, several measures would be in place at theproposed FOB to limit erosion, and would include: a stormwater retention basin to collectrainwater and other sources of runoff into a centralized area where water would be allowed toevaporate or percolate down to the groundwater table; preparation of a National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge permit; preparation andimplementation of a SWPPP and a Notice of Intent (NOI) that would be filed with the ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ); implementation of specific erosion andsedimentation controls and other BMPs, such as the strategic placement of hay bales and siltfence, that would limit the amount of erosion that occurs on-site and restrict potential impacts onsurrounding properties during construction; and incorporation of post-construction stormwatercontrols that minimize long-term impacts on surface waters and allow for groundwater recharge.

FONSI-712345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546Cultural ResourcesThere are no identified cultural resource sites that would be directly impacted by constructionactivities under the Proposed Action Alternative. An Unanticipated Discoveries Plan will bedeveloped and implemented if ground disturbance activities uncover previously unidentifiedcultural resource material. If unmarked human burials are discovered during construction, workwill stop in the immediate vicinity, the remains will be protected, and the local cultural resourcesrepresentative and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be notified assoon as possible. The location of the unmarked human burial will be documented and theprovisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) will beimplemented, including consultation with Native American tribes.Air QualityMitigation measures will include suitable fencing to restrict traffic within the project area inorder to reduce soil disturbance. Soil watering will be utilized to minimize airborne particulatematter created during construction activities. Bare ground will be covered with hay or straw tolessen wind erosion between facility construction and landscaping. After the construction iscompleted, all areas with vehicle traffic will be stabilized to reduce the potential for fugitivedust, and landscaping will be designed to prevent or lessen wind fugitive dust creation.Additionally, all construction equipment and vehicles will be kept in good operating condition tominimize exhaust emissions.Water ResourcesStandard construction procedures will be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion andsedimentation during construction. All work will cease during heavy rains and will not resumeuntil conditions are suitable for the movement of equipment and material. Because the impactarea is greater than 1 acre, as part of the NPDES permit process, a SWPPP and NOI will besubmitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and ADEQ prior to the start ofconstruction. Sedimentation and pollution of surface waters by fuels, oils, and lubricants will beminimized through the implementation of the SWPPP. The construction of the proposed FOBwould incorporate the proper stormwater retention measures, including a retention pond. Allfuel tanks will be double-walled to prevent leaks from entering the groundwater. Properwastewater disposal will be accomplished by using an engineered, on-site wastewater treatmentsystem. Wells or treated municipal water sources would be utilized for construction or irrigationpurposes instead of natural water sources in order to avoid transmitting disease vectors,introducing invasive non-native species, depleting natural aquatic systems, and adverselyaffecting water quality.NoiseDuring the construction phase, short-term noise impacts are anticipated. All Occupational Safetyand Health Administration (OSHA) requirements will be followed. To lessen noise impacts onthe local wildlife communities, construction will only occur during daylight hours, wheneverpossible. All motor vehicles will be maintained to reduce the potential for vehicle-related noise.To minimize disturbances from helicopter use, USBP will review landing and takeoff routes todetermine what actions could be taken, such as alternating or rotating routes, and timing the useof different routes to reduce noise effects on wildlife or residents in the San Bernardino Valley.All helicopters will be maintained and operated to reduce the potential for engine-related noise.

FONSI-8123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536Solid and Hazardous WastesCare will be taken to avoid impacting the project area with hazardous substances (e.g., antifreeze,fuels, oils, lubricants) used during construction. Although catch pans will be used whenrefueling, accidental spills could occur as a result of maintenance procedures to constructionequipment. However, the amount of fuel, lubricants, and oil is limited, and equipment necessaryto quickly contain any spills will be present when refueling.TransportationModular buildings and other equipment will be transported on appropriate roads with properflagging and safety precautions.Findings and Conclusions: Based upon the analyses of the SEA and the conservation measuresand BMPs to be implemented, the Proposed Action Alternative would not have a significantadverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation (i.e.,Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. CBP, in implementing this decision, wouldemploy all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the human andbiological environment.Project Proponent: _______________________________ ______________Efren V. M. GarciaDateDirectorFacilities BranchOffice of Border PatrolApproved: ________________________________ ______________Karl H. CalvoDateExecutive DirectorFacilities Management and EngineeringU.S. Customs and Border Protection

DRAFTSUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR THE PROPOSED FORWARD OPERATING BASEAT THE FLOYD POCKET PROJECT AREADOUGLAS STATION’S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITYU.S. BORDER PATROL, TUCSON SECTORFebruary 2012Lead Agency:Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Customs & Border ProtectionFacilities Management and Engineering1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite B-155Washington, DC 20229Point of Contact:Joseph ZidronEnvironmental PlanningBorder Patrol Program Management Office24000 Avila RoadLaguna Niguel, CA 92677

1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344EXECUTIVE SUMMARYINTRODUCTIONThe U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is a law enforcement entity of U.S. Customs and BorderProtection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). USBP’s priority missionis to prevent the entry of terrorists and their weapons of terrorism and to enforce the laws thatprotect the United States homeland. This is accomplished by the detection, interdiction, andapprehension of those who attempt to illegally enter or smuggle any person or contraband acrossthe sovereign borders of the United States.USBP maximizes border security with an appropriate balance of personnel, technology, andinfrastructure. Effective control exists when CBP is consistently able to: (1) detect illegalentries into the United States when they occur; (2) identify the entry and classify its level ofthreat; (3) efficiently and effectively respond to these entries; and, (4) bring each event to anappropriate law enforcement resolution.This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) supplements the September 2011Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Douglas Forward Operating Base, DouglasStation’s Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector (CBP 2011). The finalSeptember 2011 EA addressed the potential effects, beneficial and adverse, resulting from theproposed construction, operation, and maintenance of a Forward Operating Base (FOB) at one offour locations in the southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley, approximately 3.0 milesnorth of the United States/Mexico border within USBP Douglas Station’s Area of Responsibility(AOR) in Cochise County, Arizona (CBP 2011). Following completion of the September 2011EA, it was determined that a FOB obscured from view of Geronimo Trail at a location referred toas the Floyd Pocket project area would better meet the project’s purpose and need than theoriginal Preferred Alternative project area discussed in the September 2011 EA.PURPOSE AND NEEDThe purpose of the proposed project is the forward deployment of agents and facilities, asneeded, to maintain effective control of the United States/Mexico border within remote sectionsof the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Current increasing trends in illegal border activity requireUSBP agents and other resources to be more efficiently deployed to enhance the operationalcapabilities of USBP. The need for the Proposed Action Alternative is to provide the following:• adequate space and facilities (e.g., administrative, living quarters, staff showers, diningfacilities, and lockers) for the forward deployment of USBP agents currently operatingout of USBP Douglas Station• facilities necessary for an increased effectiveness of USBP agents in the performance oftheir duties (e.g., vehicle parking, vehicle fuel facilities, helicopter pad and fuelingfacility, horse corral, and communications equipment and tower)• a more safe, effective, and efficient work environmentSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

ES-212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVEThe Proposed Action Alternative includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of a FOBat a location recommended by the Malpai Borderlands Group and referred to as the Floyd Pocketproject area. The Malpai Borderlands Group is a grassroots, landowner-driven nonprofitorganization with the goal of restoring and maintaining the natural processes that create andprotect a healthy, unfragmented landscape to support a diverse, flourishing community ofhuman, plant, and animal life in the Borderlands region. This nonprofit organization works toencourage profitable ranching and other traditional livelihoods that will sustain the open spacenature of land within the San Bernardino Valley in southeast Arizona. The Malpai BorderlandsGroup recommended the Floyd Pocket project area for construction of the FOB because it islocated behind a small hill that will obscure the view of the FOB from Geronimo Trail, the mainroute for vehicular access through the San Bernardino Valley.The Floyd Pocket project area is an approximately 7.5-acre tract of undeveloped land located inthe southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley in Cochise County, Arizona, approximately2.45 miles north of the United States/Mexico border within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR.Current access to the Floyd Pocket project area is restricted to an unimproved, two-track roadoff of Guadalupe Canyon Road located approximately 0.4 mile from the intersection ofGeronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Road.The Proposed Action Alternative also includes repair and improvements of the approximately0.5 mile of existing access road in order to move construction equipment, materials, andpersonnel to and from the FOB during construction and to provide ingress and egress for agentsonce the FOB is operational. Road improvements would occur within the existing road footprintand would include reconstruction, widening, straightening of the road, and improving the dirtsurface to a 6-inch compacted gravel surface. All repair and maintenance activities would occurwithin the existing road footprint. Approximately 60 linear feet of new access road constructionwould also be required under the Proposed Action Alternative to connect the existing access roadto the FOB entrance. The new segment of access road would be constructed by mechanicallyremoving vegetation, grading native soils, and improving the dirt surface to a 6-inch compactedgravel surface.The FOB would be designed with modular buildings for more efficient construction and costsand would include the following components: agent living quarters, dining facility,administration building, support/maintenance buildings, vehicle parking, all-terrain vehicle(ATV) storage, helicopter pad, horse corral, communications tower and facilities, remote videosurveillance system (RVSS), first aid facility, detention facilities, fuel facility, standby/backuppower generator(s), water well and water storage, septic system, stormwater retention system,water well and water storage, security lighting, and 8-foot chain-link security fencing.Additionally, continued maintenance, as well as potential renovations of or minor additions tothe proposed new FOB, would be expected. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,monthly supply trips necessary for fuel and water at the FOB, minor renovations and additions tobuildings such as realigning interior spaces of an existing building, adding a small storage shedto an existing building, kennels, security systems, lighting, parking areas, stormwater detentionSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

ES-31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344basins, and installing a small antenna on an already existing antenna tower that does not causethe total height to exceed 200 feet. Other maintenance activities could include routine upgrade,repair, and maintenance of the FOB’s modular buildings, roofs, parking area, grounds, 0.5 mileof existing access road, or other facilities that would not result in a change in functional use (e.g.,replacing door locks or windows, painting interior or exterior walls, resurfacing a road or parkinglot, culvert maintenance, grounds maintenance, or replacing essential FOB components such asan air conditioning unit).PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDThere are two alternatives analyzed in this SEA: (1) the No Action Alternative, and (2) theProposed Action Alternative, which is described above.The No Action Alternative would preclude the construction, operation, and maintenance of theproposed FOB, improvements to the access road, and construction of a new segment of accessroad. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the impacts of the ProposedAction Alternative are evaluated.ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESImplementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would permanently disturb approximately7.5 acres of undeveloped land for the placement of FOB facilities, including approximately 0.04acre disturbed due to construction of a new segment of access road. The Proposed ActionAlternative would potentially result in minor impacts, including temporarily increased airpollution from soil disturbance, permanent loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, and minorincreases in water use and ambient noise. Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternativewould also result in minor increases in the need for utilities and associated infrastructure;temporary, minor increases in runoff and soil erosion; and minor impacts on visual and aestheticresources. No cultural resources sites eligible for listing on the National Register of HistoricPlaces (NRHP) are located within the Floyd Pocket project area boundaries. Implementation ofthe Proposed Action Alternative would not adversely affect socioeconomics, environmentaljustice, or protection of children.Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adverselyaffect, the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) or its designated critical habitat.No suitable aquatic breeding habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog exists within the 7.5-acreFloyd Pocket project area. However, there is permanent, standing water and suitable habitatpresent approximately 900 feet (0.15 mile) south of the proposed project area in and around themetal stock trough and stock pond.The following conservation measures were compiled from previous consultations with USFWSregarding the Chiricahua leopard frog, the USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation(IPaC) System, and through consultation with the USFWS for this project, and will beimplemented at the Floyd Pocket project area:Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

ES-41234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344451. Implement surveys for Chiricahua leopard frog, to protocol, in June 2012 and June 2013at the tank next to the FOB to determine the status of the Chiricahua leopard frog(whether present or not) and, if Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present, determine thesuitability of the site for Chiricahua leopard frogs to establish. These surveys will beconducted by surveyors permitted by the USFWS using the survey protocol described inthe Chiricahua leopard frog Recovery Plan, Appendix E. If Chiricahua leopard frogs arepresent, then CBP will contact USFWS to discuss the need for re-consultation andpossible conservation measures to minimize adverse effects on Chiricahua leopard frogsthat may be dispersing in the area.2. Educate construction workers and the USBP agents regarding the possibility ofChiricahua leopard frogs in the general area, and how to identify and report Chiricahualeopard frogs that may be observed in the general area.Additionally, some potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by runoff and erodedsediment downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists; however, several measureswould be in place at the FOB to limit erosion. Construction, operation, and maintenance of theFOB would result in a slight demand on groundwater supplies; however, it is very unlikely thatthe groundwater level would be lowered to the extent that the water flow from springs on SanBernardino NWR would be reduced. No significant decrease in overall water quality of aquatichabitats at or downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area is expected as a result of theProposed Action Alternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but wouldnot likely adversely affect, the beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, or Yaqui topminnow.Similarly, the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adversely affect,critical habitat for these fish.The Proposed Action Alternative would have temporary and minor impacts on air quality,roadways and traffic, and ambient noise levels during construction activities. No impacts onfloodplains would occur with implementation of the Proposed Action. Commercial grid powerwould not be adversely impacted as a result of the Proposed Action; however, long- termsocioeconomic benefits could occur. The Proposed Action Alternative would have temporaryand minor impacts on air quality, roadways and traffic, and ambient noise levels duringconstruction activities. No impacts on floodplains would occur with implementation of theProposed Action. Commercial grid power would not be adversely impacted as a result of theProposed Action; however, long-term socioeconomic benefits could occur.Under the Proposed Action Alternative, the number of trips taken by agents from USBP DouglasStation to the proposed FOB along Geronimo Trail would be reduced, as would CO 2 emissions.As such, greenhouse gas emissions in the San Bernardino Valley would likely be reduced.Similarly, operation of the FOB is anticipated to decrease USBP vehicular traffic alongGeronimo Trail by approximately 12,000 trips per year. The Proposed Action would also resultin overall beneficial impacts within the region through a reduction in border area crime.No significant adverse effects on the natural or human environment, as defined in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) §1508.27 of the Council on Environmental Quality’s Regulations forSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

ES-51234567891011Implementing National Environmental Policy Act, are expected upon implementation of theProposed Action.FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONSBased upon the analyses of the SEA and the conservation measures and best managementpractices (BMPs) to be implemented, the Proposed Action Alternative would not have asignificant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, no further analysis or documentation(i.e., Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. CBP, in implementing this decision, wouldemploy all practical means to minimize the potential adverse impacts on the human andbiological environment.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-11.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-11.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1-11.2 STUDY LOCATION ........................................................................................... 1-31.3 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................... 1-31.4 REGULATORY AUTHORITY .......................................................................... 1-31.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................. 1-51.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 1-61.7 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, ANDREGULATIONS.................................................................................................. 1-72.0 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVES .......................... 2-12.1 ALTERNATIVES AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTION .................................. 2-12.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................ 2-12.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................... 2-52.4 SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 2-53.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES ........................................ 3-13.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPING ................................................................ 3-13.2 LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 3-23.2.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-23.2.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-23.2.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 3-23.2.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................... 3-33.3 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 3-33.3.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-33.3.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-33.3.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 3-33.3.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................... 3-33.4 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 3-53.4.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-53.4.1.1 Surface Water .......................................................................... 3-53.4.1.2 Hydrology and Hydraulics ...................................................... 3-53.4.1.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United States .............................. 3-53.4.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-73.4.2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 3-73.4.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................... 3-73.4.3 Floodplains ............................................................................................... 3-73.4.4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................. 3-83.4.4.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 3-83.4.4.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................... 3-83.5 VEGETATIVE HABITAT .................................................................................. 3-83.5.1 Affected Environment .............................................................................. 3-8Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

ii123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445463.5.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-103.5.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-103.5.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-103.6 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ................................................................................. 3-103.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-103.6.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-113.6.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-113.6.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-113.7 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS .................................. 3-123.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-123.7.1.1 Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat ....................... 3-123.7.1.2 San Bernardino NWR ............................................................ 3-183.7.1.3 State-Listed Species .............................................................. 3-183.7.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-193.7.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-193.7.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-193.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................. 3-223.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-223.8.1.1 Cultural Overview ................................................................. 3-223.8.2 Investigations ......................................................................................... 3-243.8.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-293.8.3.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-293.8.3.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-293.9 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................. 3-303.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-303.9.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-303.9.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-303.9.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-303.10 NOISE ................................................................................................................ 3-313.10.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-313.10.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures ....................... 3-313.10.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-313.10.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-323.11 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................... 3-323.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-323.11.1.1 Potable Water ........................................................................ 3-323.11.1.2 Electric Power ....................................................................... 3-323.11.1.3 Wastewater ............................................................................ 3-323.11.1.4 Communications .................................................................... 3-323.11.1.5 Ambient and Artificial Lighting ............................................ 3-323.11.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-333.11.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-333.11.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-333.12 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ......................................................................... 3-343.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-343.12.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-34Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

iii123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445463.12.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-343.12.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-343.13 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................... 3-353.13.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-353.13.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-353.13.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-353.13.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-353.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................... 3-353.14.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-353.14.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-363.14.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-363.14.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-363.15 SOCIOECONOMICS ........................................................................................ 3-363.15.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-363.15.1.1 Population and Demographics ............................................... 3-363.15.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-363.15.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-363.15.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-363.16 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ......... 3-373.16.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................... 3-373.16.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 3-373.16.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-373.16.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-373.17 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING............................................................ 3-373.17.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-373.17.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-373.17.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-373.18 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................. 3-383.18.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................ 3-383.18.2 Environmental Consequences ................................................................ 3-383.18.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................... 3-383.18.2.2 Proposed Action Alternative ................................................. 3-384.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .......................................................................................... 4-14.1 LAND USE .......................................................................................................... 4-14.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 4-24.3 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 4-24.4 VEGETATIVE HABITAT .................................................................................. 4-24.5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ................................................................................... 4-24.6 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS .................................... 4-34.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 4-34.8 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 4-34.9 NOISE .................................................................................................................. 4-44.10 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................. 4-44.11 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ........................................................................... 4-44.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES .................................................... 4-44.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................. 4-5Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

iv12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637384.14 SOCIOECONOMICS .......................................................................................... 4-54.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ........... 4-54.16 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING.............................................................. 4-54.17 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY .................................................................... 4-55.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ........................................................................ 5-15.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .................................................... 5-15.2 SOILS .................................................................................................................. 5-15.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 5-25.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................................................ 5-35.5 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................... 5-35.6 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................... 5-35.7 NOISE .................................................................................................................. 5-45.8 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES ............................................................. 5-45.9 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC ........................................................................... 5-46.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 6-17.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... 7-18.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................. 8-1LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1-1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 1-2Figure 1-2. Project Location Map ............................................................................................... 1-4Figure 2-1. Project Area Map ..................................................................................................... 2-2Figure 2-2. Conceptual Project area Layout ............................................................................... 2-3Figure 3-1. Soil Map ................................................................................................................... 3-4Figure 3-2. Waters of the United States ...................................................................................... 3-6Figure 3-3. Proposed Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog .................................. 3-14Figure 3-4. Fish Critical Habitat on San Bernardino NWR ...................................................... 3-15Figure 3-5. Previous Cultural Resources Investigations ........................................................... 3-25LIST OF TABLESTable 2-1. Purpose and Need for Alternatives ............................................................................ 2-5Table 2-2. Summary Matrix of Potential Impacts ...................................................................... 2-6Table 3-1. Prehistoric Sequence for the Douglas Area ............................................................. 3-22Table 3-2. Sample Artifacts Found at AZ FF:12:66(ASM) ...................................................... 3-27Table 3-3. Isolated Occurrences (IOs) Identified within the Survey Area ............................... 3-28Table 3-4. Power Company Service Areas ............................................................................... 3-32Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

v123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHSPhotograph 3-1. The Floyd Pocket project area facing north from the southeast corner of theproject area ................................................................................................... 3-2Photograph 3-2. View of the potential waters of the United States where it cross the accessroad, facing southeast toward Hay Hollow Wash ........................................ 3-5Photograph 3-3. Livestock have heavily grazed vegetation at the Floyd Pocket projectarea ............................................................................................................... 3-9Photograph 3-4. Honey mesquite dominates the landscape at the Floyd Pocket projectarea ............................................................................................................... 3-9Photograph 3-5. A windmill and metal stock trough south of the project area ...................... 3-9Photograph 3-6. The stock pond south of the project area ...................................................... 3-9Photograph 3-7. Hay Hollow Wash facing southeast ........................................................... 3-10Photograph 3-8. A sub-adult bull frog near the windmill and trough south of the site ........ 3-11Photograph 3-9. A cluster of potential western burrowing owl burrows located within HayHallow Wash .............................................................................................. 3-11Photograph 3-10. Chiricahua leopard frog .............................................................................. 3-13Photograph 3-11. AZ EF:12:66(ASM) overview photo from opposite side of road, facingeast .............................................................................................................. 3-26Photograph 3-12. Top view of hole-in-top can (2 7/8 inch diameter) .................................... 3-26Photograph 3-13. Side view with seam of hole-in-top can (3 7/8 inch length) ...................... 3-26Photograph 3-14. Side view of Hazel-Atlas Bottle Co. clear glass jar ................................... 3-26Photograph 3-15. Side view of Knox Glass Bottle Co. clear glass bottle ............................... 3-26Photograph 3-16. Corral and unidentified wagon (facing east) .............................................. 3-28Photograph 3-17. Windmill with holding tank, water trough, and solar panel (facing west) . 3-29LIST OF APPENDICESAppendix A. CorrespondenceAppendix B. List of Federal and State Protected SpeciesSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 1.0INTRODUCTION

1-1123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839401.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 BACKGROUNDThis Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) supplements the September 2011Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Douglas Forward Operating Base, DouglasStation’s Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector (U.S. Customs and BorderProtection [CBP] 2011). The final September 2011 EA addressed the potential effects,beneficial and adverse, resulting from the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance ofa Forward Operating Base (FOB) at one of four locations in the southern portion of the SanBernardino Valley, approximately 3.0 miles north of the United States/Mexico border withinUSBP Douglas Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR) in Cochise County, Arizona (CBP 2011).Following completion of the September 2011 EA, it was determined that a FOB obscured fromview from Geronimo Trail at a location referred to as the Floyd Pocket project area would bettermeet the project purpose and need than the original Preferred Alternative project area discussedin the September 2011 EA. This SEA addresses the construction, operation, and maintenance ofa FOB, improvements to an existing access road, and construction of a new segment of accessroad in the southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley, approximately 2.45 miles north of theUnited States/Mexico border within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR at the Floyd Pocket projectarea.The background was described in the September 2011 EA and is incorporated herein byreference (CBP 2011). In summary, USBP was initially created to serve as the law enforcemententity of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). In 2002, Congress transferred allINS responsibilities to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In 2003,USBP was officially transferred into the Office of Border Patrol (OBP), under DHS and CBP.U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Douglas Station is one of eight stations comprising the TucsonSector. USBP Douglas Station’s AOR includes 40.5 linear miles of the United States/Mexicoborder and over 1,450 square miles of mountainous terrain, and is divided into six border patrolzones (Figure 1-1). The easternmost zones are a remote operational environment and span theSan Bernardino Valley. The remoteness of, and travel time to, these zones inhibit the capabilityof law enforcement agents to respond to illegal activity. Agents deploying to the easternmostzones typically have a response time of approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes to 2 hours frommuster at the USBP Douglas Station. Providing a FOB near the border would greatly reduceagent response time to illegal cross-border activities, and agents could be more efficientlydeployed to patrol the more remote sections of USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Withimplementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, the overall safety and efficiency of currentand future operations within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR would be enhanced, as well as thesafety of ranches and residents located in the San Bernardino Valley.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

1-2Arizona£¤ 181Cochise CountyCOCHISE COUNTYCoronadoNational ForestArizonaNew Mexico£¤ 191 Douglas3736£¤ 80Bisbee34 35Project Location32 33MexicoProject LocationUSBP Douglas Station's AOR Patrol Zones·00 3 6 9 12Kilometers2.5 5 7.5 10MilesFigure 1-1: Vicinity MapFebruary 2012

1-31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344451.2 STUDY LOCATIONThe FOB would be constructed in the southern portion of the San Bernardino Valley,approximately 2.45 miles north of the United States/Mexico border within USBP DouglasStation’s AOR (Figure 1-1). The San Bernardino Valley is located in extreme southeast CochiseCounty, Arizona, and is bounded to the west by the Perilla, Pedragosa, and Chiricahua Mountainranges and to the east by the Peloncillo Mountains. From Douglas, the valley is accessed to thenorth by State Highway 80 and from the United States/Mexico border by Geronimo Trail.The Malpai Borderlands Group recommended the Floyd Pocket project area for construction ofthe FOB because it is located behind a small hill that obscures the FOB from view of GeronimoTrail, the main route for vehicular access through the San Bernardino Valley. The Floyd Pocketproject area is an approximately 7.5-acre tract of undeveloped land located in the southernportion of the San Bernardino Valley in Cochise County, Arizona, approximately 2.45 milesnorth of the United States/Mexico border within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR (Figure 1-2).Current access to the Floyd Pocket project area is restricted to an unimproved, two-track accessroad located off of Guadalupe Canyon Road approximately 0.4 mile from the intersection ofGeronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Road (Figure 1-2).1.3 PURPOSE AND NEEDThe purpose and need for the FOB was described in detail in the September 2011 EA and isincorporated herein by reference (CBP 2011). In summary, the purpose of the proposed projectis the forward deployment of agents and facilities, as needed, to maintain effective control of theUnited States/Mexico border within remote sections of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Theneed is to provide adequate space and facilities for the forward deployment of USBP agentscurrently operating out of the USBP Douglas Station, to provide facilities necessary for anincreased effectiveness of USBP agents in the performance of their duties, and to provide a moresafe, effective, and efficient work environment.1.4 REGULATORY AUTHORITYRegulatory authority was described in the September 2011 EA and is incorporated herein byreference (CBP 2011). In summary, the primary sources of authority granted to USBP agents arethe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1959 and other statutes relating to the immigrationand naturalization of aliens. The secondary sources of authority are administrative regulationsimplementing those statutes, judicial decisions, and administrative decisions of the Board ofImmigration Appeals.Subject to constitutional limitations, USBP agents may exercise the authority granted to them inthe INA. Other statutory sources of authority are found in 18 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) “Crimes andCriminal Procedure,”; 19 U.S.C. 1401(i) “Officer of the customs; customs officer; and 21 U.S.C.878 “Powers of enforcement personnel”. CBP, as a component of the DHS, is authorized,pursuant to various provisions and other Acts amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto, toSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

GUADALUPE CANYON ROAD1-4ArizonaProject LocationDouglasGERONIMO TRAILPROJECT LOCATIONProject Area· 00 0.25 0.5 0.75Kilometers0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5MilesFigure 1-2: Project Location MapJanuary 2012

1-5123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against illegal border-crossingactivities, to install border infrastructure as needed to deter illegal crossings, and to maintainoperational control of the border.1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTCoordination and consultation with stakeholder agencies and other potentially affected partieswas initiated in November 2011 during the initial planning stages of this project. CBP issuedagency coordination letters to potentially affected Federal, state, and local agencies inviting theirparticipation and input regarding this SEA. Coordination with the Arizona State HistoricPreservation Officer (SHPO) has been ongoing in accordance with the Arizona SHPO directives.Additionally, all pertinent Native American tribes have been contacted and notified of theproject. CBP has also entered into informal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).Copies of the coordination letters and any responses or additional correspondence generatedduring this project are included in Appendix A. Per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)Sections 1501.7 and 1502.25, coordination and consultation were conducted with the following:• Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)• Arizona SHPO• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)• USFWS• San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)• Native American Tribes• U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC)• Cochise County• Malpai Borderlands Group• Sky Island Alliance• Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords• Local RanchersA draft of this SEA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) will be released for a 30-daypublic review on February 15, 2012. A Notice of Availability (NOA) will be published in theDouglas Dispatch on February 15, 2012 to announce the public comment period and theavailability of the draft SEA and FONSI (Exhibit 1-1). The draft SEA and FONSI will also beavailable electronically at http://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm. In addition,the draft SEA and FONSI will be available for review at the Douglas Public Library, 560 TenthStreet, Douglas, Arizona 85607, from February 15, 2012 to March 15, 2012. CBP providedcopies of the draft SEA and FONSI to all coordinating state and Federal agencies and NativeAmerican Tribes for review and comment.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

1-6123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445Exhibit 1-1. Notice of AvailabilityNOTICE OF AVAILABILITYSUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFOR THE PROPOSED DOUGLAS FORWARD OPERATING BASEAT THE FLOYD POCKET PROJECT AREADOUGLAS STATION’S AREA OF RESPONSIBILITYU.S. BORDER PATROL, TUCSON SECTORU.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of HomelandSecurity (DHS), announces the availability of the draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment(SEA) and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed construction,operation, and maintenance of a Forward Operating Base (FOB) in U.S. Border Patrol (USBP)Tucson Sector’s Douglas Station, Arizona. This SEA supplements the September 2011Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Douglas Forward Operating Base, DouglasStation’s Area of Responsibility (AOR), U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector prepared by CBP.Following completion of the September 2011 EA, it was determined that a FOB obscured fromview from Geronimo Trail at a location referred to as the Floyd Pocket project area would bettermeet the project purpose and need than the original Preferred Alternative project area discussedin the September 2011 EA. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,42 U.S. Code 4321 et seq., CBP has prepared the draft SEA and FONSI to identify and assess thepotential impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of a FOB,improvements to an existing access road, and construction of a new segment of access roadwithin Cochise County, Arizona. The location for the Proposed Action is the Floyd Pocketproject area, an approximately 7.5-acre tract of undeveloped land located in the southern portionof the San Bernardino Valley, approximately 2.45 miles north of the United States/Mexicoborder within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR. Copies of the draft SEA and draft FONSI will beavailable at the Douglas Public Library, 560 Tenth Street, Douglas, Arizona, beginningWednesday, February 15, 2012. They will also be available for download from the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Fort Worth District’s internet web page at the following URL address:http://ecso.swf.usace.army.mil/Pages/Publicreview.cfm. Comments concerning the draft SEAand FONSI will be accepted for a period of 30 days (February 15–March 15, 2012) and shouldbe sent to: Mr. Joseph Zidron, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Laguna Facilities Office,24000 Avila Road, Suite 5020, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677; by facsimile at (949) 360-2985; or byemail to joseph.zidron@dhs.gov.1.6 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSISThe scope of this SEA includes the analysis of effects resulting from the construction, operation,and maintenance of a FOB, improvements to an existing access road, and construction of a newsegment of access road. This analysis does not include an assessment of USBP operationsconducted in the field and away from the USBP Douglas Station or the proposed FOB. Whilethe establishment of the FOB would facilitate border patrol operations within the remote easternzones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR, those operations are not expected to change.Helicopters currently patrol the area within the Douglas Station’s AOR as part of USBPSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

1-712345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728operations. A helicopter pad at the proposed FOB would facilitate occasional and emergencylandings and fuel stops, with rare overnight storage of helicopters in emergency situations.However, the proposed FOB would not result in changes in USBP operations, includinghelicopter patrols.The number of trips taken by agents from USBP Douglas Station to the FOB along GeronimoTrail would be reduced. CBP estimates that approximately 12,000 trips annually alongGeronimo Trail would be eliminated following establishment of the FOB. By providing theFOB near the United States/Mexico border with living quarters and fuel facilities, daily vehicletrips to the eastern patrol zones and back to the USBP Douglas Station (2 trips) will beeliminated for all USBP agents stationed at the FOB and for each shift (3 per day), 365 days ayear. Because the amount of time each agent is assigned to the FOB may vary, the eliminationof 12,000 trips annually is a rough estimate, and the actual trip savings will likely be more.Therefore, CBP has concluded that, while the number of agents required to address a specifiedborder security threat level would not change, the number of trips on Geronimo Trail would bereduced, and the establishment of the FOB would result in no other change to field operations.1.7 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDANCE, STATUTES, ANDREGULATIONSThis SEA was prepared in compliance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) of 1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality’s(CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR Part 1500, and the DHS ManagementDirective 023-01, Environmental Planning Program (71 Federal Register [FR] 16790).Consistent with 40 CFR §1502.16, this SEA analyzes direct and indirect project area-specificand cumulative environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of aFOB, improvements to an existing access road, and construction of a new segment of accessroad.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 2.0PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVES

2-112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728292.0 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE AND ALTERNATIVES2.1 ALTERNATIVES AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTIONThe alternative selection process was discussed in detail in the 2011 EA and is incorporatedherein by reference (CBP 2011). As the proponent agency preparing this SEA, CBP developed arange of alternatives with consideration of the purpose and need and of the potential effects onthe environment. Four alternatives for the FOB were investigated in 2011 EA. Three of the fouralternatives satisfied the purpose and need, have access to electricity, are located on state-ownedland, are accessed from Geronimo Trail, and are relatively flat. The fourth alternative was aranch located on private land that contains several historic structures potentially eligible forlisting on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Following completion of theSeptember 2011 EA, it was determined that a FOB obscured from view of Geronimo Trail at alocation referred to as the Floyd Pocket project area would better meet the project’s purpose andneed than the original Preferred Alternative project area discussed in the September 2011 EA.The No Action Alternative, described in Section 2.3, is assessed as required by NEPA and CEQregulations at 40 CFR §1502.14(d).2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVEThe Proposed Action Alternative analyzed in this SEA would construct, operate, and maintain aFOB, improve an existing two-track access road, and construct a new segment of access road atthe Floyd Pocket project area in the San Bernardino Valley, Arizona, within USBP DouglasStation’s AOR (Figure 2-1). Based upon potential project area designs, it has been determinedthat a 7.5-acre project area is sufficient in size to accommodate the necessary FOB facilities.The FOB would be designed with modular buildings for more efficient construction and costs.The conceptual layout of the Proposed Action Alternative is shown in Figure 2-2. The FOBwould include some or all of the following components:• Agent Living Quarters • Vehicle Parking• Support/Maintenance Buildings• Helicopter Pad• All-Terrain Vehicle Storage• Fuel Facility• Communication Tower and Facilities • Dining Facility• Security Lighting • Water Well and Water Storage• 8-foot Chain-Link Security Fencing • Standby/Backup Power Generator(s)• Horse Corral• Stormwater Retention System• Administration Building• Detention Facilities• Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS) • Septic System• First Aid FacilitySupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

!.! CGUADALUPE CANYON ROAD2-2ArizonaProject LocationDouglasGERONIMO TRAILProject AreaExisting Two-track Access RoadHay Hollow Wash!CWindmill!. Stock Pond· 00 90 180 270Meters180 360 540 720 900FeetFigure 2-1: Project Area MapJanuary 2012

2-3Figure 2-2. Conceptual Project Area LayoutJanuary 2012

2-412345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546A helicopter pad at the FOB would facilitate occasional and emergency landings and fuel stops,with rare overnight storage of helicopters in emergency situations. However, the FOB would notresult in changes in USBP operations. Other project area elements include a 100-foot-tall, selfsupportingcommunications tower with a communications building or space in the administrationbuilding, and standby/backup power generator(s) as required.A fuel facility with aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or portable ASTs for vehicle, helicopter,and generator fuel would be included in the FOB. The maximum fuel requirements for vehiclesand backup generator use would be approximately 7,300 gallons per week. Both diesel andgasoline would be stored on-site. Fuel deliveries would be required once weekly via 8,600-gallon tanker truck. If a smaller tanker truck is necessary due to accessibility issues onGeronimo Trail, additional trips would be necessary.The agent living quarters and dining facility would support USBP agents. The number of agentsassigned to the FOB may vary based on border security requirements, but would not exceed thedesign capacity. Additional modular facilities would support office space, an armory, and adetention center capable of holding up to 40 detainees. All food and other supplies would bedelivered weekly during shift change.Water requirements at the FOB would be met by drilling a well. If the well does not provideadequate quality or quantity of water for both potable and fire suppression requirements, waterwould be trucked to the FOB. The estimates for potable water requirements are approximately30 gallons per agent per day, approximately 5 gallons per detainee, and 15 gallons for horses.Therefore, 1,500 gallons of potable water per day would be required at the FOB.Included in the FOB layout would be parking spaces for government-owned vehicles andspecialized vehicles. Equestrian support facilities at the FOB are also included in the conceptualdesign. All undeveloped areas within the boundaries of the FOB would be restored with nativeplantings, landscaped, or allowed to revegetate naturally, and a perimeter fence with gates wouldbe placed around the facility for security purposes.The Proposed Action Alternative also includes repair and improvements of the approximately0.5 mile of existing access road in order to move construction equipment, materials, andpersonnel to and from the FOB during construction and to provide ingress and egress for agentsonce the FOB is operational. Road improvements would occur within the existing road footprintand would include reconstruction, widening, straightening of the road, and improving the dirtsurface to a 6-inch compacted gravel surface. All repair and maintenance activities would occurwithin the existing road footprint. Approximately 60 linear feet of new access road constructionwould also be required under the Proposed Action Alternative to connect the existing access roadto the FOB entrance. The new segment of access road would be constructed by mechanicallyremoving vegetation, grading native soils, and improving the dirt surface to a 6-inch compactedgravel surface.Maintenance at the FOB would include refilling fuel ASTs, delivery of food, equipment, andsupplies, and, if necessary, water. The number of maintenance trips and refueling trips will varydepending on the number of agents stationed at the FOB and rate of fuel usage. It is anticipatedSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

2-5123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536that four vehicle trips per month to and from the FOB will be required for maintenance. Tankertrucks with dual rear tires and/or rear dual axles with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 30,000pounds will be used to deliver fuel. A total of approximately 48 vehicle trips per year will occurfor maintenance activities.The continued maintenance, as well as potential renovations of or minor additions to the FOB,would be expected. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, minor renovations andadditions to buildings such as realigning interior spaces of an existing building and adding asmall storage shed to an existing building. Other maintenance activities could include routineupgrade, repair, and maintenance of the FOB buildings, roofs, parking area, grounds, 0.5 mile ofexisting access road, or other facilities that would not result in a change in its functional use(e.g., replacing door locks or windows, painting interior or exterior walls, culvert maintenance,grounds maintenance, or replacing essential components such as an air conditioning unit).2.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVEUnder the No Action Alternative, the FOB proposed in this SEA would not be constructed at theFloyd Pocket project area. The No Action Alternative would preclude the construction,operation, and maintenance of the FOB, improvements to the existing access road, andconstruction of a new segment of access road. Agents would continue to deploy from theexisting station for the support of operations within USBP Douglas Station’s AOR and wouldcontinue to travel up to 2 hours each way to reach the eastern zones of USBP Douglas Station’sAOR. Consequently, this alternative hinders USBP’s ability to respond to high levels of illegalborder activity in remote areas. The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose and needfor the proposed project, but will be carried forward for analysis, as required by NEPA and CEQregulations. The No Action Alternative serves as a baseline against which the impacts of theProposed Action Alternative are evaluated.2.4 SUMMARYThe two alternatives selected for further analysis are the No Action Alternative and the ProposedAction Alternative. Table 2-1 shows how each of these alternatives satisfies the stated purposeand need. Table 2-2 presents a summary matrix of the impacts from the two alternativesanalyzed and how they affect the environment and environmental resources.Table 2-1. Purpose and Need for AlternativesPurpose and NeedWill the alternative provide adequate space and facilities for the forwarddeployment of USBP agents within the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR?Will the alternative provide increased effectiveness for USBP agents in theperformance of their duties?No ActionAlternativeNoNoProposedActionAlternativeYesYesWill the alternative provide a more safe, effective, and efficient workingenvironment for USBP agents?NoYesSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

Supplemental Environmental Assessment DraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012AffectedEnvironmentNo Action AlternativeTable 2-2. Summary Matrix of Potential ImpactsProposed Action AlternativeLand Use No direct impacts would occur.Approximately 7.5 acres would be permanently converted from undeveloped desert scrubrangeland to USBP facilities including approximately 0.04 acre disturbed due to construction of anew segment of access road.Soils No direct impacts would occur. Direct impacts on approximately 7.5 acres of soil removed from biological production.Water Resources No direct impacts would occur.Approximately 20 linear feet of potential waters of the United States would be impacted with theimprovement of the access road. CBP will obtain all applicable Clean Water Act Section 401/404and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Nationwide permits through the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Los Angeles District and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). CBPwill also provide water quality management measures that will ensure that construction of theFOB and improvements to the access road do not result in more than a minimal degradation ofwater quality at or near the Floyd Pocket project area. Stormwater management will also be inplace to ensure that degradation of the downstream aquatic system, including water quality, isminimized. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared prior toconstruction and best management practices (BMPs) implemented. Minor direct impacts onpotable groundwater supplies.VegetativeHabitatNo direct impacts would occur. Loss of approximately 7.5 acres of desert scrub vegetation.WildlifeResourcesProtected Speciesand CriticalHabitatsCulturalResourcesAir QualityNo direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.Negligible to minor impacts on wildlife populations due to the loss of approximately 7.5 acres ofhabitat.Section 7 consultation with USFWS is ongoing for this project. CBP has requested concurrencewith their determination that the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likelyadversely affect, the lesser long-nosed bat, Chiricahua leopard frog, beautiful shiner, Yaquicatfish, Yaqui chub, Yaqui topminnow, or critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog, beautifulshiner, Yaqui catfish, and Yaqui chub.Section 106 consultation with the Arizona SHPO is ongoing for this project. Based on thearchaeological survey, archival research results, and Native American Tribal consultation to date,CBP has determined that there would be no effects on any NRHP-eligible architectural oraboveground resources, NRHP-eligible archaeological resources, Traditional Cultural Property(TCP), or sacred sites.Short-term minor impacts on air quality would occur during FOB construction and roadimprovements, and intermittent generator emissions would occur. The number of trips taken byagents from USBP Douglas Station to the proposed FOB along Geronimo Trail would be reduced,as would CO 2 emissions. As such, greenhouse gas emissions in the San Bernardino Valley wouldlikely be reduced.2-6

Table 2-2, continuedSupplemental Environmental Assessment DraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012AffectedEnvironmentNoiseUtilities andInfrastructureRoadways andTrafficAesthetics andVisual ResourcesHazardousMaterialSocioeconomicsEnvironmentalJustice andProtection ofChildrenSustainability andGreeningHuman Healthand SafetyNo Action AlternativeNo direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.Proposed Action AlternativeMinor temporary increases in noise would occur during FOB construction and road improvements.Periodic increases in the ambient noise levels as a result of helipad activity.Minor increase in demand on utilities with upgrade of the existing electrical service.No direct impacts would occur. Indirect benefits would be expected. CBP estimates thatapproximately 12,000 trips annually along Geronimo Trail would be eliminated followingestablishment of the FOB. By providing the FOB near the United States/Mexico border withliving quarters and fuel facilities, daily vehicle trips to the eastern patrol zones and back to theUSBP Douglas Station (2 trips) will be eliminated for all USBP agents stationed at the FOB andfor each shift (3 per day), 365 days a year. Because the amount of time each agent is assigned tothe FOB may vary, the elimination of 12,000 trips annually is a rough estimate, and the actual tripsavings will likely be more.Minor direct impacts on aesthetic and visual resources within the vicinity of the FOB.No known hazardous wastes are located on the project area. Potential for minor adverse impactsduring FOB construction and road improvements would be minimized with BMPs. ASTs andmaintenance facility have the potential to generate hazardous waste impacts.Beneficial impacts due to increased enforcement along the border and short-term expenditures onFOB construction.No direct impacts would occur. Indirect benefits would be expected as the forward-deployedUSBP would help to reduce illegal cross-border activities.No direct impacts would occur.No direct impacts would occur.2-7

SECTION 3.0AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES

3-1123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445463.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES3.1 PRELIMINARY IMPACT SCOPINGImpacts (consequence or effect) can be either beneficial or adverse, and can be either directlyrelated to the action or indirectly caused by the action. Direct impacts are those effects that arecaused by the action and occur at the same time and place (40 CFR 1508.8[a]). Indirect impactsare those effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance,but that are still reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR 1508.8[b]). As discussed in this section, thealternatives may create temporary (lasting the duration of the project), short-term (up to 3 years),long-term (3 to 10 years following construction), or permanent effects.Impacts can vary in degree or magnitude from a slightly noticeable change to a total change inthe environment. Major impacts are those effects that would result in substantial changes to theenvironment (40 CFR 1508.27) and should receive the greatest attention in the decision-makingprocess. Minor impacts are those that would result in minimal changes to the environment. Thefollowing discussions describe and, where possible, quantify the potential effects of eachalternative on the resources within or near the project corridor. All impacts described below areconsidered to be adverse unless stated otherwise.Some topics are limited in scope due to the lack of direct effect from the proposed project on theresource, or because that particular resource is not located within the project area. Resourcesdismissed from further discussion are:Geologic ResourcesGeologic resources include physical surface and subsurface features of the earth such asgeological formations and the seismic activity of the area. The construction, operation, andmaintenance of the FOB, improvements to the access road, and construction of a new segment ofaccess road would not disturb the underlying geologic resources of the area, since only nearsurfacemodifications would be implemented. The Floyd Pocket project area is not located in anarea subject to seismic activity, landslides, or flooding. Therefore, no impacts on geologicresources would be expected.ClimateThe Proposed Action Alternative would neither affect nor be affected by the climate.Wild and Scenic RiversThe Proposed Action Alternative would not affect any stretch of river designated as Wild andScenic.Unique and Sensitive AreasThere is no designated Wilderness in the San Bernardino Valley. The Proposed ActionAlternative would not affect any unique and sensitive areas because no areas designated as suchare located within or near the project area. However, the San Bernardino NWR is locatedapproximately 2.45 miles southwest of the project area and is discussed in Section 3.7.1.3 of thisSEA.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-21234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344Prime FarmlandThe Proposed Action Alternative would not affect any Prime Farmlands, since the soils found atthe project area are not considered Prime Farmland soils (Natural Resources ConservationService [NRCS] 2011). Thus, the Proposed Action Alternative would be in compliance with theFarmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 4201-4209 Part 658.2) and would not require completionof a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating assessment.All impacts described in this SEA would be similar to those identified and discussed for thePreferred Alternative in the September 2011 final EA, but at a different location. The impacts onthe human and natural environment from the construction, operation, and maintenance of theFOB are herein incorporated by reference from the September 2011 EA (CBP 2011).3.2 LAND USE3.2.1 Affected EnvironmentGeneral land use in the vicinity of the Floyd Pocket project area is predominantly privatelyowned or leased scrub and brush ranch land and Arizona State lands. The land in the vicinity ofthe Floyd Pocket project area is zoned as rural, and the primary land use is cattle grazing(Cochise County 2011a).The Floyd Pocket project area is currently ArizonaState-owned, undeveloped, desert scrubland(Photograph 3-1). Land use surrounding theproperty consists of additional undeveloped scruband brush. Guadalupe Canyon Road, a countyimproveddirt/gravel road, and an unimprovedexisting two-track road provide access to theproject area. Evidence of cattle grazing is presentwithin the project area boundaries.Currently, land uses within the vicinity the FloydPhotograph 3-1. The Floyd Pocket project areaPocket project area are directly and indirectlyfacing north from the southeast corner of theaffected by cross-border violator (CBV) pedestrianproject area.and vehicle traffic, and consequent lawenforcement activities. Natural desert areas experience damage to native vegetation and soilcompaction. The effect of illegal cross-border activities within the area has a negative impact onvegetation, wildlife, recreation, and residents living in the San Bernardino Valley.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences3.2.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would preclude the construction, operation, and maintenance of theFOB, improvements to the access road, and construction of a new segment of access road. Landuse would remain unchanged. Under the No Action Alternative, indirect impacts from illegalactivity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-31234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041423.2.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would convert approximately 7.5 acres of undeveloped,desertscrub rangeland to a developed land use. The construction, operation, and maintenance ofthe FOB and improvements to an existing access road would be consistent with zoning for thearea and surrounding land use. Therefore, impacts on land use would be negligible.3.3 SOILS3.3.1 Affected EnvironmentThe general soils of the project area were discussed in detail in the September 2011 EA and areherein incorporated by reference (CBP 2011). The Floyd Pocket project area is currentlyunoccupied, vacant land and is entirely underlain by the Kahn-Zapolote complex, 1 to 15 percentslopes (Figure 3-1; NRCS 2011). This soil complex is composed of 40 percent Kahn and similarsoils, 40 percent Zapolote and similar soils, and 20 percent contrasting inclusions. These soilsare derived from a mixed fan alluvium parent material and are characterized by loam, clay, andcalcareous clay loam. Approximately 30 to 50 percent of the soil surface is covered with gravel.This soil complex is well-drained, has high to very high available water capacity, and a mediumto high runoff rate. These soils have a moderate to severe hazard of water erosion; therefore,special consideration should be given to water management (NRCS 2003). Likewise, these soilshave a moderate hazard of wind erosion (NRCS 2003). When vegetation is removed, careshould be taken to prevent excessive dust and soil loss.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences3.3.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, there would be no modification of soils since no new structureswould be constructed and no access road improvements or construction would occur. Indirectimpacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities wouldcontinue.3.3.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe development of the Floyd Pocket project area would permanently impact up to 7.5 acres ofKahn-Zapolote complex, 1 to 15 percent slopes, through conversion from undeveloped vacantland to developed land with some impermeable surfaces. All access road repair and maintenanceactivities would occur within the existing road footprint. As such, no permanent impacts areanticipated as a result of existing road improvements. Following construction activities, anytemporary impact areas would be revegetated with a mixture of native plant seeds or nurseryplantings (or both).BMPs would be implemented to prevent soil erosion off-site due to wind or rain, and a NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, including a SWPPP, for developmentwould be obtained. The impacted soils are common in the San Bernardino Valley and are notclassified as prime farmland, so their disturbance would not constitute a major impact.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

GUADALUPE CANYON ROAD3-459ArizonaProject LocationDouglasGERONIMO TRAIL9184Project AreaExisting Two-track Access RoadHay Hollow Wash!.! C!CWindmill!. Stock PondSOIL TYPE125 - Riveroad and Ubik91135 - Surge-Rock Outcrop Complex59 - Eloma Sandy Loam84 - Guest-Riveroad Association91 - Kahn-Zapolote Complex· 00 90 180 270Meters175 350 525 700 875Feet125135Figure 3-1: Soil MapFebruary 2012

3-51234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041423.4 WATER RESOURCES3.4.1 Affected Environment3.4.1.1 Surface WaterThe Floyd Pocket project area is located within the San Bernardino Valley Basin. This basinoccupies approximately 387 square miles and is characterized as a valley flanked by twomountain ranges. It is located in the southeastern corner of Cochise County and extends fromthe United States/Mexico border northward past the Chiricahua Mountains. It is bounded to thewest by the Perilla Mountains and to the east by the Arizona/New Mexico state line and thePeloncillo Mountains (Arizona Department of Water Resources [ADWR] 2009).No permanent surface water was observed at the Floyd Pocket project area; however,approximately 900 feet south of the Floyd Pocket project area is a man-made stock pond (Figure3-2). No surface waters in the vicinity of the construction corridor have state-approveddesignated uses, and none are listed on the state Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303 (d)impaired waters list (USEPA 2008).3.4.1.2 Hydrology and HydraulicsAverage annual runoff varies within the San Bernardino Valley Basin from 0.2 inch per year(approximately 3.5 million gallons per square mile) in the middle half of the basin to 2 inches peryear (34.8 million gallons per square mile) at the northern boundary of the basin (ADWR 2009).There is one perennial stream, Hay Hollow Wash, located adjacent to the Floyd Pocket projectarea (Figure 3-2). Surface water flows downslope toward the southern boundary at the FloydPocket project area into Hay Hollow Wash. Hay Hollow Wash continues southward onto SanBernardino NWR, and ultimately into Mexico.3.4.1.3 Wetlands and Waters of the United StatesNo wetlands are located within the Floyd Pocket project area.However, wetlands associated with aquatic habitat are locatedapproximately 2.45 miles downstream from the project areanear the border with Mexico on the San Bernardino NWR. Asdescribed above, there is one perennial stream, Hay HollowWash, near the Floyd Pocket project area. Hay Hollow Washis considered to be a waters of the United States. One smallpotential waters of the United States was observed near theFloyd Pocket project area (Figure 3-2). The potential waters ofthe United States is a small, sandy-bottomed, dry wash thatcrosses the access road (Photograph 3-2). When present, waterwithin the small wash flows from upslope on the north side ofthe access road southward across the road and eventually intoHay Hollow Wash. No water was present within the smallwash during the November 2011 site visit.Photograph 3-2. View of thepotential waters of the UnitedStates where it crosses the accessroad, facing southeast toward HayHollow Wash.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-6ArizonaProject LocationDouglasFloyd Pocket Project AreaExisting Two-track Access RoadWaters of the United States in Project Boundary (72 linear feet)Waters of the United States Outside Project Boundary (186 linear feet)Hay Hollow Wash· 00 25 50 75Meters60 120 180 240FeetFigure 3-2: Waters of the United StatesJanuary 2012

3-712345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243443.4.2 Environmental Consequences3.4.2.1 No Action AlternativeNo direct impacts are expected on surface waters from the No Action Alternative, as the FOBwould not be constructed, and no access road improvements or construction would occur. Underthe No Action Alternative, indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequentUSBP interdiction activities would continue.3.4.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeUnder the Proposed Action Alternative, temporary short-term impacts on downstream surfacewaters could occur during FOB construction and access road improvements due to soil erosion.Approximately 20 linear feet of potential waters of the United States would be impacted with theimprovement of the access road.CBP will obtain all applicable CWA Section 401/404 and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10Nationwide permits through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District and ADEQ.CBP will also provide water quality management measures that will ensure that construction ofthe FOB, improvements to the access road, and construction of a new segment of access road donot result in more than a minimal degradation of water quality at or near the Floyd Pocket projectarea. Stormwater management will also be in place to ensure that degradation of the downstreamaquatic system, including water quality, is minimized.During FOB construction and access road improvements and construction, water quality withinephemeral and perennial streams would be protected through the implementation of BMPs (e.g.,silt fences). The construction contractor’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan(SPCCP) would also be in place prior to the start of construction. BMPs outlined in the SPCCPplan would reduce potential migration of soils, oil and grease, and construction debris into localwatersheds.3.4.3 FloodplainsPursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4001, et seq.), andthe Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-234, 87 Statute 975), Executive Order(EO) 11988, Floodplain Management, requires that each Federal agency take actions to reducethe risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, andpreserve the beneficial values that floodplains serve. EO 11988 requires that agencies evaluatethe potential effects of actions within a floodplain and avoid floodplains unless the agencydetermines there is no practicable alternative. Where the only practicable alternative is to site ina floodplain, a planning process is followed to ensure compliance with EO 11988. In summary,this process includes the following steps:• Determine whether or not the action is in the regulatory floodplain.• Conduct early public notice.• Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives, if any.• Identify impacts of the action.• Minimize the impacts.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-812345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940• Reevaluate alternatives.• Present the findings and a public explanation.• Implement the action.This process is further outlined on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA),Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Program website (FEMA 2011). As aplanning tool, the NEPA process incorporates floodplain management through analysis andpublic coordination, ensuring that the floodplain management planning process is followed. Inaddition, floodplains are managed at the local municipal level with the assistance and oversightof FEMA. Therefore, any action within these areas would require appropriate coordination andevaluation of the potential effects.The Floyd Pocket project area is located in an area of moderate or minimal flood hazard that hasbeen determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain as delineated by FEMA(FEMA 2008).3.4.4 Environmental Consequences3.4.4.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no impacts on floodplains would occur. Indirect impacts fromillegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.3.4.4.2 Proposed Action AlternativeTo provide increased effectiveness for USBP agents in the performance of their duties, toprovide a more safe, effective, and efficient working environment for USBP agents, and toobscure the FOB from view along Geronimo Trail, CBP intends to build the FOB at the FloydPocket project area. The FOB and resurfaced access road could impede the conveyance of floodwaters and slightly decrease floodplain capacity; however, no increase in flood elevations,frequencies, or durations would result. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed ActionAlternative would have a negligible long-term effect on floodplain management.3.5 VEGETATIVE HABITAT3.5.1 Affected EnvironmentThe vegetative habitat of the project area was discussed in detail in the September 2011 EA, andis herein incorporated by reference (CBP 2011). A field reconnaissance survey of the FloydPocket project area was performed by Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC) biologists onNovember 16, 2011. There was evidence of heavy livestock grazing at the project area(Photograph 3-3), and the vegetative community was characterized by a very low speciesdiversity and moderately low density. Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) and four-wingsaltbush (Atriplex canescens) dominate the landscape (Photograph 3-4). Other prevalent plantspecies noted at the project area include: tarbush (Flourensia cernua), burroweed (Isocomatenuisecta), threadleaf snakeweed (Gutierrezia microcephala), broom snakeweed (G. sarothrae),Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-912345Santa Rita pricklypear (Opuntia santa-rita), cane cholla (Cylindropuntia spinosior), soaptreeyucca (Yucca elata), bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri), Arizona fluff grass (Dasyochloapulchella), tobosagrass (Pleuraphis mutica), purple three-awn (Aristida purpurea), stinkgrass(Eragrostis ciliannensis), and blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis).Photograph 3-3. Livestock have heavily grazedvegetation at the Floyd Pocket project area.Photograph 3-4. Honey mesquite dominates thelandscape at the Floyd Pocket project area.678910A windmill, metal stock trough, and adjacent stock pond were noted approximately 900 feet(0.15 mile) south of the Floyd Pocket project area (Photograph 3-5 and Photograph 3-6). Cattails(Typha sp.) were noted in the pond, with Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) prevalent around thepond.Photograph 3-5. A windmill and metal stocktrough south of the project area.Photograph 3-6. The stock pond south of theproject area.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-1012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546GSRC biologists also surveyed the reach of Hay Hollow Washadjacent to the Floyd Pocket project area and access road (seeFigure 3-2). There was no water present within any portion ofthe wash adjacent to the Floyd Pocket project area during thesurvey (Photograph 3-7). Prominent vegetation noted withinthe wash and along its banks included honey mesquite, fourwingsaltbush, Bermudagrass, ragweed (Ambrosiapsilostachya), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), Johnson grass(Sorghum halepense), sideoats grama (Bouteloua curtipendula),and streambed bristlegrass (Setaria leucopila).3.5.2 Environmental Consequences3.5.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would preclude the construction,operation, and maintenance of the FOB, improvements to thePhotograph 3-7. Hay Hollowaccess road, and construction of a new segment of access road, Wash facing southeast.and vegetation would not be disturbed or removed. Under theNo Action Alternative, indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequentUSBP interdiction activities would continue.3.5.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would permanently alter approximately 7.5 acres of desertscrubland to a developed hardscape or landscaping. The plant community at the project area is bothlocally and regionally common, and the permanent loss of approximately 7.5 acres of vegetationwould not adversely affect the population viability of any plant species in the region.Disturbance of up to 7.5 acres of vegetation could, however, result in conditions suitable for theestablishment of non-native plant species.In order to ensure that the Proposed Action Alternative does not actively promote theestablishment of additional non-native and invasive species in the area, BMPs (described inSection 5.0) would be implemented to minimize the spread and reestablishment of non-nativevegetation. Vegetation removed from the project area would be disposed of properly. Uponcompletion of construction, all disturbed areas would be restored with native plantings,landscaped, or allowed to revegetate naturally. These BMPs, as well as measures protectingvegetation in general, would reduce potential impacts from non-native invasive species to anegligible amount. Therefore, the permanent impacts on vegetation from the Proposed ActionAlternative are expected to be negligible.3.6 WILDLIFE RESOURCES3.6.1 Affected EnvironmentThe wildlife resources of the project area were discussed in detail in the September 2011 EA andare herein incorporated by reference (CBP 2011). The immediate habitat near the Floyd Pocketproject area is desertscrub land, which is presently grazed by cattle. Wildlife species observed atthe Floyd Pocket project area during the November 16, 2011 survey included black-throatedsparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), Gila woodpeckerSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-11123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445(Melanerpes uropygialis), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), Savannah sparrow(Passerculus sandwichensis), rufus-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps), mourning dove(Zenaida macroura), and green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). Several pocket gopher(Thomomys sp.) and fox/coyote (Canis sp.) burrows, along with jackrabbit (Lepus sp.) scat andtracks were observed at the project area.A dead pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps)was observed in the metal trough located south ofthe project area, and avian excrement whitewashwas noted on the windmill (see Photograph 3-5). Asub-adult American bullfrog (Lithobatescatesbeiana) was observed under a piece of debrisnear the metal stock trough and stock pond(Photograph 3-8). Presence of the bullfrog indicatesthat there is permanent, standing water at thislocation south of the Floyd Pocket project area.During the survey, the stock pond held a smallamount of water at a depth of 2 to 6 inches (seePhotograph 3-6).GSRC biologists also surveyed the reach of HayHollow Wash adjacent to the Floyd Pocket projectarea and access road. A cluster of burrows withavian excrement whitewash was noted within HayHollow Wash approximately 420 feet south of theproject area (Photograph 3-9). The burrows wereexamined closely, but no arthropod parts, feathers,or owl pellets were identified. The whitewash couldpotentially be the result of western burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia) occupancy; however, nowestern burrowing owls were observed during thesurvey.Photograph 3-8. A sub-adult bull frog near thewindmill and trough south of the site.Photograph 3-9. A cluster of potential westernburrowing owl burrows located within HayHallow Wash.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences3.6.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would preclude construction of the FOB, improvements to the accessroad, and construction of a new segment of access road, and wildlife would not be disturbed andwildlife habitat would not be altered. Thus, no direct impacts on wildlife would occur. Underthe No Action Alternative, indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequentUSBP interdiction activities would continue.3.6.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would permanently alter approximately 7.5 acres of desertscrubhabitat to developed hardscape and landscaped areas. The wildlife habitat present at the projectarea is both locally and regionally common, and the permanent loss of 7.5 acres of wildlifeSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-1212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546habitat would not adversely affect the population viability or fecundity of any wildlife species inthe region.The Proposed Action Alternative would require artificial lighting around the perimeter of theFOB. Lighting could attract or repel various wildlife species within the project area. Thenumber of lights along the boundary of the FOB is not presently known. However, the proposedlighting would be back-shielded and directed towards the FOB compound and away fromadjacent areas. Therefore, the artificial lighting around the FOB would minimally disruptwildlife activities adjacent to the property. Perimeter and parking lot illumination would not beexpected to exceed 4 to 5 lumens directly under the light, with light trespass beyond the projectarea of less than 2 lumens.The highest period of movement for most wildlife species occurs during nighttime or lowdaylight hours. Construction and road improvement activities would be limited primarily todaylight hours whenever possible. Periodic noise from occasional and emergency helicoptertakeoff and landing from the FOB would have minimal and intermittent impacts on thesurrounding wildlife communities. The implementation of the BMPs outlined in Section 5.0would ensure that these impacts on wildlife would be minimal.The Floyd Pocket project area is in a location that provides an important route used by migratorybirds, bats, and other wildlife. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712, [1918, asamended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989]) requires that Federal agenciescoordinate with the USFWS if a construction activity would result in the take of a migratorybird. Therefore, if construction and road improvements occur during migratory bird nestingseason (February 1 through September 1), a trained biologist will perform a pre-constructionmigratory bird survey to determine if birds are nesting in the proposed construction area.Another BMP that would be considered is to schedule all construction and road improvementactivities outside the nesting season, negating the requirement for nesting bird surveys.There is a possibility that the proposed communications tower at the FOB could pose hazards tomigratory birds and even bird mortality; however, since the tower would not use guy wires, thepotential for adverse impacts is greatly reduced. The communications tower and buildings couldprovide raptor perch and nesting locations, but BMPs, including anti-perching devices, could beused to discourage this activity. The Proposed Action Alternative would, however, have a longterm,minor adverse effect on migratory birds.3.7 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATS3.7.1 Affected Environment3.7.1.1 Federally Listed Species and Critical HabitatThe protected species and critical habitat of the project area, as well as the ESA of 1973 (16 USC§ 1531 et seq., as amended), was discussed in detail in the September 2011 EA, and is hereinincorporated by reference (CBP 2011). GSRC obtained a list of Federally protected speciesfrom the current USFWS database (USFWS 2012b). USFWS currently lists 29 Federallyprotected species with potential of occurring in Cochise County. Of these 29 species, suitablehabitat is located within or adjacent to the Floyd Pocket project area and the access road for twoSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-1312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546species, Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis) and lesser long-nosed bat(Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae). Suitable habitat for four species, beautiful shiner(Cyprinella formosa), Yaqui catfish (Ictalurus pricei), Yaqui chub (Gila purpurea), and Yaquitopminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis), is located approximately 1.5 milesdownstream from the Floyd Pocket project area on the NWR.Seven Federally listed species have designated critical habitat in Cochise County, and onespecies, the San Bernardino springsnail, has proposed critical habitat in the county (USFWS2011a). However, the Floyd Pocket project area is not located within any of the designatedcritical habitat units. Proposed designated critical habitat Unit 19 for Chiricahua leopard frog islocated approximately 3.0 miles northeast of the Floyd Pocket project area (Figure 3-3) and isdescribed in detail below (USFWS 2011b). Approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the projectarea on the San Bernardino NWR (Figure 3-4), critical habitat is established for the beautifulshiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, and includes all aquatic habitats on the refuge (USFWS2011a).Chiricahua leopard frogThe Federally threatened Chiricahua leopard frog(Photograph 3-10) has cream-colored tubercles(spots) on a dark background on the rear of itsthigh, dorsolateral folds that are interrupted anddeflected medially, and a call given out of waterthat distinguishes it from other leopard frogs(USFWS 2012b). The Chiricahua leopard frogrequires permanent or nearly permanent watersources. The frog was once widespread throughoutthe wetlands of southeast Arizona. Today, itinhabits streams, rivers, backwaters, ponds, andstock tanks that are mostly free from introducedfish, crayfish, and bullfrogs (USFWS 2012b).Major threats to Chiricahua leopard frog includehabitat degradation, predation by non-native bullfrogs, and exposure to a lethal fungal skininfection (chytridiomycosis).Photograph 3-10. Chiricahua leopard frog(photograph by Jim Rorabaugh, USFWS).In the March 15, 2011 Proposed Rule (76 FR 14126), USFWS proposed designated criticalhabitat, Unit 19: Rosewood and North Tanks, for Chiricahua leopard frog on a 19-acre (8-hectare) parcel of private land and on a 78-acre (31-hectare) parcel of land owned by the ArizonaState Land Department in the San Bernardino Valley in Cochise County, Arizona (USFWS2011b). This unit is proposed as critical habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing andcurrently contains sufficient primary constituent elements (PCEs) (PCEs 1 and 2) to support lifehistory functions essential for the conservation of the species.Included in this proposed unit are two livestock tanks (Rosewood and North Tanks) anddrainages and uplands to allow for movement of frogs between them (see Figure 3-3). NorthTank is on private land, while Rosewood Tank and the connecting drainage are on Arizona StateLand Department land. Rosewood Tank was occupied at the time of listing, but North Tank wasSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-14ArizonaProject LocationDouglasCottonwood DrawNorth TankHay Hollow Wash!.Rosewood Tank!.Project LocationFloyd Pocket Project AreaProposed Critical Habitat for Chiricahua Leopard FrogStreams!. Rosewood and North Tanks· 00 560 1,120 1,680Meters1,400 2,800 4,200 5,600FeetFigure 3-3: Proposed Critical Habitat for the Chiricahua Leopard FrogJanuary 2012

Project AreaProject AreaCritical Habitat for Beautiful Shiner,Yaqui Catfish & Yaqui ChubWaterwaysSan Bernardino Wildlife Refuge0 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000Feet520 1,040 1,560MetersJanuary 20123-15PROJECTLOCATIONDouglasBlack DrawCottonwood DrawGeronimo Trail RoadHay Hollow Wash·0Figure 3-4: Fish Critical Habitat on San Bernardino NWR

3-161234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344not. Both tanks are currently occupied, and Rosewood Tank is considered a breeding population.North Tank probably supports breeding, but is a recent (2008) reestablishment site for whichbreeding has not yet been documented. These two interconnected breeding sites do not make ametapopulation (four or more interconnected breeding sites are necessary); therefore, this unit isconsidered an isolated population (USFWS 2011b).The intervening drainages and uplands proposed as critical habitat are as follows: (1) fromRosewood Tank downstream in an unnamed drainage that is parallel to and just south of theGuadalupe Canyon Road to its confluence with a large unnamed drainage, then upstream in thatdrainage; (2) under Guadalupe Canyon Road and east to its confluence with a minor unnameddrainage; (3) upstream in that unnamed minor drainage to its headwaters; (4) then overland to theheadwaters of another unnamed drainage; (5) downstream in that drainage to its confluence withthe drainage containing North Tank; and (6) downstream in that drainage to North Tank (seeFigure 3-3).Chytridiomycosis has not been recorded in this unit, despite its presence nearby at SanBernardino NWR (USFWS 2011b). High pH at Rosewood Tank may be a limiting factor for thedisease organism. No nonnative predators have been found at either of these tanks. RosewoodTank has been equipped with two small, concrete-lined refugia ponds fed by a well so that thefrogs can persist at this site even if the livestock tank, which is filled by runoff, goes dry.In the September 21, 2011 Proposed Rule (76 FR 58441), USFWS proposed to revise the PCEsof Chiricahua leopard frog (USFWS 2011c). The revised PCEs of critical habitat for Chiricahualeopard frog include:(1) Aquatic breeding habitat and immediately adjacent uplands exhibiting the followingcharacteristics:• Standing bodies of fresh water with salinities less than 5 parts per thousand, pH greaterthan or equal to 5.6, and pollutants absent or minimally present, including natural andman-made (e.g., stock) ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within streams, off-channelpools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically hold water or arerarely dry for more than a month. During periods of drought or less than average rainfall,these breeding sites may not hold water long enough for individuals to completemetamorphosis, but they would still be considered essential breeding habitat in nondroughtyears.• Emergent and or submerged vegetation, root masses, undercut banks, fractured rocksubstrates, or some combination thereof, but emergent vegetation does not completelycover the surface of water bodies.• Nonnative predators (e.g., crayfish, American bullfrogs, nonnative and predatory fishes)absent or occurring at levels that do not preclude presence of the Chiricahua leopard frog.• Absence of chytridiomycosis, or if present, then environmental, physiological, andgenetic conditions are such that allow persistence of Chiricahua leopard frogs.• Upland areas that provide opportunities for foraging and basking that are immediatelyadjacent to or surrounding breeding aquatic and riparian habitat.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-1712345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546(2) Dispersal and nonbreeding habitat, consisting of areas with ephemeral (present for only ashort time), intermittent, or perennial water that are generally not suitable for breeding,and associated upland or riparian habitat that provide corridors (overland movement oralong wetted drainages) for frogs among breeding sites in a metapopulation with thefollowing characteristics:• Are not more than 1.0 mile overland, 3.0 miles along ephemeral or intermittent drainages,5.0 miles along perennial drainages, or some combination thereof not to exceed 5.0 miles.• In overland and nonwetted corridors, provide some vegetation cover or structural features(e.g., boulders, rocks, organic debris such as downed trees or logs, small mammalburrows, or leaf litter) for shelter, forage, and protection from predators; in wettedcorridors, provide some ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial aquatic habitat.• Are free of barriers that block movement by Chiricahua leopard frogs, including, but notlimited to, urban, industrial, or agricultural development; reservoirs that are 50 acres ormore in size and contain predatory nonnative fishes, bullfrogs, or crayfish; highways thatdo not include frog fencing and culverts; and walls, major dams, or other structures thatphysically block movement.Lesser long-nosed batThe lesser long-nosed bat’s range extends from southern Arizona and extreme southwesternArizona, through western Mexico and south to El Salvador (USFWS 1997). The lesser longnosedbat primarily utilizes natural caves and abandoned mines for roosting, but can transientlyroost among overhanging rocks and other shelters. Use of roosting sites may vary dependingupon seasonal fluctuations in the timing of forage availability. Thus, some roosts may beoccupied or unoccupied through parts or all of a breeding season. Female lesser long-nosed batsarrive at known maternity roosts in southwest Arizona as early as April, continuing through mid-July (USFWS 1997). These maternity colonies begin to disband by September. Both males andfemales can be found in transient or maternity roosts from September to as late as earlyNovember. Lesser long-nosed bats eat nectar and fruits of columnar cacti and nectar ofpaniculate agaves, and, as such, they are considered to be an important dispersal and pollinationvector for these species. Lesser long-nosed bats are known to travel 30 miles to reach suitableconcentrations of forage.The potential for lesser long-nosed bats to be present within or near the project area is very low.No individual bats or guano were seen during the biological survey. Likewise, no columnar cactior paniculate agaves were observed at or near the Floyd Pocket project area.Beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, and Yaqui topminnowIn the August 31, 1984, Register Notice (49 FR 34490), all aquatic habitats of the SanBernardino NWR were designated as critical habitat for beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, andYaqui chub (see Figure 3-4). The known PCEs outlined for these species in 49 FR 34490,include clean, small, permanent streams and pools without any exotic fish (USFWS 1984). Thestreams should provide deep pool areas separated by riffles and flow areas with moderatecurrents. Backwater areas of stream and springs with overgrown cut banks and accumulation ofdetritus are necessary for feeding and shelter. USFWS determined that these physical andbiological features are essential to conservation of these fish species (USFWS 1984).Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-1812345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546Any activity that would lower the groundwater level to the extent that water flow from springson San Bernardino NWR would be reduced could adversely impact critical habitat. Suchactivities include, but are not limited to, pumping of groundwater for agricultural purposes anddrilling activities associated with geothermal exploration. Any activity that would significantlyalter water chemistry of springs on San Bernardino NWR could adversely impact critical habitat.Such activities include, but are not limited to, release of chemical or biological pollutants intosurface or underground waters at a point source or by dispersal release. An additional activitythat could adversely impact critical habitat is release of exotic or nonnative fish. Predation andcompetition from these introductions could reduce or eliminate populations of endangered andthreatened fish. While no critical habitat has been established for yaqui topminnow, it is aFederally endangered species, and natural and introduced populations occur on San BernardinoNWR (USFWS 2012b).3.7.1.2 San Bernardino NWRThe San Bernardino NWR is located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project area andwas discussed in detail in the September 2011 EA and is herein incorporated by reference (CBP2011). Many protected fish, wildlife, invertebrate, and plant species occur on the refuge and aresupported by associated upland, wetland, and riparian habitats. Federally protected speciesfound on the refuge include beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, Yaqui topminnow,Chiricahua leopard frog, and Huachuca water umbel (USFWS 2011c). As previously described,critical habitat is established on the refuge for the beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, and Yaqui chuband includes all aquatic habitats on the San Bernardino NWR (USFWS 2011d).3.7.1.3 State-Listed SpeciesThe AGFD’s Arizona Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) maintains a list of species with specialstatus in Arizona. The ANHP list includes flora and fauna whose occurrence in Arizona is ormay be in jeopardy or that have known or perceived threats or population declines (AGFD2010a). The ANHP list for Cochise County is provided in Appendix B. These species are notnecessarily the same as those protected under the ESA.Although the Floyd Pocket project area could be considered suitable habitat for various statesensitive bird, reptile, mammal, and plant species, no state-listed species for Cochise Countywere observed during the November 2011 biological survey. However, a cluster of burrows withavian excrement whitewash, which could potentially indicate western burrowing owloccupancy, was noted adjacent to the project area within Hay Hollow Wash (see Photograph 3-9). The burrows were examined closely, but no arthropod parts, feathers, owl pellets, or westernburrowing owls were identified. The ANHP lists western burrowing owl as uncommon but notrare in Cochise County, although it may be rare in some parts of its range within Arizona; it hasno state-listed status (AGFD 2010b).Based on guidance provided by USFWS, CBP will maintain a 100-foot buffer around any activeor potentially active burrowing owl burrows. If a 100-foot buffer cannot be maintained, or if aburrowing owl is detected within the project footprint during construction activities, CBP willfollow the guidelines outlined in the document entitled Burrowing Owl Project ClearanceGuidance for Landowners, which can be found on the AGFD’s website(http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/owl/burrowingowlclearanceprotocol.pdf).Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-19123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445463.7.2 Environmental Consequences3.7.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would preclude construction, operation, and maintenance of the FOB,improvements to the access road, and construction of a new segment of access road, andprotected species and critical habitat would not be disturbed or altered. Thus, no direct impactswould occur. Under the No Action Alternative, indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBVactivities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.3.7.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeNo Federally or state-protected species were observed during the biological survey at the FloydPocket project area. CBP has determined that the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, butwould not likely adversely affect, the Chiricahua leopard frog or its designated critical habit.CBP has also determined that the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likelyadversely affect, the beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, or Yaqui topminnow, based onthe currently available information provided below. Similarly, CBP has determined that theProposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, critical habitat forthese fish. The Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on the lesser longnosedbat. CBP has entered into consultation with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA torequest concurrence with these determinations (see Appendix A).Chiricahua leopard frogNo suitable aquatic breeding habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog exists within the Floyd Pocketproject area. However, there is permanent, standing water and suitable habitat presentapproximately 900 feet (0.15 mile) south of the proposed project area in and around the metalstock trough and stock pond. Chiricahua leopard frogs require standing bodies of fresh water,the presence of emergent and or submerged vegetation, and upland areas that provideopportunities for foraging and basking that are immediately adjacent to or surrounding breedingaquatic and riparian habitat. The area south of the Floyd Pocket project area contains all thesehabitat features.There is suitable dispersal and nonbreeding habitat for Chiricahua leopard frog upstream fromthe Floyd Pocket project area. During high flow or flood events, the reach of Hay Hollow Washadjacent to the project area could also potentially provide dispersal and nonbreeding habitat forChiricahua leopard frogs. Vegetation cover and structural features such as boulders, rocks,downed trees, logs, small mammal burrows, and leaf litter for shelter, forage, and protectionfrom predators, as well as wetted corridors that provide some ephemeral, intermittent orperennial aquatic habitat, are also present upstream from the proposed project area andpotentially within the reach of Hay Hollow Wash adjacent to the project area during periods ofhigh water volume and flow.Implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adverselyaffect, the Chiricahua leopard frog or its designated critical habitat. No suitable aquatic breedinghabitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog exists within the 7.5-acre Floyd Pocket project area.However, there is permanent, standing water and suitable habitat present approximately 900 feet(0.15 mile) south of the proposed project area in and around the metal stock trough and stockpond.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-20123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445The following conservation measures were compiled from previous consultations with USFWSregarding the Chiricahua leopard frog, the USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation(IPaC) System (USFWS 2012a), and through consultation with the USFWS for this project, andwill be implemented at the Floyd Pocket project area:1. Implement surveys for Chiricahua leopard frog, to protocol, in June 2012 and June 2013at the tank next to the FOB to determine the status of the Chiricahua leopard frog(whether present or not) and, if Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present, determine thesuitability of the site for Chiricahua leopard frogs to establish. These surveys will beconducted by surveyors permitted by the USFWS using the survey protocol described inthe Chiricahua leopard frog Recovery Plan, Appendix E. If Chiricahua leopard frogs arepresent, then CBP will contact USFWS to discuss the need for re-consultation andpossible conservation measures to minimize adverse effects on Chiricahua leopard frogsthat may be dispersing in the area.2. Educate construction workers and the USBP agents regarding the possibility ofChiricahua leopard frogs in the general area, and how to identify and report Chiricahualeopard frogs that may be observed in the general area.Lesser long-nosed batNo lesser long-nosed bats, potential or existing roost sites, or forage plants were observed at theFloyd Pocket project area. There would be no direct or indirect effect on lesser long-nosed batsarising from construction of the FOB. Operational impacts on bats are limited to the footprint ofthe lighted area at the FOB for security purposes and operational noise. The 7.5 acres of lightingassociated with the FOB would be surrounded by thousands of unlit acres of desertscrubrangeland in the San Bernardino Valley. In addition, security lighting at the FOB would belimited, to the greatest extent practicable, by minimizing the number of lights used andselectively placing and pointing lights down toward the ground, with shields on lights to preventlight from going up into sky or out laterally beyond the FOB project area footprint.Additionally, CBP would adhere to the Cochise County Light Pollution Code (Cochise County2005). AGFD recently completed a study of lesser long-nosed bat movement patterns in relationto artificial light in Tucson and Marana, Arizona (AGFD 2009). This study found that while thebats preferred lower light levels for transit corridors, they frequently used areas withsubstantially higher levels of artificial light than would be generated under the Proposed ActionAlternative. Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effect on thelesser long-nosed bat.Beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, and Yaqui topminnowHay Hollow Wash has permanent water, downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area, thatcould provide potential habitat for Federally listed fish species. However, none of the listedspecies were observed during the November 2011 survey, and none are likely to be directlyimpacted by the FOB. The soils found at the Floyd Pocket project area have a medium to highrunoff rate, and the hazard of erosion by water is moderate to severe. Surface water flowsdownslope toward the southern project area boundary at the Floyd Pocket project area into HayHollow Wash. Hay Hollow Wash continues southward onto San Bernardino NWR, andultimately into Mexico. Any sediment-laden runoff that escapes the Floyd Pocket project area orSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-2112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546the access road would enter into Hay Hollow Wash approximately 1.5 miles upstream from anyaquatic habitat on San Bernardino NWR and would very likely be deposited upstream beforereaching San Bernardino NWR. The likelihood of eroded sediments from the Floyd Pocketproject area reaching the aquatic habitats on San Bernardino NWR is very low. However,runoff and eroded sediment could indirectly contribute to a decrease in overall water quality ofaquatic habitats downstream, particularly those set aside for beautiful shiner, Yaqui catfish, andYaqui chub on the San Bernardino NWR.Although some potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by runoff and erodedsediment downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists, several measures would be inplace at the FOB to limit erosion, and would include: a stormwater retention basin to collectrainwater and other sources of runoff into a centralized area where water would be allowed toevaporate or percolate down to groundwater; preparation of a NPDES Stormwater Dischargepermit; preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and a Notice of Intent (NOI) that would befiled with the ADEQ; implementation of specific erosion and sedimentation controls and otherBMPs, such as strategic placement of hay bales and silt fence, that would limit the amount oferosion that occurs on-site and restrict potential impacts on surrounding properties duringconstruction; and incorporation of post-construction stormwater controls that minimize longtermimpacts on surface waters and allow for groundwater recharge.Any activity that would lower the groundwater level to the extent that water flow from springson San Bernardino NWR would be reduced could adversely impact the Yaqui topminnow andcritical habitat for beautiful shiner, Yaqui chub, and Yaqui catfish. The Proposed ActionAlternative would not affect hydrology or hydraulics of any surface water body. The ProposedAction Alternative would slightly increase demands on groundwater supplies during theconstruction period. Water would be needed for a variety of construction activities, including,but not limited to, drinking water supply for construction crews, dust suppression, and concretemixing. Construction-related increases would be temporary and minimal. Water used duringconstruction activities would equal approximately 326,000 gallons. In order to avoidtransmitting disease vectors, introducing invasive non-native species, depleting natural aquaticsystems, and adversely affecting water quality, wells or treated municipal water sources wouldbe utilized for construction and irrigation purposes instead of water reclaimed or recycled fromsurface sources.Once the FOB is operational, a water well would be installed to service the FOB. Water usage byUSBP agents and horses at the FOB would result in a slight demand on groundwater supplies inthe amount of approximately 50 gallons per day (about 1,500 gallons per day). The naturalrecharge estimate for this basin is over 2 billion gallons per year, and the long-term demand onregional groundwater supplies would remain the same or be elevated slightly by water use at theFOB.Construction, operation, and maintenance of the FOB would result in a slight demand ongroundwater supplies; however, it is very unlikely that the groundwater level would be loweredto the extent that the water flow from springs on San Bernardino NWR would be reduced. Nosignificant decrease in overall water quality of aquatic habitats at or downstream from the FloydPocket project area is expected as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. Thus, theSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-22123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536Proposed Action Alternative may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, the beautifulshiner, Yaqui catfish, Yaqui chub, or Yaqui topminnow. Likewise, the Proposed ActionAlternative may affect, but would not likely adversely affect, critical habitat for these fish.3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES3.8.1 Affected Environment3.8.1.1 Cultural OverviewThe cultural overview of the project region was described in detail in the September 2011 EA,and is herein incorporated by reference (CBP 2011). Section 106 of the National HistoricPreservation Act (NHPA) requires the CBP to identify and assess the effects of its actions oncultural resources. CBP must consult with appropriate state and local officials, Native Americantribes, and members of the public and consider their views and concerns about historicpreservation issues when making final project decisions.After further discussion with personnel assigned to the USBP Douglas Station, it wasdetermined that the name “Floyd Pocket” is derived from local ranchers (Mary Garin 2012).However, the origins of the name are unknown. Searches of historical databases and inquirywith local historical societies suggest that there is no historical or cultural significance associatedwith the Floyd Pocket name or the actual place. The cultural history of the project region wasdescribed in detail in the September 2011 EA and is herein incorporated by reference (CBP2011). A general chronological sequence for the Douglas area and surrounding region isoutlined below (Table 3-1).Table 3-1. Prehistoric Sequence for the Douglas AreaPeriodDatesPaleoindian Tradition 9500 – 8000 B.C.Archaic 7000 B.C. – A.D. 150Pre-Classic A.D. 150 – 1150Classic A.D. 1150 – 1450Protohistoric A.D. 1450 – 1700Historic A.D. 1700 –1912StatehoodA.D. 1912 – PresentBriefly, human occupation in the North American southwest begins with the Paleoindian period.The main diagnostic artifacts from this period are Clovis-style, fluted projectile points.Subsistence during Paleoindian times emphasized big-game hunting; however, a variety of smallgame animals and wild plants were exploited on a regular basis as well. Archaeologicalevidence suggests that Paleoindian populations lived in small, highly mobile groups that movedon a seasonal basis depending on plant and animal availability. The Archaic period is closelylinked to a climatic shift that brought about warmer and drier conditions in southern Arizona.Agriculture was introduced from Mexico into the North American southwest during the lateArchaic period, and corn, squash, beans, and possibly tobacco, appear to have been adopted as acrop complex that spread rapidly.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-231234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647The Floyd Pocket project area is located in a cultural borderland between the Hohokam to thenorthwest, the Mogollon to the northeast, and the Casas Grandes sphere to the southeast. Siteswithin this region typically display a suite of traits from each of the major cultural areas thatwere prevalent during the Pre-Classic period. Pottery vessels large enough to be used forpractical purposes became common during this period, and the widespread appearance of potteryin the San Pedro River Valley is associated with the emergence of the Hohokam and Mogolloncultural traditions. During the Pre-Classic period, areas in Arizona south of Benson appeared tobe more closely affiliated with Mogollon groups to the east. Corn, beans, squash, and cottonwere the main crops grown in the region, and a variety of native plants were harvested from thesurrounding countryside, including agave, cactus fruit, and mesquite beans. Jackrabbits,cottontail rabbits, and other small game animals were the primary sources of meat, and deer,antelope, and bighorn sheep were also hunted on occasion.Dramatic changes in architecture, pottery, and ritual practices occurred during the Classic period.These changes include a shift from pit house architecture to aboveground architecture, thereplacement of red-on-buff pottery by red-slipped and multi-colored (polychrome) pottery, and ashift in burial practices from cremation to inhumation. After A.D. 1275, large earthen featurescalled platform mounds became the principal form of public architecture at large settlements inthe region. The Protohistoric period covers the time period following the collapse of the Classicperiod systems, but preceding contact with Europeans. Reasons for the dramatic changes toindigenous populations at the end of the Classic Period are not well understood. TheAthabascan hunter-gatherer bands, eventually called the Southern Chiricahua Apache (alsoidentified as the Gila Apache), first appeared during the Protohistoric period and probably priorto the arrival of the Spanish. Their removal from the area by the U.S. Army was completedduring the 1880s. The Southern Chiricahua were highly mobile hunter-gatherers movingthrough different ecological zones of established territories on an annual round. In addition tohunting and gathering wild resources, the Apache supplemented their diets with foods obtainedfrom Spanish and later Mexican settlements through trading or raiding. The Coronadoexpedition passed through the area in search of the fabled seven cities of Cibola during 1540.When the Spanish entered the region in 1581, they bypassed the hunter-gatherers theyencountered because their lifeways made the potential for colonization, conversion, andappropriation of agricultural supplies much lower than the sedentary Pueblos. Overall, theSpanish-Mexican presence in southeast Arizona was light, reflecting the failure of militaryefforts to contain and subdue the Apache raiders.During the 1700s, Jesuit priests established a mission in the San Bernardino Valley, and aSpanish presidio was established in 1774. A historic Euroamerican presence in the region beganwith the arrival of the Spanish in the late 1600s and 1700s. Intensive occupation of the regiondid not occur until after the arrival of Mexicans in 1821, and then later by Americans in the midnineteenthcentury. Renewed raiding by Apache groups in the years immediately following theCivil War led to the establishment of military forts throughout much of the region. In the 1870s,mining flourished throughout southeastern Arizona. By the following decade, the Copper QueenCompany at Bisbee was exploiting one of the area's largest copper deposits. In 1877, silver wasdiscovered at Tombstone, setting off a boom that drew throngs of prospectors to Arizona, butlasted less than 10 years. By 1880, the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads both extendedinto Arizona. Ranching began to thrive with cattle and sheep husbandry. Ranching began in1882 in the San Bernardino Valley with the acquisition of the San Bernardino Land Grant.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-241234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041Widespread cattle grazing continued for many years until the Apache drove out the ranchers.After 1897, the U.S. Forestry Bureau issued grazing permits to protect public land fromdepletion.When President William H. Taft signed legislation making Arizona a state on February 14, 1912,most of the population of Cochise County lived in towns along the San Pedro River. HistoricAnglo occupation of the region has been dominated by agriculture, ranching, and mining.Ranching and mining, in particular, have been important to the local economy. Immigration andtourism have contributed to economic growth in the region throughout much of the last century.Beginning in the late nineteenth century, the health benefits of southern Arizona’s warm and aridclimate were promoted, and by the early part of the twentieth century, thousands of people withtuberculosis had settled in the area. The population of southern Arizona increased sharply afterWorld War II, nearly doubling every decade. The latest census figures put the total population ofCochise County at approximately 131,346 residents (U.S. Census Bureau 2011).3.8.2 InvestigationsGSRC conducted a records search and literature review of previous investigations and previouslyrecorded sites within a 1-mile buffer surrounding the project area. The current investigationresulted in the identification of two previous surveys (Figure 3-5). The first is a powerlineclearance survey conducted in 1990 by Cultural and Environmental Systems, Inc. (Heuett andMaldonado 1990). The second survey is of the original Preferred Alternative project area for theproposed USBP Douglas FOB conducted by GSRC in 2011 (GSRC 2011). A total of 29 IOs,none of which were recommended eligible for the NRHP, were discovered during this survey(GSRC 2011). No known archaeological sites are located within a 1-mile radius of the projectarea.A cultural resources pedestrian survey and an archaeological inventory of the Floyd Pocketproject area were conducted on November 28 and December 5, 2011. The investigation resultedin the discovery of one archaeological site, AZ FF:12:66(ASM), and 16 isolated occurrences(IOs) within the area of potential effect (APE).AZ FF:12:66(ASM) is a single-episode historic trash dump of household refuse that was likelydeposited in the 1930s (Photograph 3-11). Artifacts include 20 to 30 hole-in-top cans(Photographs 3-12 and -13), circa 1810+ to circa 1930+ (Rock 1987), a Hazel-Atlas Glass Co.clear glass jar (Photograph 3-14), circa 1920 to circa 1964 (Toulouse 1971), a Knox Glass BottleCo. clear glass bottle (Photograph 3-15), circa 1932 to circa 1953+ (Toulouse 1971), twoLatchford Glass Co. clear glass jars, since 1957 (Toulouse 1971), four unidentified metal objects,two amber glass scatters, two clear glass scatters, three modern aluminum cans, a blueenamelware pot, two clusters of modern cable wire, and one piece of angular debris of brownchert. A sample of the more prominent artifacts and types, including diagnostic artifacts, wasrecorded (Table 3-2).Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-25ArizonaProject LocationDouglasDouglas FOB (GSRC 2011)Geronimo TrailFloyd Pocket Project AreaPrevious Investigation(GSRC 2011)Existing Two-track Access RoadPrevious Investigation(Heuett and Maldonado 1990)· 00 275 550 825Meters670 1,340 2,010 2,680FeetFigure 3-5. Previous Cultural Resource InvestigationsJanuary 2012

3-26Photograph 3-11. AZ FF:12:66(ASM) overview photofrom opposite side of road, facing east.Photograph 3-12. Top view of hole-in-top can(2 7/8 inch diameter).Photograph 3-13. Side view with seam of hole-in-top can(3 7/8 inch length).Photograph 3-14. Side view of Hazel-Atlas Bottle Co. clearglass jar.Photograph 3-15. Side view of Knox Glass Bottle Co.clear glass bottle.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-271234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829Table 3-2. Sample Artifacts Found at AZ FF:12:66(ASM)Artifact Type Material/Sub-type Count CommentsHole-in-top can 20 to 30 2 7/8 inches diameter by 3 7/8 inches, knife-openedUnidentified can 5Partial heavily rusted tin cans, with church key opening,same dimensions as hole-in-top cansMetal Aluminum/pull top 3 ModernCrushed can 3 Unidentified type, heavily rusted, possible hole-in-top canCan lids 12 Can tops that have rusted off whole cansBlue enamel ware pot 1 Top wire swing handleClear jar 1 Molded screw top with Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. maker’s markClear jar 2 Molded screw top with Latchford Glass Co. maker’s markGlassScrew top with Knox Glass Bottle Co. maker’s mark,Clear bottle 1possible hot sauce bottleFlake Brown chert 1 Angular debrisThe waste pile represents a 1930s to 1940s single-episode trash deposit typical of householdrefuse that could be expected from isolated ranches and homesteads or from a single-episodetemporary campsite. When comparing artifact manufacture dates of the hole-in-top cans, circa1810+ to circa 1930+, a Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. clear glass jar, circa 1920 to circa 1964, and aKnox Glass Bottle Co. clear glass bottle, circa 1932 to circa 1953+, it appears that the majorityof artifacts were dumped in a single episode. Some degree of later accumulation at the wastepile, however, is evident by the two later-dated Latchford Glass Co. clear glass jars,manufactured since 1957. Prior to the establishment of community waste disposal systems,single-episode trash dumping along roads away from nearby structures was a fairly commonpractice. In the absence of direct association with significant persons, and with little to nopotential for subsurface deposits, documentation of the surface artifacts has exhausted theresearch potential of the site. Therefore, AZ FF:12:66(ASM) is not considered eligible forinclusion on the NRHP, and no further research is necessary.The investigation also resulted in the discovery of 16 IOs (Table 3-3). IOs consisted of primaryflakes, secondary flakes, angular debris, fire-cracked rock, biface fragment, metal horseshoe,modern fire ring, hole-in-top can, and potentially modern metal artifacts. The IOs are notNRHP-eligible, and no additional archaeological investigation is necessary. Additionally, thereare no documented aboveground cultural resources or historic properties, including structures,buildings, districts, or objects, within a 1-mile radius of the Floyd Pocket project area.The Floyd Pocket project area is located in a depression, allowing its visual APE to be minimalto traffic traveling along Geronimo Trail. On the western side of the Floyd Pocket project area isa series of rises that limits visibility from Geronimo Trail. To the north and east is open desertgrazing land with the only artificial objects being the electrical power lines running alongGuadalupe Canyon Road. A potentially historic corral, an unidentified wagon, a windmill, and awatering trough for the grazing cows are located south of the Floyd Pocket project area.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-281234567891011121314151617181920Table 3-3. Isolated Occurrences (IOs) Identified within the Survey AreaIO NumberArtifact TypeMaterial/Sub-type1 secondary flake chalcedony2 angular debris brown chert3 angular debris red jasper4 primary flake rhyolite5 angular debris reddish brown chert6 rifle casing/cartridge metal “FA 12 14”7 secondary flake brown chert8 concentration of non-fired rock rhyolite9 biface fragment brown chert10 horseshoe ferrous metal11 unidentified ring ferrous metal12 unknown collar ferrous metal13 recently used fire ring 24 stone circle14 angular debris brown chert15 hole-in-top can ferrous metal16 crushed bowl ferrous metalThe corral and unidentified wagon are located just outside the southeast section of the projectAPE. The corral is of post and barbed wire construction and has modern 4-inch squared fencesupplementing the east and south side (Photograph 3-16). The corral is in poor condition withalmost all of the wire and fence detached fromthe posts and lying on the ground. Just outsidethe northeast section of the corral is anunidentified wagon. This wagon has a woodenframe, metal wheels, and a large post in thecenter of the frame that is supported by acentral metal ring that was once able to belifted directly up and dropped down. It ispossibly a drill rig or portable pumping device.The wagon is in poor condition with two of itsfour wheels partially buried in the sand, thewooden frame broken in several places, and thestabilizing pieces for the large post eitherbroken or altogether gone. No identifyingmarks were visible on the wagon.Photograph 3-16. Corral and unidentified wagon(facing east).Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-2912345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243A non-functional Challenge 27 windmill, manufactured from the 1920s to the 1940s (Baker1985), a solar-powered water trough and holding tank, and a water stock pond are locatedapproximately 820 feet south of the project area(Photograph 3-17). The windmill was once thepower source for the water pump that wouldpump water into the metal holding tank andthen feed the watering trough, which had afloating water level shut-off valve. Thewindmill’s blades are chained to the top of thestructure, making the pumping systeminoperative. The water flow system is nowprovided by a small solar power platform thatpowers an electric pump at the base of thewindmill. This pump still feeds water into theholding tank, which allows water to beavailable when there is no solar power.Photograph 3-17. Windmill with holding tank, watertrough, and solar panel (facing west).3.8.3 Environmental Consequences3.8.3.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no construction, operation, or maintenance of the FOB,improvements to the access road, or construction of a new segment of access road would occur atthe Floyd Pocket project area, and no potentially occurring cultural resources would bedisturbed. Indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBPinterdiction activities would continue.3.8.3.2 Proposed Action AlternativeImpacts on the archaeological site AZ FF:12:66(ASM) would be avoided through project design.Should any archaeological artifacts be found during construction, the local cultural resourcesrepresentative, and the Arizona SHPO will be immediately notified. All work in the area of theartifacts will cease until an evaluation of the discovery is made by a professional archaeologist todetermine appropriate actions to prevent the loss of significant cultural or scientific values.The construction, operation, and maintenance of the FOB, improvements to the access road, andconstruction of a new segment of access road would result in little to no visual impact on thesetwo areas due to the remote location and minimal human influence of the non-functional corraland watering trough.Section 106 consultation with the Arizona SHPO is ongoing for this project (see Appendix A).Based on the archaeological survey, archival research results, and Native American Tribalconsultation to date (see Appendix A), CBP has determined that there would be no effects on anyNRHP-eligible architectural or aboveground resources, NRHP-eligible archaeological resources,TCPs, or sacred sites from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the FOB andimprovements to the existing two-track access road at the Floyd Pocket project area.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-3012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940413.9 AIR QUALITY3.9.1 Affected EnvironmentNational Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) represent the maximum levels of backgroundpollution that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public healthand welfare. NAAQS were fully described in the September 2011 EA and are incorporatedherein by reference (CBP 2011). The ADEQ has adopted USEPA’s NAAQS as Arizona’scriteria pollutants. Areas that fail to meet Federal standards for ambient air quality areconsidered non-attainment. ADEQ and USEPA have classified Cochise County as in attainmentfor all NAAQS (ADEQ 2011 and USEPA 2010).Greenhouse Gases and Climate ChangeGlobal climate change refers to a change in the average weather on the earth. Greenhouse gases(GHG) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Global climate change and GHG were fullydescribed in the September 2011 EA, and these descriptions are incorporated herein by reference(CBP 2011).Ongoing Air EmissionsOngoing air emissions refer to air emissions that may occur after the FOB has been constructed,such as maintenance of backup propane generators operating 4 hours per day, 24 days per year(worst case scenario). Ongoing air emissions were fully described in the September 2011 EA,and these descriptions are incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2011).3.9.2 Environmental Consequences3.9.2.1 No Action AlternativeImplementation of the No Action Alternative would have no effect on air emissions in theCochise County airshed. Indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequentUSBP interdiction activities would continue. Agents would continue to their daily commutesalong Geronimo Trail from muster at USBP Douglas Station to the eastern zones of the AOR,and no annual reduction in the number of USBP trips along Geronimo Trail would occur. Airemission impacts from agents traveling daily along Geronimo Trail from muster at USBPDouglas Station to the eastern zones of the AOR, and from CBV activities and subsequent USBPinterdiction activities, would be greater under the No Action Alternative than the ProposedAction Alternative.3.9.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeTemporary and minor increases in air emissions would occur from the use of constructionequipment (combustion emissions) and the disturbance of soils (fugitive dust) under theProposed Action Alternative. The air calculation methodologies utilized to estimate airemissions produced by the construction of the FOB were fully described in the September 2011EA, and these descriptions are incorporated herein by reference (CBP 2011).Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-3112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243Several sources of air pollutants would contribute to the overall air impacts during constructionof the FOB and include:1. Combustion engines of construction equipment2. Construction workers commuting along Geronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Road toand from work3. Supply trucks transporting materials along Geronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Roadand delivering materials to the construction site4. Fugitive dust from job site ground disturbancesThe proposed construction activities do not exceed Federal de minimis thresholds and, thus,would not require a Conformity Determination. As there are no violations of air qualitystandards and no conflicts with the state implementation plans (SIPs), the impacts on air qualityfrom the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative would be negligible. During theconstruction of the proposed FOB, proper and routine maintenance of all vehicles and otherconstruction equipment would be implemented to ensure that emissions are within the designstandards of all construction equipment. Dust suppression methods should be implemented tominimize fugitive dust. In particular, wetting solutions would be applied to the construction areato minimize the emissions of fugitive dust.Under the Proposed Action Alternative, GHG emissions in the San Bernardino Valley wouldlikely be reduced. The number of trips taken by agents from USBP Douglas Station to theproposed FOB along Geronimo Trail would be reduced, as would CO 2 emissions. CBP estimatesthat approximately 12,000 trips annually along Geronimo Trail would be eliminated followingestablishment of the proposed FOB. The ongoing air emissions from backup propane generatorsand bimonthly maintenance would be long-term and negligible.3.10 NOISE3.10.1 Affected EnvironmentNoise is generally described as unwanted sound, which can be based either on objective effects(i.e., hearing loss, damage to structures, etc.) or subjective judgments (e.g., communityannoyance). Sound is usually represented on a logarithmic scale with a unit called the decibel(dB). Sound on the decibel scale is referred to as sound level. The threshold of human hearingis approximately 0 dB, and the threshold of discomfort or pain is around 120 dB. Noise wasdiscussed in the September 2011 EA, and that description is incorporated herein by reference(CBP 2011). The Floyd Pocket project area is not located near sensitive noise receptors such asresidential homes, parks, or recreational areas.3.10.2 Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures3.10.2.1 No Action AlternativeImplementation of the No Action Alternative would have no impact on ambient noise quality inthe San Bernardino Valley. Indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, andsubsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-32123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142433.10.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would require the use of common construction equipment andthe intermittent use of backup propane generators. However, there are no sensitive human noisereceptors within a distance that would perceive any noise associated with the construction of theFOB. Noise generated by the construction activities would be intermittent and last until the FOBhas been completed, after which noise levels would return to ambient levels. Therefore, thenoise impacts from construction activities would be considered short-term and minor, with noreceptors affected.3.11 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE3.11.1 Affected Environment3.11.1.1 Potable WaterNo potable water utilities are present at the Floyd Pocket project area, and a well would beinstalled at the project area.3.11.1.2 Electric PowerSeveral commercial utility power companies service the Arizona cities and counties insoutheastern Arizona. Those that service the City of Douglas and rural Cochise County areshown in Table 3-4.Table 3-4. Power Company Service AreasCity and or CountyPower CompanyCity of DouglasArizona Public Service Company (APS)Cochise CountySulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.Source: APS 2011 and Arizona’s Touchstone Energy Cooperatives 2011Electric power is provided by existing overhead lines along Geronimo Trail and GuadalupeCanyon Road. Single phase transmission lines are adjacent to the Floyd Pocket project area.New power lines extending to the Floyd Pocket project area would be installed either overheador in buried cables from the main trunk line to the FOB. The installation of overhead or buriedlines would be placed within surveyed road construction buffer areas, all of which would beverified to identify potential impacts on biological and cultural resources along access roads.3.11.1.3 WastewaterThere is no wastewater treatment service available at the Floyd Pocket project area, and an onsitewastewater treatment and disposal system would be installed.3.11.1.4 CommunicationsThere is hard-line communications service available near the Floyd Pocket project area.3.11.1.5 Ambient and Artificial LightingAmbient or atmospheric light is of concern to many, including, most notably, astronomicalobservatories (International Dark Sky Association 2008). The reduction of man-made orartificial light sources is generally what astronomers would like to see in the southwest, and thereare light ordinances in place in some cities and counties in the southwest to minimize skySupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-33123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445brightness in large population centers. The Cochise County Light Pollution code was adopted in1983, with a major update in 2005. The purpose of the Light Pollution Code is to preserve thedark night sky for astronomers and for the general public, while achieving safe, efficient lightingpractices (Cochise County 2005).The main features of the Cochise County Light Pollution Code include (Cochise County 2005):• Light trespass and off-site glare are not allowed.• All lights must be fully shielded except:o low voltage or solar landscape lighting rated at 10 watts or less,o a limited number of lights with less than 1,000 lumen output (such as a 60-wattincandescent or quartz halogen or a 13-watt compact fluorescent fixture), ando one flagpole light (2,000 lumens or less).• All lights within 25 feet of a residential property must be fully shielded.• Lumen caps are established by zoning and use.• Floodlights (incandescent or PAR not exceeding 2,000 lumens) are exempt from lumencaps provided they are aimed no more than 45 degrees (halfway between straight downand straight to the side) and are controlled by a motion sensor devise, not to remain onover 10 minutes.• Lighted Outdoor Recreation Facilities and Waivers from the Light Pollution Codestandards require a Special Use Permit.• Temporary exemptions for emergencies exceeding 48 hours require Planning Departmentapproval.3.11.2 Environmental Consequences3.11.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would not affect the availability of utilities or require construction ofadditional facilities.3.11.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would result in minimal effects on the availability of utilities,including an upgrade of electrical service, and connection to existing hard-line communicationsservice.A water well would be installed to service the proposed FOB, and the existing single-linetransmission electrical service would be upgraded to provide power to the FOB facilities. An onsitewastewater treatment and disposal system would be installed at the site (see Figure 2-2).Wells or treated municipal water sources would be utilized for construction or irrigationpurposes instead of water from reclaimed or recycled water from surface sources in order toavoid transmitting disease vectors, introducing invasive non-native species, depleting naturalaquatic systems, and adversely affecting water quality. During construction activities,wastewater would be collected at the FOB and trucked off-site for treatment and disposal. Oncethe proposed FOB is operational, sanitary waste from toilets, showers, and sinks would becollected and disposed of through a deep-discharge septic system with a leach field which wouldbe constructed on-site. If water needs at the FOB exceed what the water well can produce, or ifSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-3412345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546the well water can be used for sanitary purposes only, potable water would be trucked into theFOB.The FOB would include a communication tower, including any necessary communicationinfrastructure, which would not be publicly accessible. This communication tower would bebuilt at the Floyd Pocket project area and be able to provide additional communication needs forUSBP operations. No major impacts on utilities or infrastructure would result fromimplementation of the Proposed Action Alternative.3.12 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC3.12.1 Affected EnvironmentGeronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Road are the main routes for vehicular access throughthe San Bernardino Valley, and both are maintained by Cochise County. There are also severalexisting unimproved access roads that traverse the valley.The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) classifiesGeronimo Trail as a major access, low-volume road. A low-volume road is defined as having anAverage Daily Traffic count (ADT) of less than 400 vehicles per day. According to CochiseCounty, there are approximately 133 vehicles per day that travel along Geronimo Trail (based on2010 ADT beginning at Mile Post 8 and ending Mile Post 14; Cochise County 2011b).Approximately 68% of this traffic is directly attributed to USBP enforcement activities (CochiseCounty 2011b).3.12.2 Environmental Consequences3.12.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, there would be no effect on vehicle traffic at or around theFloyd Pocket project area. USBP agents would continue to commute from the USBP DouglasStation daily for patrols in the area. Indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, andsubsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue. Agents would continue their dailycommutes along Geronimo Trail from muster at USBP Douglas Station to the eastern zones ofthe AOR, and no annual reduction in the number of USBP trips along Geronimo Trail wouldoccur. Traffic impacts from agents traveling daily along Geronimo would be greater under theNo Action Alternative than the Proposed Action Alternative.3.12.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeWith the implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative, construction activities at the FOBwould create a temporary, negligible impact on roadways and traffic within the project region.An increase of vehicular traffic along Geronimo Trail and Guadalupe Canyon Road would occurto supply materials and work crews to the FOB for the limited construction period.Once construction work is completed, maintenance visits to the FOB would be required up tofour times a month, depending on the availability of well water and generator usage.Maintenance at the FOB would include refilling fuel ASTs, delivery of food, equipment, andsupplies, and if necessary, water. The number of maintenance trips and refueling trips will varydepending on the number of agents stationed at the FOB and rate of fuel usage. Tanker trucksSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-3512345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546with dual rear tires and/or rear dual axles with a GVW of 30,000 pounds will be used to deliverfuel. A total of approximately 48 vehicle trips per year will occur for maintenance activities.Maintenance visits would have a long-term, negligible impact on traffic. Operation of the FOBis anticipated to decrease USBP vehicular traffic along Geronimo Trail by approximately 12,000trips per year.3.13 AESTHETIC AND VISUAL RESOURCES3.13.1 Affected EnvironmentThe San Bernardino Valley is a sparsely populated, scenic area along the border betweenArizona and Sonora, Mexico. The aesthetic resources within Cochise County in the vicinity ofthe Floyd Pocket project area were fully described in the September 2011 EA and are hereinincorporated by reference (CBP 2011).3.13.2 Environmental Consequences3.13.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no construction, operation, and maintenance of the FOB,improvements to the access road, or construction of a new segment of access road would occur.The visual resources of the Floyd Pocket project area would remain unaffected. Indirect impactsfrom illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities wouldcontinue.3.13.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would negatively affect the aesthetic quality of the area byplacing a new development in an otherwise undeveloped area; however, the FOB would not bevisible from Geronimo Trail, the main route for vehicular access through the San BernardinoValley. Likewise, the FOB would not be visible from nearby ranches or the San BernardinoNWR headquarters. Therefore, the impacts would be considered minor for locals and tourists inthe area. BMPs to minimize the impacts would be implemented, and would include actions suchas painting fences, poles, and buildings so they blend in with the existing lands.Temporary aesthetic impacts during the construction phase of the project would occur at theFloyd Pocket project area, and these impacts would include construction equipment. Areas thatwould be temporarily disturbed during construction of the FOB would be revegetated usingnative plant species.3.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS3.14.1 Affected EnvironmentHazardous materials and substances are regulated in Arizona by a combination of mandated lawspromulgated by the USEPA and the ADEQ. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment wasconducted for the Floyd Pocket project area in accordance with the American Society for Testingand Materials International standard E1527-05. This assessment included a search of Federaland state records for known hazardous waste sites, potential hazardous waste sites, and remedialactivities, including sites that are on the National Priorities List or being considered for the list.No evidence of hazardous materials or recognized environmental conditions were detected on-Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-3612345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546site or near the site during the field surveys conducted on November 16, 2011, or during theEnvironmental Site Assessment.3.14.2 Environmental Consequences3.14.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no impacts would be expected. Indirect impacts from illegalactivity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.3.14.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeAll hazardous and regulated wastes and substances generated by the Proposed Action Alternativewould be collected, characterized, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordancewith all Federal, state, and local regulations, including proper waste manifesting procedures. Allother hazardous and regulated materials or substances would be handled according to materialssafety data sheet instructions, and would not affect water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, or the safetyof USBP agents and staff. The fuel ASTs installed at the proposed FOB would be containedwithin protective berms to prevent the release of any tank spills, and fuel trucks would be used toresupply the ASTs at the FOB. Likewise, generator fuel would also be contained within asecondary enclosure. Therefore, hazardous and regulated materials and substances would notimpact the public, groundwater, or the general environment.The potential impacts of the handling and disposal of hazardous and regulated materials andsubstances during construction would be negligible when BMPs as described in Section 5.0 areimplemented.3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS3.15.1 Affected Environment3.15.1.1 Population and DemographicsThe Region of Influence (ROI) of the Proposed Action Alternative consists of Cochise County,Arizona. The population and demographics, housing, and income and employment of Arizonaand across the ROI were presented in detail in the September 2011 EA, and are hereinincorporated by reference (CBP 2011).3.15.2 Environmental Consequences3.15.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no socioeconomic impacts would be expected. Indirectimpacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities wouldcontinue.3.15.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effects on socioeconomic conditions inthe San Bernardino Valley. By placing the FOB at the Floyd Pocket project area, agent responsetime to illegal cross-border activities would be greatly reduced, and agents could be moreefficiently deployed to patrol the more remote sections of USBP Douglas Station’s AOR, whichwould likely contribute to a decrease in cross-border violations. The decrease in CBV activitieswould have a beneficial effect on the incidence of crime in USBP Douglas Station’s AOR.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-371234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647The purchase of materials and use of local labor for the project would provide a temporarybenefit for the local economy in the San Bernardino Valley. There would be no disproportionateimpacts on people, regardless of race or income levels.3.16 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN3.16.1 Affected EnvironmentEnvironmental justice and the protection of children were discussed in the September 2011 EA,and that discussion is herein incorporated by reference (CBP 2011). Essentially, EO 12898 and13045 require the USBP to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of itsprograms, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations and to identify andassess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.3.16.2 Environmental Consequences3.16.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no disproportionately high or adverse environmental health orsafety impacts on minority or low-income populations or children would be expected. Indirectimpacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities wouldcontinue.3.16.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeThe Proposed Action Alternative would not result in any disproportionately high or adverseenvironmental health or safety impacts on minority or low-income populations or children. Thisconclusion is based on the fact that the project area is located on remote state lands, and therewould be no displacement of persons (minority, low-income, children, or otherwise) as a resultof implementing the Proposed Action Alternative.3.17 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENING3.17.1 Affected EnvironmentIn accordance with EO 13423 – Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, andTransportation Management (72 FR 3919), CBP would incorporate practices in anenvironmentally, economically, and fiscally sound, integrated, continuously improving, efficientand sustainable manner in support of their mission. The practices CBP implements throughoutthe agency were fully discussed in the September 2011 EA, and that discussion is incorporatedherein by reference (CBP 2011).3.17.2 Environmental Consequences3.17.2.1 No Action AlternativeThe No Action Alternative would not result in any direct impacts, as no construction activitieswould take place. Opportunities to reduce greenhouse emissions, energy consumption, andwater use would not be realized under this alternative. Indirect impacts from illegal activity,CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would continue.3.17.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeUnder the Proposed Action Alternative, CBP would continue to improve its environmental,transportation, and energy-related activities in support of their missions through sustainabilitySupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

3-38123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233and greening practices, to the greatest extent practicable. CBP also intends to pursue the goal ofreducing petroleum-based product use with a Fleet Management Plan facilitated through CBP’sAsset Management Division. This project would adhere to this management plan by reducingthe amount of vehicle travel needed to patrol the remote sections of the USBP Douglas Station’sAOR. Therefore, no major adverse impacts are expected to occur as a result of the ProposedAction Alternative.3.18 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY3.18.1 Affected EnvironmentThe Floyd Pocket project area is currently an unoccupied, vegetated parcel of land. Theimmediate vicinity consists of vacant land with no substantial, nearby population. There is littlepotential for USBP agents, the general population, or private contractors to be at risk from ahuman health and safety aspect in this setting.3.18.2 Environmental Consequences3.18.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur; therefore, there would be noimpacts, either beneficial or adverse, on human health and safety issues. The possibility oftraffic accidents resulting from the long agent commute from the USBP Douglas Station wouldremain. Indirect impacts from illegal activity, CBV activities, and subsequent USBP interdictionactivities would continue.3.18.2.2 Proposed Action AlternativeIf implemented, this alternative has a slight potential to create human health hazards duringconstruction. All construction activities would be limited to daylight hours, to the extentpracticable. Through BMPs developed for general construction practices (see Section 5.1), andbecause of the rural nature of the project area with only two residences located nearby, no major,long-term, adverse impacts are expected. Furthermore, strict compliance with all OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations would be achieved to minimize thepotential for accidents to occur for USBP agents, private contractors, or other individuals whomight be present near the project area. The potential for traffic accidents due to agent commuteswould be reduced.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 4.0CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

4-1123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTSThis section of the EA addresses the potential cumulative impacts associated with theimplementation of the alternatives and other projects/programs that are planned for the region.The CEQ defines cumulative impacts as “the impact on the environment which results from theincremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeableactions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such otheractions” (40 CFR 1508.7). This section continues: “cumulative impacts can result fromindividually minor but collectively major actions taking place over a period of time.”USBP has been conducting law enforcement actions along the border since its inception in 1924,and has continuously transformed its methods as new missions, modes of operations of crossborderviolators, agent needs and national enforcement strategies have evolved. Developmentand maintenance of training ranges, station and sector facilities, detention facilities, and roadsand fences have impacted thousands of acres, with synergistic and cumulative impacts on soil,wildlife habitats, water quality, and noise. Beneficial effects, too, have resulted from theconstruction and use of these roads and fences, including, but not limited to, increasedemployment and income for border regions and its surrounding communities; protection andenhancement of sensitive resources north of the border; reduction in crime within urban areasnear the border; increased land value in areas where border security has increased; and increasedknowledge of the biological communities and pre-history of the region through numerousbiological and cultural resources surveys and studies.With continued funding and implementation of CBP’s environmental conservation measures,including use of biological monitors, wildlife water systems, and restoration activities, adverseimpacts due to future and ongoing projects would be avoided or minimized. However, recent,ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable proposed projects will result in cumulative impacts. CBP iscurrently planning, conducting, or has completed several projects in the Tucson Sector.Current CBP projects within the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR include:• Construction of Integrated Fixed Towers (IFT)• Construction of RVSS Towers• Replacement of legacy fenceIn addition, projects are currently being planned by state and local entities in the Douglasmetropolitan area, but no known projects are proposed for the San Bernardino Valley.A summary of the anticipated cumulative impacts relative to the Proposed Action Alternative ispresented below. The discussion is presented for each of the resources described previously.4.1 LAND USEA major impact would occur if any action is inconsistent with adopted land use plans or if anaction would substantially alter those resources required for, supporting, or benefiting the currentuse. The Floyd Pocket project area is currently undeveloped land located in a rural area. TheSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

4-212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed FOB, improvements to the access road,and construction of a new segment of access road would occur in an undeveloped area, butwould not initiate an increase of development in the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the ProposedAction Alternative would not be expected to result in a major cumulative adverse effect.4.2 SOILSA major impact would occur if the action exacerbates or promotes long-term erosion, if the soilsare inappropriate for the proposed construction and would create a risk to life or property, or ifthere would be a substantial reduction in agricultural production or loss of Prime Farmland soils.The proposed action and other CBP actions have not reduced Prime Farmland soils oragricultural production regionally, as much of the land developed by CBP has not been used foragricultural production. Pre- and post-construction SWPPP measures would be implemented tocontrol soil erosion. The impact from the Proposed Action Alternative, when combined withpast and proposed projects in the region, would not be considered a major cumulative adverseeffect.4.3 WATER RESOURCESGroundwater recharge in the San Bernardino Valley Basin is relatively high due to greaterrainfall amounts in the bordering mountains and recharge of the aquifers by mountain-frontrunoff. Withdrawals from the aquifers are below the maximum recharge capacity, and drainagepatterns of surface water sources would not be impacted by the Proposed Action Alternative.Water quality in the San Bernardino Valley would remain unchanged under the Proposed ActionAlternative. As mentioned previously, specific erosion and sedimentation controls and otherBMPs would be in place at the proposed FOB. All horse manure at the FOB would be collectedand transported off-site for disposal or use, and would have no impact on water quality.Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative, in conjunction with other regionally proposedprojects, would not create a major cumulative effect on water resources in the region.4.4 VEGETATIVE HABITATOver 3 million acres of desertscrub rangeland occur in the region, even with the proposed FOBand other planned development projects. Therefore, Proposed Action Alternative, in conjunctionwith other regionally proposed projects, would not create a major cumulative effect on vegetativehabitat in the region.4.5 WILDLIFE RESOURCESOver 3 million acres of desertscrub habitat occurs in the region that provides habitat for wildlife,even with the FOB and other planned development projects. Therefore, Proposed ActionAlternative, in conjunction with other regionally proposed projects, would not create a majorcumulative effect on wildlife populations in the region.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

4-3123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464.6 PROTECTED SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITATSA major impact on protected species would occur if any action resulted in a jeopardy opinion forany endangered, threatened, or rare species. Although potential habitat for Chiricahua leopardfrog exists in the vicinity of the Floyd Pocket project area, no construction, operation, andmaintenance activities associated with the FOB or road improvements, construction, ormaintenance, would occur directly disturb potential frog habitat. Likewise, conservationmeasures, which limit potential impacts on the Chiricahua leopard frogs, will be in place duringFOB construction, and will continue to be in place once the FOB is operational.There would be no direct or indirect effect on lesser long-nosed bats arising from construction ofthe FOB. Operational impacts on bats are limited to the footprint of the lighted area at the FOBfor security purposes and operational noise.Although some potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by runoff and erodedsediment downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists, several measures would be inplace at the proposed FOB to limit erosion. Construction, operation, and maintenance of theproposed FOB would result in a slight demand on groundwater supplies; however, it is veryunlikely that the groundwater level would be lowered to the extent that the water flow fromsprings on San Bernardino NWR would be reduced. No major decrease in overall water qualityof aquatic habitats at or downstream from the Floyd Pocket project area is expected as a result ofthe Proposed Action.Thus, when combined with other existing and proposed projects in the region, the ProposedAction Alternative would not result in major cumulative impacts on protected species or criticalhabitats. Moreover, any indirect, cumulative impacts on protected species and their criticalhabitats would be minor.4.7 CULTURAL RESOURCESThe Proposed Action Alternative would not affect cultural resources or historic properties.Therefore, the Proposed Action Alternative, when combined with other existing and proposedprojects in the region, would not result in major cumulative impacts on cultural resources orhistoric properties.4.8 AIR QUALITYThe emissions generated during the construction of the FOB and access road improvement andconstruction activities would be short-term and minor, and generator emissions from FOBoperation would be intermittent and rare. There would be no increase in vehicular traffic in theregion’s airshed. Therefore, there would be no major or long-term adverse cumulative impacts.The number of trips taken by agents from USBP Douglas Station to the FOB along GeronimoTrail and CO 2 emissions would be reduced once the FOB is constructed. CBP estimates thatapproximately 12,000 trips annually along Geronimo Trail would be eliminated followingestablishment of the FOB, and this reduction in vehicle use would result in a cumulative, longtermreduction in CO 2 emissions and GHG emissions in the San Bernardino Valley.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

4-41234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424.9 NOISEActions would be considered to cause major impacts if they permanently increase ambient noiselevels over 65 dBA. Most of the noise generated by the Proposed Action Alternative wouldoccur during FOB construction and access road improvement and construction activities and,thus, would not contribute to cumulative impacts on ambient noise levels. Thus, the noisegenerated by the Proposed Action Alternative, when considered with the other existing andproposed projects in the region, would not be considered a major cumulative adverse effect.The infrequent takeoff and landing of helicopters during emergencies at the FOB would havecumulative minor impacts on noise emissions in the local area.4.10 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTUREActions would be considered to cause major impacts if they require greater utilities orinfrastructure use than can be provided. Only existing electric utilities and communication linesin a very remote area would be utilized by the FOB, a water well would be installed, and an onsitewastewater treatment and disposal system would be also be installed. During constructionactivities, wastewater would be collected at the Floyd Pocket project area and trucked off-site fortreatment and disposal. Once the FOB is operational, sanitary waste from toilets, showers, andsinks would be collected and disposed of through a deep-discharge septic system with a leachfield which would be constructed on-site. If water needs at the FOB exceed what the water wellcan produce, or if the well water can be used for sanitary purposes only, potable water would betrucked into the FOB. Therefore, there would not be a major cumulative adverse effect onutilities or infrastructure as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative.4.11 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFICImpacts on traffic or roadways would be considered to cause major impacts if the increase ofaverage daily traffic exceeded the ability for the surface streets to offer a suitable level of servicefor the area. The roads in the vicinity of the FOB are very lightly travelled, there would be noincrease in the number of agents patrolling the area, and CBP estimates that approximately12,000 trips annually along Geronimo Trail would be eliminated following establishment of theFOB. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impacts on roadways or traffic.4.12 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCESActions that cause the permanent loss of the characteristics that make an area visually unique orsensitive would be considered to cause a major impact. No major impacts on visual resourceswould occur from construction of the FOB or access road improvements and construction at theFloyd Pocket project area, due in part to the fact that it will not be visible to tourists fromGeronimo Trail. The Proposed Action Alternative, in conjunction with other projects in theregion, would result in moderate adverse cumulative impacts on the region’s visual resources.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

4-51234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454.13 HAZARDOUS MATERIALSMajor impacts would occur if an action creates a public hazard, if the project area is considered ahazardous waste site that poses health risks, or if the action would impair the implementation ofan adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Only minor increases in the use ofhazardous substances would occur as a result of the Proposed Action Alternative. BMPs wouldbe implemented to minimize the risk from hazardous materials during construction and dailyoperations at the FOB. No health or safety risks would be created by the Proposed ActionAlternative. The effects of the Proposed Action Alternative, when combined with other ongoingand proposed projects in the region, would not be considered a major cumulative effect.4.14 SOCIOECONOMICSMajor impacts on socioeconomic conditions include displacement or relocation of residences orcommercial buildings; increases in long-term demands to public services in excess of existingand projected capacities; and disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income families.The Proposed Action Alternative would have no adverse effects on socioeconomic conditions inthe San Bernardino Valley, and there would be no disproportionate impacts on people, regardlessof race or income levels. Thus, the effects of the Proposed Action Alternative, when combinedwith other ongoing and proposed projects in the region, would not be considered a majorcumulative effect.4.15 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDRENThe Floyd Pocket project area is located on remote Arizona State lands, and there would be nodisplacement of persons (minority, low-income, children, or otherwise) as a result ofimplementing the Proposed Action Alternative. Therefore, the effects of the Proposed ActionAlternative on environmental justice and the protection of children, when combined with otherongoing and proposed projects in the region, would not be considered a major cumulative effect.4.16 SUSTAINABILITY AND GREENINGCBP would implement the Federal sustainability and greening practices, to the greatest extentpracticable, as part of the Proposed Action Alternative. Cost-effective waste reduction andrecycling of reusable materials would be implemented as part of the project. Implementation ofthe Federal sustainability and greening practices, as well as reduced vehicle travel, would have acumulative beneficial effect on the environment.4.17 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETYMost of the CBP’s proposed projects are constructed in areas that are not residential and often inrugged and rough terrain. Typically, CBP construction activities are completed by NationalGuard Units, USBP agents, or private contractors, who are all well-trained and cognizant of allrequired safety measures. The overall decrease in vehicular traffic from Douglas to the area ofthe FOB would have a beneficial cumulative effect on the health and human safety of the area.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 5.0BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

5-1123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445465.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESThis chapter describes those measures that will be implemented to reduce or eliminate potentialadverse impacts on the human and natural environment. Many of these measures have beenincorporated as standard operating procedures by CBP on past projects. BMPs will be presentedfor each resource category that would be potentially affected. It should be emphasized that theseare general BMPs; development of specific BMPs will be required for certain activitiesimplemented under the Proposed Action Alternative. The proposed BMPs will be coordinatedthrough the appropriate agencies and land managers/administrators, as required.It is Federal policy to reduce adverse impacts through the sequence of avoidance, minimization,and finally, compensation. Compensation varies and includes activities such as restoration ofhabitat in other areas, acquisition of lands, etc., and is typically coordinated with the USFWS andother appropriate Federal and state resource agencies.5.1 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIESBMPs will be implemented as standard operating procedures during all construction activities,such as proper handling, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous and/or regulated materials. Tominimize potential impacts from hazardous and regulated materials, all fuels, waste oils, andsolvents will be collected and stored in tanks or drums within a secondary containment systemthat consists of an impervious floor and bermed sidewalls capable of containing the volume ofthe largest container stored therein. The refueling of machinery will be completed followingaccepted guidelines, and all vehicles would have drip pans during storage to contain minor spillsand drips. Any spill of a reportable quantity will be contained immediately within an earthendike, and the application of an absorbent (e.g., granular, pillow, sock) will be used to absorb andcontain the spill. Any reportable spill of a hazardous or regulated substance will be reportedimmediately to on-site environmental personnel, who would notify appropriate Federal and stateagencies. In addition to a SWPPP, a SPCCP will be in place prior to the start of construction, orprior to the start of operation and maintenance of equipment, and all personnel will be briefed onthe implementation and responsibilities of this plan.All waste oil and solvents will be recycled. All non-recyclable hazardous and regulated wasteswill be collected, characterized, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance withall Federal, state, and local regulations, including proper waste manifesting procedures.Non-hazardous solid waste (trash and waste construction materials) will be collected anddeposited in the on-site receptacles. Solid waste receptacles will be maintained, waste will becollected, and will be disposed of by a local waste disposal contractor.5.2 SOILSSuitable fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the facility to contain vehicles andpeople and prevent accidental impacts on soils on adjacent properties. Vehicular trafficassociated with the construction activities and operational support activities will remain onestablished roads to the maximum extent practicable. Areas with highly erodible soils will begiven special consideration when designing the proposed project to ensure incorporation ofSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

5-212345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546various BMPs, such as straw bales, aggregate materials, and wetting compounds to decreaseerosion. A SWPPP will be prepared prior to construction activities, and BMPs described in theSWPPP shall be implemented to reduce erosion. Furthermore, all areas not immediatelydeveloped will be planted with native plant species, landscaped, or allowed to naturallyrevegetate to minimize erosion potential.5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESConstruction equipment will be cleaned prior to departing the project corridor to minimize thespread and establishment of non-native invasive plant species. Soil disturbances in temporarilyimpacted areas will be revegetated or landscaped. To minimize vegetation impacts, designatedtravel corridors off the main road will be marked with easily observed removable orbiodegradable markers, and travel will be restricted to the corridor to the extent practicable.The Migratory Bird Treaty Act requires that Federal agencies coordinate with the USFWS if aconstruction activity would result in any harm to a migratory bird, including breeding andnesting activities. If construction or clearing activities were scheduled during the nesting season(typically February 1 through September 1), preconstruction surveys for migratory bird specieswould occur immediately prior to the start of any construction activity to identify active nests. Ifconstruction activities would result in the disturbance or harm of a migratory bird, thencoordination with USFWS and AGFD would occur, and applicable permits for relocation ofnests, eggs, or chicks would be obtained prior to construction or clearing activities. In addition,where possible, buffer zones would be established around active nests until nestlings havefledged and abandoned the nest. Another BMP that would be considered is to schedule clearingand grubbing activities outside the nesting season, negating the requirement for preconstructionnesting bird surveys.Based on guidance provided by USFWS, CBP will maintain a 100-foot buffer around any activeor potentially active burrowing owl burrows. If a 100-foot buffer cannot be maintained, or if aburrowing owl is detected within the project footprint during construction activities, CBP willfollow the guidelines outlined in the document entitled Burrowing Owl Project ClearanceGuidance for Landowners, which can be found on the AGFD’s website(http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/w_c/owl/burrowingowlclearanceprotocol.pdf).Shields would be installed on lights to prevent background lighting. Lights would also beinstalled such that the direction of illumination is downward toward the station facilities, andfugitive illumination beyond the project area boundaries would be less than 2 lumens.Although the slight potential for Federally protected fish to be affected by sedimentationdownstream from the Floyd Pocket project area exists, several measures would be in place at theproposed FOB to limit erosion, and would include: a stormwater retention basin to collectrainwater and other sources of runoff into a centralized area where water would be allowed toevaporate or percolate down to the groundwater table; preparation of a NPDES StormwaterDischarge permit; preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and a NOI that would be filedwith the ADEQ; implementation of specific erosion and sedimentation controls and other BMPs,such as the strategic placement of hay bales and silt fence, that would limit the amount of erosionSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

5-312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243that occurs on-site and restrict potential impacts on surrounding properties during construction;and incorporation of post-construction stormwater controls that minimize long-term impacts onsurface waters and allow for groundwater recharge.5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCESThere are no identified cultural resource sites that would be directly impacted by the ProposedAction Alternative. An Unanticipated Discoveries Plan will be developed and implemented ifground disturbance activities uncover previously unidentified cultural resource material. Ifunmarked human burials are discovered during construction, work will stop in the immediatevicinity, the remains will be protected, and the local cultural resources representative and theArizona SHPO will be notified as soon as possible. The location of the unmarked human burialwill be documented and the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act (NAGPRA) will be implemented, including consultation with Native Americantribes.5.5 AIR QUALITYBMPs will include suitable fencing to restrict traffic within the project area in order to reducesoil disturbance. Soil watering will be utilized to minimize airborne particulate matter createdduring construction activities. Bare ground will be covered with hay or straw to lessen winderosion between facility construction and landscaping. After the construction is completed, allareas with vehicle traffic within the fenced FOB boundaries will be paved or treated to reducethe potential for fugitive dust, and landscaping will be designed to prevent or lessen windfugitive dust creation. Additionally, all construction equipment and vehicles will be kept in goodoperating condition to minimize exhaust emissions.5.6 WATER RESOURCESStandard construction procedures will be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion andsedimentation during construction. All ground disturbance work will cease during heavy rainsand will not resume until conditions are suitable for the movement of equipment and material.Because the impact area is greater than 1 acre, as part of the NPDES permit process, a SWPPPand NOI will be submitted to the USEPA/ADEQ prior to the start of construction.Sedimentation and pollution of surface waters by fuels, oils, and lubricants will be minimizedthrough the implementation of the SWPPP. The construction of the proposed FOB willincorporate the proper stormwater retention measures, including a retention pond. All fuel tankswill be double-walled to prevent leaks from entering the groundwater. Proper wastewaterdisposal will be accomplished by using an on-site wastewater treatment system. Water wells ortreated municipal water sources will be used for construction or irrigation purposes instead ofnatural water sources in order to avoid transmitting disease vectors, introducing invasive nonnativespecies, and depleting natural aquatic systems.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

5-4123456789101112131415161718192021222324255.7 NOISEDuring the construction phase, short-term noise impacts are anticipated. All OSHA requirementswill be followed. To reduce noise impacts on the local wildlife communities, construction willonly occur during daylight hours, whenever possible. All motor vehicles will be maintained toreduce the potential for vehicle-related noise.To minimize disturbances from occasional and emergency helicopter use, the USBP will reviewlanding and takeoff routes to determine what actions could be taken, such as alternating orrotating routes, and timing the use of different routes, to reduce noise effects on wildlife orresidents in the San Bernardino Valley. All helicopters will be maintained and operated toreduce the potential for engine-related noise.5.8 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTESCare will be taken to avoid impacting the project area with hazardous substances (e.g., antifreeze,fuels, oils, lubricants) used during construction. Although catch pans will be used whenrefueling, accidental spills could occur as a result of maintenance procedures to constructionequipment. However, the amount of fuel, lubricants, and oil is limited, and equipment necessaryto quickly contain any spills will be present when refueling.5.9 ROADWAYS AND TRAFFICModular buildings and other equipment will be transported on appropriate roads with properflagging and safety precautions.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 6.0REFERENCES

6-112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243446.0 REFERENCESArizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2011. Scoping letter response fromADEQ, Air Quality Division, Ms. Diane L. Arnst, Manager, Air Quality Planning Sectionto Mr. CBP, Environmental Protection Specialist, Mr. Joseph Zidron. November 25,2011.Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). 2009. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 3,Southeastern Arizona Planning Area. June 2009.Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2009. Urban Movement Patterns of Lesser Longnosedbats (Leptonycteris curasoae): Management Implications for the HabitatConservation Plan within the City of Tucson and Town of Marana.AGFD. 2010a. Arizona State Listed Species compiled and edited by Arizona’s Natural HeritageProgram (ABHP): Heritage Data Management System (HDMS), Arizona Game and FishDepartment, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp. Internet URL:http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/documents/allspecies_bycounty_001.pdf.AGFD. 2010b. Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Unpublished Animal Abstractcompiled and edited by Arizona’s Natural Heritage Program (ABHP): Heritage DataManagement System (HDMS), Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 7 pp.Arizona Public Service Company (APS). 2011. APS 2011 Service Area Map. Internet URL:http://www.aps.com/images/pdf/AZ_Map.pdf.Arizona’s Touchstone Energy Cooperatives. 2011. Arizona’s Touchstone Energy Cooperatives2011 Service Map. Internet URL:http://www.aztouchstoneenergy.coop/metadot/index.pl.Baker, Lindsay T. 1985. A Field Guide to American Windmills. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.Cochise County. 2005. Cochise County Light Pollution Code. Resolution number: 05-58,adopted by the Cochise Board of Supervisors on November 1, 2005, effective December1, 2005. Internet URL: http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_planning_zoning.aspx?id=1638.Cochise County. 2011a. Zoning Base Map. Internet URL:http://www.cochise.az.gov/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Zoning/zoningseries.pdf.Cochise County. 2011b. Letter from Cochise County, County Administrator, Mr. Michael J.Ortega, P.E. to CBP, Environmental Protection Specialist, Mr. Joseph Zidron concerningCochise County comments on the EA for the construction and operation of the proposednew FOB in USBP Douglas Station’s AOR, Tucson Sector. September 13, 2011.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

6-21234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Cochise County and Incorporated Areas.Map Number: 04003C2975F. Effective Date August 28, 2008.FEMA. 2011. Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation Program (HEP) Overview.Internet URL: http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/#0. Last Modified May 19, 2011.Garin, Mary F. 2012. Personal communication between Mary F. Garin, Project Manager,Border Patrol Facilities & Tactical Infrastructure, Program Management Office, AndrewJ. Regan, Deputy Patrol Agent in Charge-Operations, Douglas Border Patrol Station, andJoseph Zidron, Environmental Protection Specialist, Border Patrol Facilities and TacticalInfrastructure, CBP. Communication regarding the origin of the “Floyd Pocket” namevia electronic mail, on January 11, 2012.Gulf South Research Corporation (GSRC). 2011. Cultural Resources Survey of Approximately10 Acres for the Proposed Douglas Forward Operating Base, Douglas Station’s Area ofResponsibility, United States Border Patrol, Tucson Sector. Prepared by GSRC for CBPand submitted to SHPO on July 29, 2011.Heuett, Mary Lou and Ronald P. Maldonado. 1990. A Cultural Resources Inventory of Portionsof the Sulpher Spring Valley and the San Bernardino Valley in Cochise County, Arizona.Cultural and Environmental Systems, Inc., Tucson.International Dark Sky Association. 2008. Internet URL:http://www.darksky.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=58823.National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2003. Soil Survey for Cochise CountyArizona, Douglas-Tombstone Part. USDA and NRCS in cooperation with In cooperationwith the Hereford, San Pedro, Willcox-San Simon, and Whitewater Draw NaturalResource Conservation Districts and the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station.NRCS. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Cochise County, Arizona. Internet URL:http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx .Rock, James T. 1987. A Brief Commentary on Cans. Salines, CA: Coyote Press.Toulouse, Julian Harrison. 1971. Bottle Makers and Their Marks. The Blackburn Press,New Jersey.U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Cochise County QuickFacts from the U.S. Census Bureau. CochiseCounty, Arizona Population, 2011Estimate. Internet URL:http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04003.html.U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 2005. National Border Patrol Strategy. Office ofthe Border Patrol. Internet URL: www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/.March 28, 2005.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

6-312345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243CBP. 2011. Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed Douglas Forward OperatingBase, Douglas Station’s Area of Responsibility, U.S. Border Patrol, Tucson Sector.September 2011.USEPA. 2008. Arizona’s 2006/2008 Impaired Waters. Internet URL:http://azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/2006_2008.pdf .USEPA. 2010. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available online:http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. Las Accessed. 4/11/2010.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Department of the Interior Fish and WildlifeServices. 50 CFR Part 17. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final RuleTo Determine the Yaqui Chub To Be an Endangered Species with Critical Habitat, andTO Determine the Beautiful Shiner and the Yaqui Catfish To Be Threatened Species withCritical Habitat. Final Rule. Published August 31, 2984. 8 pp.USFWS. 1997. Lesser Long-Nosed Bat Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. 49pp.USFWS. 2011a. USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, online mapper. Accessed March 11, 2011.Internet URL: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/flex/crithabMapper.jsp.USFWS. 2011b. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Services. 50 CFR Part 17.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of CriticalHabitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Proposed Rule. Published March 15, 2011.83 pp.USFWS. 2011c. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Services. 50 CFR Part 17.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing and Designation of CriticalHabitat for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog. Proposed Rule; Reopening of CommentPeriod. Published September 21, 2011. 15 pp.USFWS. 2011d. Draft Environmental Assessment for San Bernardino National WildlifeRefuge Projects Associated with Mitigation for Department of Homeland SecurityTactical Infrastructure. Cochise County, Arizona. Prepared by USFWS SanBernardino National Wildlife Refuge, March 28, 2011.USFWS. 2012a. USFWS Information, Planning, and Consultation (IPaC) System.Conservation Measures for Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis). AccessedJanuary 11, 2012. Internet URL: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.USFWS. 2012b. Arizona Ecological Services Threatened and Endangered Species List forCochise County. Accessed January 9, 2012, last updated January 19, 2012. InternetURL: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/CountyLists/Cochise.pdf.Supplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 7.0ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

7-1123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445467.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSAASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation OfficialsADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental QualityADWR Arizona Department of Water ResourcesADT average daily trafficAGFD Arizona Game and Fish DepartmentANHP Arizona Natural Heritage ProgramASM Arizona State MuseumAOR area of responsibilityAPE area of potential effectAPS Arizona Public Service CompanyAST aboveground storage tankATV all-terrain vehicleBMP best management practiceCBP U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionCBV cross-border violatorCEQ Council on Environmental QualityCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCO 2 carbon dioxideCWA Clean Water ActdB decibeldBA A-weighted decibelDOI Department of the InteriorDHS Department of Homeland SecurityEA Environmental AssessmentEO Executive OrderESA Endangered Species ActFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFOB Forward Operating BaseFONSI Finding of No Significant ImpactFR Federal RegisterGHG greenhouse gasGSRC Gulf South Research CorporationGVW gross vehicle weightIFT Integrated Fixed TowersINA Immigration and Nationality ActINS Immigration and Naturalization ServiceIPaC Information, Planning, and ConsultationSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

7-21234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738IO isolated occurrenceMOA Memorandum of Agreementmph miles per hourNAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation ActNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality StandardsNEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969NHPA National Historic Preservation ActNOI Notice of IntentNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemNRCS Natural Resources Conservation ServiceNRHP National Register of Historic PlacesNWR National Wildlife RefugeOBP Office of Border PatrolOSHA Occupational Safety and Health AdministrationPCE Primary Constituent ElementsROI region of influenceRVSS Remote Video Surveillance SystemSEA Supplemental Environmental AssessmentSHPO State Historic Preservation OfficerSIP State Implementation PlanSPCCP Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures PlanSWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention PlanTCP Traditional Cultural PropertyU.S. United StatesU.S.C. United States CodeUSBP U.S. Border PatrolUSEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyUSFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceUSIBWC U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water CommissionSupplemental Environmental AssessmentDraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 2012

SECTION 8.0LIST OF PREPARERS

Supplemental Environmental Assessment DraftUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR – Floyd Pocket February 20128.0 LIST OF PREPARERSThe following people were primarily responsible for preparing this EA.Name Agency/Organization Discipline/Expertise ExperienceJoseph Zidron U.S. Customs and Border Protection Environmental ProtectionCarey L. PerryGulf South Research Corporation(GSRC)Dean Barnes GSRC ArchaeologyDave Hart GSRC Archaeology5 years of environmentalprotection experienceRole inPreparing EACBP Project ManagerEcology/Wetlands 4 years natural resources GSRC Project Manager5 years professionalarchaeologist/culturalresources17 years professionalarchaeologist/culturalresourcesCultural resources surveys and EApreparation—Cultural ResourcesCultural resources surveys and EApreparation—Cultural ResourcesAnnie Howard GSRC Biology 3 years natural resources EA technical reviewSteve Kolian GSRC Environmental Science 12 years natural resources EA preparation—Air and NoiseJohn Lindemuth GSRC ArchaeologySharon Newman GSRC GIS/GraphicsSteve Oivanki GSRC Geology/NEPAMaria ReidGSRCNatural Resources Policy/ForestManagement18 years professionalarchaeologist/culturalresources17 years GIS/graphicsexperience20 years of naturalresources and NEPAstudiesCultural Resources surveysGIS/graphicsEA technical review10 years natural resources EA technical review8-1

APPENDIX ACORRESPONDENCE

Identical copies of the coordination letter from CBP (dated November 9, 2011) were sent to thefollowing Federal and state agencies, Native American tribal representatives, non-profitorganizations, and local ranchers in the San Bernardino Valley.Arizona Department of Environmental QualityATTN: Mr. Steve Owens, Director1110 West Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007Arizona Department of Environmental QualityATTN: Water Quality DivisionMs. Joan Card, Director1110 West Washington StreetPhoenix, AZ 85007Mr. Bob Broscheid, Project Evaluation Program SupervisorArizona Game and Fish DepartmentHabitat Branch- Project Evaluation Program2221 West Greenway RoadPhoenix, AZ 85023Honorable Jeff Houser, ChairmanFort Sill Apache Tribe of OklahomaRoute 2, P.O. Box 121Apache, Oklahoma 73006Honorable LeRoy N. Shingoitewa, ChairmanHopi Tribal Council1 Main StreetKykotsmovi, AZ 86039Honorable Mark Chino, PresidentATTN: Ms. Holly Houghton, Cultural Affairs OfficeMescalero Apache Tribe124 Chiricahua PlazaMescalero, New Mexico 88340Honorable Peter Yucupicio, ChairmanATTN: Ms. Amalia Reyes, Language and Cultural Preservation SpecialistPascua Yaqui Tribe7474 South Camino de OesteTucson, Arizona 85746

Mr. Bill Radke, Refuge ManagerSan Bernardino National Wildlife RefugeP. O. Box 3509Douglas, AZ 85607Sky Island AllianceATTN: Ms. Jenny Neeley, Conservation Policy DirectorP.O. Box 41165Tucson, AZ 85717-1165Honorable Ned Norris, Jr., ChairmanATTN: Mr. Peter Steere, THPOCultural Preservation OfficeTohono O’odham NationMain StreetBuilding #49Sells, Arizona 85634Mr. Nova BlazejU .S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion 975 Hawthorne StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceArizona Ecological Services Field OfficeATTN: Mr. Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103Phoenix, AZ 85021-4915U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceArizona Ecological Services Field OfficeATTN: Ms. Jean A. Calhoun, Assistant Field Supervisor201 N. Bonita Avenue, Suite 141Tucson, AZ 85745U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceArizona Ecological Services Field OfficeATTN: Mr. Mark Crites, Fish & Wildlife Biologist201 N. Bonita Avenue, Suite 141Tucson, AZ 85745

Mr. Edward Drusina, CommissionerInternational Boundary and Water Commission4171 North MesaBuilding C, Suite C-100El Paso, TX 79902-1441Honorable Ronnie Lupe, ChairmanATTN: Mr. Mark Altaha, THPOWhite Mountain Apache Tribal CouncilP.O. Box 700Whiteriver, AZ 85941Mr. Michael J. Ortega, County AdministratorCochise County1415 Melody Lane, Building GBisbee, AZ 85603Mr. James Garrison, State Historic Preservation OfficerArizona State ParksAttn: Dr. James Cogswell, Ph.D., Compliance Specialist/ArchaeologistState Historic Preservation Office1300 West Washington StreetPhoenix, Arizona, 85007Ms. Anna Magoffin, Ranch OwnerMagoffin RanchP.O. Box 1021Douglas, AZ 85608Mr. Bill McDonald, Executive DirectorMalpai Borderlands Group6226 Geronimo Trail RoadP.O. Drawer 3536Douglas, AZ 85608Mr. Tom PetersonLazy J RanchP.O. Box 3626Douglas, AZ 85608Ms. Sadie HadleyGuadalupe Ranch348 South Grande AvenueTucson, AZ 85745

Mr. Sage GoodwinP.O. Box 1093Douglas, AZ 85608Ms. Kelly Glenn-KimbroP.O. Box 1195Douglas, AZ 85608Slaughter RanchP.O. Box 438Douglas, AZ 85608

ARIZONA DEPARTMENTOFENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYJanice K. BrewerGovernor1110 West Washington. Street • Phoenix, Arizona 85007(602) 771-2300 • www.azdeq.govHenry R. DarwinDirectorNovember 25, 2011Ms. Loren FlossmanDirector Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical InfrastructureU.S. Customers and Border ProtectionProgram Management OfficeA.300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW',Washington, DC 20229RE: Cochise County: Scoping Letter for the Douglas Forward Operating Base Floyd's PocketTo Ms. Flossman:The ADEQ Air Quality Division has reviewed your letter dated November 9, 2011, requesting aScoping Letter concerning the Douglas Forward Operating Base Floyd's Pocket Project. Yourproject is not located in a nonattainment or maintenance area for regulated air pollutants. Asdescribed, it may have a de minimis impact on air quality. Disturbance of particulate matter isanticipated during construction. Considering prevailing winds, to comply with other applicableair pollution control requirements and minimize adverse impacts on public health and welfare,the following information is provided for consideration:REDUCE DISTURBANCE of PARTICULATE MATTER during CONSTRUCTIONThis action, plan or activity may temporarily increase ambient particulate matter (dust) levels.Particulate matter 10 microns in size and smaller can penetrate the lungs of human beings andanimals and is subject to a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) to protect publichealth and welfare. Particulate matter 2.5 microns in size and smaller is difficult for lungs toexpel and has been linked to increases in death rates; heart attacks by disturbing heart rhythmsand increasing plaque and clotting; respiratory infections; asthma attacks and cardiopulmonaryobstructive disease (COPD) aggravation. It is also subject to a NAAQS.The following measures are recommended to reduce disturbance of particulate matter, includingemissions caused by strong winds as well as machinery and trucks tracking soil off theconstruction site:I. Site Preparation and ConstructionA. Minimize land disturbance;Northern Regional OfficeSouthern Regional Office1801 W. Route 66 • Suite 117 • Flagstaff, AZ 86001 400 West Congress Street • Suite 433 • Tucson, AZ 85701(928) 779-0313 (520) 628-6733Printed on recycled paper

Ms. Loren FlossmanNovember 25, 2011Page 2 of 2B. Suppress dust on traveled paths which are not paved through wetting, use ofwatering trucks, chemical dust suppressants, or other reasonable precautions toprevent dust entering ambient air;C. Cover trucks when hauling soil;D. Minimize soil track-out by washing or cleaning truck wheels before leavingconstruction site;E. Stabilize the surface of soil piles; andF. Create windbreaks.II.Site RestorationA. Revegetate any disturbed land not used;B. Remove unused material; andC. Remove soil piles via covered trucks.The following rules applicable to reducing dust during construction, demolition and earthmoving activities are enclosed:❑ Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-604 through -607❑ Arizona Administrative Code R18-2-804Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (602) 771-2375, or LhamoLeMoine at (602) 771-2373.Very truly yours,Diane L. Arnst, ManagerAir Quality Planning SectionEnclosures (3)cc: Bret Parke, EV Administrative CounselLhamo LeMoine, Administrative SecretaryFile No. 271795

Douglas-Paul Spur PM10 Nonattainment Area .-1 1 rT2 -R2T22S, R25ET23S R26EI [fZE28ET23S, R29EPAUL SPURCHEMICAL.LIME PLANTMONTOR124S; R25E T24S, R26EArizona, USA\T24S R28ESonora, MexicoADEQ0 25 510 Miles1 I I I I I I I I Wrg• U.1.10.0{1..d0"xi 00.201IN Cara

Arizona Administrative Code Page 3 of 8c. If the burning wouldoccur at a solid waste facility in violation of 40 CFR 258.24 and the Director has not issued a variance. under A.R.S. § 49-763.01. . •E. Open outdoor fires of dangerous material. A fire sei.for the disposal of a dangerous material is allowed by the provisions of thisSectkn • tthen the material is too dangerous to store and transport, and the Director has issued a poterit for the fire A permit issuedunderibis subsection shall contain all provisions in subsection (DX3) except for subsections (D)(3)(e) and (D)(3)(f). The Directirshall permit fires for the disposal of dangerous materials only when no isle alternative method of disposal exists, and burning thematerials does not result in thlemission of hazardous or toxic substances either directly or as a product of combustion in amountsthat will endanger health or safety. • .F. Open outdoor fires of household waste. An open outdoor fire for the disposal of household waste is .allowed by provisions of thisSection when permitted in writing by the Director or. a delegated authority. A. permit issued under this subsection shell contain allproVisions• in subsection (D)(3) except for subsectiOns (D)(3)(e) and (D)(3)(f).-The Permittee shall conduct open outdoor fires bfhousehold waste in an approved waste burner and shall either: . .1. Bum household waste generated on-site on farms 'or ranches of 40 acres or more where no household waste collection or disposal• service is availablcur • .2. Brim household waste generated on-site where no household waste collection and disposal service is available and Where thenearest other dwelling unit is at least 500feet away. . - - :- - -.- -- • . - —G. Permits issued by a delegated authority. The Director may delegate authority for the issuance of open burning permits to a county, city,town, air pollution control district, or fire district A delegated authority may not issue a permit for its own open burning activity. TheDirector shall not delegate authority to issue.permits to burn dangerous material under subsection (B). A county; city, town, air. pollution control district or fire district with delegated antboxity from the Director may assign that authority to one or more private' fire protection service providers that perform fire protection services within the county, city, town, air pollution control district orfire district A inivite fire protection provider shall not directly or indirectly condition the issuance of open homing permits on theapplicant being a customer. Permits issued under this subsection shall comply:with therequirements in subsection (D)(3) and be in aformat prescrthed by the Director. Each delegated authority shall:1. blaintain a copy of each permit issued for the previous five years available for inspection by the Director,2. For each permit currently issued, have a means of contacting the person authorizer:11)y the permit to set an open fire if an order toextinguish open burning is issued; and3. Annually submit to the Director by May 15 a record of dailibnm activity, excluding household waste bum permits, on a formprovided by the Director for the previous calendar year containingthe information required in subsections (D)(3)(e) and (D)(3)(t). .a The Director shall hold an annual public meeting for interested parties to review operations of the open outdoor fire program anddiscuss emission reduction techniques. • . .J. Nothing in this Section is intended to permit any practice that is a violation of any statute, ordinance, nrla-or regulation.• Historical NoteAdopted effective May 14,1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective October 2,1979 (Sapp. 79-5). Correction, subsection (C) repealedeffective October 2,1979, not shown (Supp. 80-1). FormerSectinn R9-3-602renumbered without change as Section R18 12-602(Sapp. 87-3). Amended effectthe September 26, 1990 (Sapp. 904). Former Section R18-2-602 renumbered to R_18-2-802, hew .Section R18-2-602 renumbered from R18-2-401 effectiveNov.ember 15,1993 (Supp. 934). &derided by finalrolemaldng•at 10A.A.S. 388, effeative March 16, 2004 (Sapp. 04-1). 'R18-2-603. Repealed'• Historical Note ' • -Adopted effective May 14,1979 (Supp. 79-1). Framer Section R9-3-603 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-603 (Sapp:87-3). Amended effective Septenther 26,1990 (Supp. 90-3). Former SeCtion R18-2-603 renumbered to R18-2:103, new SectionR182-603 renumbered from R18-2-403 effective November' 15,1993 (Supp. 934). Repealed effective October 8,1996 (Supp.964). .. • . •1118-2-604. Open Areas, Dry Washes, or Riverbeds . ' •A. No parson shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit a building or its apontenances, or a braiding or subdivision site, or a driveway, or a• parking area, or a vacant lot or sales lot, or an urban or suburban open area to be constructed, used, altered, repaired, demolished,cleared; or leveled, or the earth to be moved or excavated, without taking reasonable precautions to limit excessive amounts ofparticulate matter from.becoming airborne. Dust and other typeo of air oontaminahts sball•be kept to a minimum by good modern.. practices such as using an approved dust suppressant or adhesive soil stabilizer, paving, covering, landsenping, continuous wetting,detouring, barring accessior other acceptablemeans. • .13.: Na parson shall. cause, suffer, allow, or permit . a vacant lot, or an urban or suburban open area, to be driven over or used by motor. ' vehicles, trucks, cars, cycles, blea or buggies, or by animals such as horses, without taking reasonable precautions to limit excessiveamounts ot•parliculates from becoming airborne. Dust shall be.kept .to a minimum by using an approved dust suppressant, oradhesive soil stabilizer, or by paving, or by boning access to the property, or by other acceptable means.C. No person shall operate a motor vehicle for recreational purposes in a dry wash, riverbed or open area in such a why as to cause or. contribute. to visible dust emissions which then cross property lines into a residential, recreational, institutional, educational, retailsales, hotel or business premises. For purposes of this subsection °motor vehicles" shall include, but not be limited to trucks, cars,cycles, bikes, buggies and 3-wheelers. Any pethon who violates the provisions of this subsection shall be.subject to prosecutionunder AR.S..§ 49463.•.. •, Historical Note . •. . .•Adopted.effective May 14, 1979(Supp. 79-1). Former Section R9-3-604 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-604 (Supp.87L3). Amended effective September 26,1990 (Supp. 90-3). Former Section R1812-604 renumbered to R.18-2-804, new Sectionu 1R-7-604 tern-inhered from 1115-2-404 and amended effective November 15, 1993 (Supp. 93-4). •

Arizona Administrative CodePage 4 of 8R18-2-605. Roadways and StreetsNo person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit the use, repair, construction or reconstrucdon of a roadway. or alley without takingA.reasonable precautions to prevent excessive amounts. of particulate matter from becoming airborne. Dust and other particulates shall•be kept to a minimum by employing temporary paving, dust suppressants, wetting down, detouring Or by other reasonable means.No person shall cause, suffer, allow or permit transportation of materials llicelY to give rise to airborne dust without taking reasonableB.preoadtions, such as wetting, applying dust suppressants, or covering the lead, to prevent particulate matter from bedoming airborne.Earth or other material that is deposited by tracking or earth moving equipment shall be removed fronepaved streets by the person•re-sponsible:for such deposits.• .Historical Note ' . . . .Adopted effective May 14,1979 (Supp. 79-1). Former Section R9-3-605 remembered without change as Section 118-2-605 (Supp..87-3). Amended effective September 26; 1990 (Stipp. 90-3). Former Section R13-2-605 renumbered to 11.18-2-805, new SectionRI3-2-605 renumbered from R18-2405 effective November 15,1993 (Sapp. 934).L18-2-606.Material Handlingshall cause, suffer, allow or permit crashing, screening, handling, transporting or conveying of materials or other DoradoslikelyNo person63 result in significant amounts of airborne dust without tiling reasonable precautions, such as theme of spray bars, wetting agents,dust suppressants; coveringthe load, and hoods toprevent excessive amounts of parliculatematter,from becoming airborne.. Historical Note '•Section R18-2-606 renumbers from 118-2-406 effective Novemlaer 15, 1993 (Supp. 934).. •R1842407. Storage Piles .shall cans; suffer, allow, or permit organic or inorganic dust producing material to be stacked, piled, or otherwise storedA. No personwithout taking reasonable precautions such as chemical stabilization, wetting, or covering to prevent excessive amounts of particulatematter from becoming airborne.in suchStacking and reclaiming machinery utilized at storage piles shall be operated at all times with a minimum fall of material andB.manner, or with the use of spray bars an& wetting agents, as to prevent excessive amounts of particulate matter from becoming.airborne.• Historical NoteSection R18-2-607 renumbered from R18-2407 effective November 15,1993 (Supp. 934). '•R18-2-608. Min oral Tailings•ohnineral tailing p ilea without taking reasonable precautions to prevent .No person shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit constructionof particulate matter from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions shall mean wetting, chemical stabilization, .excessive amountsrevegetation or such other measures as are approved by the Director.' • •Historical Note•renuMbered from R18-2-403, new Section 1i18-2-403 adopted effectiveNovember 15,1993 (Sapp. 934).SectionRI 8-2-60B. •- •813-2-609. Agricultural Practicespermit the performance dagicultural practices outside the Phoenix and Yuma planning areas,A person stall not cause, suffer, allow, or by reference in R18-2-210; including tilling of land and application of fertilizersis defined in 40 CFR 81303, which is incorporatedwithout talchto reasonable precautions to prevent excessive amounts ofparticulate matter from becoming airborne..••. Historical NoteSection R18-2-609 renumbered from 118-2-409 effective November 15,1993 (Supp. 93-4). Amended by final rulemaldng at 6A.A.R. 2009; effective May 12, 2000 (Supp. 00-2). Amendedlay, final rulemaldng at 11 A.A.R. 2210, effective July 18, 2005• . (Sapp. 05-2).•87,8-2-61111. Definitions for R18-2:611 .The definitions in Article 1 of this Chapter and the following definitions apply to 1213-2-611: or pWskatobstruction.I. "Access restriction" means restricting or eliminating public access to noncropland with signs to noncropland.2."Aggregate cover" means gravel, concrete, recycled roadbase, caliche, or other similar material applied3. "Artificial wind hairier" means aphysical barrier to the wind.4. "Best manageanent practice" means a:technique verified by scienti fic research, that on a case-by-ease basis is practical,•economically feasible, andeffective in reducing MI N emissions from a regulated agricultural activity.5. "Chemical irrigation" means applying a fertilizer, pesticide, or other agricultural chemical to cropland. through an irrigationsystem. ."Combining tractor operations" means performing two or more tillage, cultivation, planting, or harvesting operations with a single6.tractor or harvester pass. • • ."Commercial farm" means 10 or more contiguous.acres of land used for agricultural pumnaes within theboundary oldie Maricopa7.PM in nonattainment area . •• . •8. "Conimercial farmer" means'an individual, entity, orjoint operation in general control Of a commercial fano.Practices Committee.9. "Committee" means the Governor's Agricultural Best Management"Cover crop" means plants or a green manure crop grown fof seasonal soil mots:don or soil improvement..10.11. "Critical area planting" mPqtlq using trees, shrabseiries, grasses, or other vegetative cover on noncropland12. "Cropland" means land on a commercial farm thata. Is within the time-frame of final harvest to plant emergence; . .b. Has.been tilled in a prior year and is suitable for crop production, but is currently fallow; orc. Is a turn-row. .

Arizona Adthinistrative Code •Page 1 of 1ARTICLE B. EMISSIONS FROM MOBILE SOURCES (NEW AND EXISTING). •R18-2-801. Classification of Mobile SourcesA.This Article is applicable to mobile soirees which either move while emitting air contaminants or are frequently moved during thecourse of their utilization but are not classified as motor vehicles, agricultural vehicles, or agricultural equipment used in normalfarm operations.B. Unless otherwise specified, no mobile source shall emit smoke•r dust the opacity of which exceeds 40%.Historical NoteAdopted effective February 26, 1988 (Supp. 88-1). Amended effective September 26,1990 (Supp; 90-3). Amended effectiveFebruary 3,1993 (Supp. 93-1). Former Section, RI 8-2-801 renumbered to Section 108-2-901, new Section R18-2-801renumbered from R18-2-601 effective November 15, 1993 (Sim 93-4).•R18-2-802. Off-road Machinery •A. No person shallor permit to be emitted into the atmosphere from any off-road machinery, smoke for any period greaternrincallowthan 10 consecutive seconds, the opacity of which exceeds 40%. Visible amens when startingcold equipment shall be exemptfrom this requirement for the first 10 minutes'graders, Scrapers, rollers, locomotives and other construction and mining machinery notB. Off-road machinery shall include trucksanormally driven on a completed public roadway.• Hishirical Note.Adopted effective February 26, 1988 (Sapp. 88-1). Amended effective September 26,1990 (Supp. 90-3). Former Section R18-2-802renumbered to Section R18-2-902, pew Section R18-2-802 renumbered from R18-2.602 effective November 15,1993 (Supp.34).R18-2-803: Heater-planer UnitsNo person shalloause, allow or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere from any heater-planer operated for the purpose of reconstructingasphalt pavements smoke the opacity of which exceeds 20%. However three minutes' upset time in any one hour shall not constitute aviolation of this Section.Historical NoteAdopted effective Febmary 26, 1988 (Stipp. 88-1). Ainended effective September 26,1.990 (Supp. 90-3). Former Section R18-2-803renumbered to Section R18-2-903, new Section R18-2-803 renumbered from R18-2-603 effectiveNovember 15, 1993 (Supp.934R18-2-804- Roadway and Site Cleaning MachineryNo person shall cense, allow or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere from any roadway and site cleaning machinery smoke or dustA.any period greater than 10 consecutive seconds, the opacity: of which. exceeds 40%. Visible emissions when starting coldfor .equipment shall be exempt from this requirement for the fast 10 minutes.•In addition to complying with subsection (A), no person shalicause, allow or permit the cleaning of any site, roadway, or alley withoutB.taking reasonable precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. Reasonable precautions may include applyingdust suppressants. Barth or:other material shall be removed from paved streets onto which earth or other material has beentransported by trucking or earth moving equipment, erosion by water or by other means.• - Historical Note .Adopted effective February 26,1988 (Supp. 88-1). Amended effective September 26,1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended effectiveFebruary 3,1993 (Supp. 93-1). Former Section R18-2-804 renumbered to Section R18-2-904, um* Section R18-2-804•renumbered from R18-2-604 effective November 15, 1993 (Supp. 934).. .R18-2-805. Asphalt or Tar KettlesNo person shall cause, allow or permit to be emitted into the atmosphere from any asphalt or tar kettle smoke for any period greaterA. .than 10 consecutive seconds,- he opacity of which exceeds 40%. • . -In addition to complying with subsection (A), no person shall cause, allow or permit the operation of an asphalt or tar kettle withoutB.minimizing air contaminant emissions by utilizing all of the following control measures:1. The control of temperature recommended by the asphalt or tar manufacturer,2. The operation of thqkettle with lid closed except when charging;3. The pumping of asphalt from the kettle or the drawing of asphalt through cocks with no dipping;4.112e dipping of tar in an approved manner;5. The maintaining of the kettle in clean, properly adjusted, and good operating condition;6. The firing of the kettle with liquid petroleum gas or other fuels acceptable to the Director.Historical Nofe .•Adopted effective February 26, 1988 (Supp. 88-1): Amended effective September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90-3). Former Section R18-2-805to Section R18-2-905, new Section R.18-2-805 renumbered from R18-2-605 effective November 15, 1993 (Supp.renumbered• . 934).•

Identical copies of this letter from CBP (dated December 16, 2011) were sent to the followingNative American tribal representatives, along with the Draft Addendum Report for CulturalResources Survey.Honorable Jeff Houser, ChairmanFort Sill Apache Tribe of OklahomaRoute 2, P.O. Box 121Apache, Oklahoma 73006Honorable LeRoy N. Shingoitewa, ChairmanHopi Tribal Council1 Main StreetKykotsmovi, AZ 86039Honorable Mark Chino, PresidentATTN: Ms. Holly Houghton, Cultural Affairs OfficeMescalero Apache Tribe124 Chiricahua PlazaMescalero, New Mexico 88340Honorable Peter Yucupicio, ChairmanATTN: Ms. Amalia Reyes, Language and Cultural Preservation SpecialistPascua Yaqui Tribe7474 South Camino de OesteTucson, Arizona 85746Honorable Ned Norris, Jr., ChairmanATTN: Mr. Peter Steere, THPOCultural Preservation OfficeTohono O’odham NationMain StreetHonorable Ronnie Lupe, ChairmanATTN: Mr. Mark Altaha, THPOWhite Mountain Apache Tribal CouncilP.O. Box 700Whiteriver, AZ 85941

White Mountain Apache TribeOffice of Historic PreservationPO Box 507Fort Apache, AZ 85926Ph: (928) 338-3033 Fax: (928) 338-6055To: Joseph Zidron, U.S. Customs and Border ProtectionDate: December 21, 2011Project: Draft Addendum for the Proposed Douglas Forward Operating at Floyd Pocket Site...........................................................................................................................................................The White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office appreciates receivinginformation on the proposed project, December 16, 2011 . In regards to this, please attend to thefollowing checked items below.► There is no need to send additional information unless project planning or implementationresults in the discovery of sites and/or items having known or suspected Apache Culturalaffiliation.N/A - The proposed project is located within an area of probable cultural or historicalimportance to the White Mountain Apache tribe (WMAT). As part of the effort o identifyhistorical properties that maybe affected by the project we recommend an ethno-historic studyand interviews with Apache Elders. The tribe's Cultural Heritage Resource Director Mr.Ramon Riley may be contacted at (928) 338-3033 for further information should this becomenecessary.► Please refer to the attached additional notes in regards to the proposed project:We have received and reviewed information regarding the U.S. Customs and BorderProtection’s draft Addendum Report for the above mentioned project, and we have determinedthat proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the White Mountain Apache tribe's(WMAT) historic properties and/or traditional cultural properties. Regardless, any/all grounddisturbing activities should be monitored if there are reasons to believe that there are humanremains and/or funerary objects are present, and if such remains and/or objects are encounteredall project activities should cease and the proper authorities and/or affiliated tribe(s) be notifiedto evaluate the situation.Thank you. We look forward to continued collaborations in the protection and preservation ofplace of cultural and historical significance.Sincerely,Mark T. AltahaWhite Mountain Apache TribeHistoric Preservation Office

APPENDIX BLIST OF FEDERAL AND STATE PROTECTED SPECIES

Cochise CountyCOMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSBeautiful shiner Cyprinella formosa Threatened Small (2.5 inches) shinyminnow, very similar to redshiner. Males colorful duringbreeding (yellow-orange ororange on caudal and lowerfins, bluish body).Cochise < 4,500 ft Small to medium sizedstreams and ponds withsand, gravel, and rockbottoms.Virtually extirpated in the United States,with the exception of a few populationson San Bernardino National WildlifeRefuge. Same critical habitat as YaquiChub and Catfish (see 49 FR 34490).Canelo Hills ladies'tressesSpiranthesdelitescensEndangeredSlender, erect member ofthe orchid family(Orchidaceae). Flower stalk20 inches tall, may contain40 white flowers spirallyarranged on the floweringstalk.Cochise, SantaCruz~ 5,000 ft Finely grained, highlyorganic, saturated soils ofcienegas.Found in the San Pedro watershed.Potential habitat occurs in Sonora,Mexico, but no populations have beenfound.Chiricahua leopardfrogLithobateschiricahuensisThreatenedCream colored tubercles(spots) on a darkbackground on the rear ofthe thigh, dorsolateral foldsthat are interrupted anddeflected medially, and a callgiven out of water distinguishthis spotted frog from otherleopard frogs.Apache, Cochise,Coconino, Gila,Graham,Greenlee, Navajo,Pima, SantaCruz, Yavapai3,300-8,900 ft Streams, rivers,backwaters, ponds, andstock tanks that aremostly free fromintroduced fish, crayfish,and bullfrogs.Requires permanent or nearly permanentwater sources. On March 15, 2011,critical habitat was proposed in Apache,Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima,Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties inArizona; and Catron, Hidalgo, Grant,Sierra, and Socorro counties in NewMexico (76 FR 14125).Cochise pincushioncactusCoryphantharobbinsorumThreatenedA small unbranched cactuswith no central spines and11-17 white radial spines.The bell-shaped flowers areborne on the ends oftubercles (protrusions).Flowers: bell shaped, paleyellow-green. Fruits: orangeredto red.Cochise > 4,200 ft Semidesert grassland withsmall shrubs, agave, othercacti, and grama grass.Grows on gray limestone hills. Speciesalso occurs in Sonora, MexicoThursday, January 19, 2012 Cochise CountyPage 1 of 8

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSDesert pupfishCyprinodonmaculariusEndangeredSmall (2 inches) smoothlyrounded body shape withnarrow vertical bars on thesides. Breeding males blueon head and sides withyellow on tail. Females andjuveniles tan to olive coloredback and silvery sides.Cochise, Graham,Maricopa, Pima,Pinal, Santa Cruz,Yavapai< 4,000 ft Shallow springs, smallstreams, and marshes.Tolerates saline and warmwater.Two subspecies are recognized: DesertPupfish (C.m. macularis) andQuitobaquito Pupfish (C.m. eremus).Critical habitat includes QuitobaquitoSprings, Pima County, portions of SanFelipe Creek, Carrizo Wash, and FishCreek Wash, Imperial County, California.Gila chub Gila intermedia Endangered Deep compressed body, flathead. Dark olive-gray colorabove, silver sides.Endemic to Gila River Basin.Cochise, Gila,Graham,Greenlee, Pima,Pinal, Santa Cruz,Yavapai2,000-5,500 ft Pools, springs, cienegas,and streams.Occurs on Federal, State, and privatelands, including the Nature Conservancyand the Audubon Society. Also occurs inSonora, Mexico. Critical habitat includesCochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Pima,Pinal, Santa Cruz, and Yavapai counties(70 FR 66664).Gila topminnowPoeciliopsisoccidentalisoccidentalisEndangeredSmall (2 inches), guppy-like,live bearing, lacks dark spotson its fins. Breeding malesare jet black with yellow fins.Cochise, Gila,Graham, La Paz,Maricopa, Pima,Pinal, Santa Cruz,Yavapai< 4,500 ft Small streams, springs,and cienegas vegetatedshallows.Species historically also occurred inbackwaters of large rivers but is currentlyisolated to small streams and springs.Huachuca waterumbelLilaeopsisschaffneriana ssp.recurvaEndangeredHerbaceous, semi-aquaticperennial in the parsleyfamily (Umbelliferae) withslender erect, hollow, leavesthat grow from the nodes ofcreeping rhizomes. Flower:3 to 10 flowered umbelsarise from root nodes.Cochise, Pima,Santa Cruz3,500-6,500 ft Cienegas, perennial lowgradient streams,wetlands.Species also occurs in adjacent Sonora,Mexico, west of the continental divide.Critical habitat includes Cochise andSanta Cruz counties (64 FR 37441).Jaguar Panthera onca Endangered Largest species of cat nativeto Southwest. Muscular,with relatively short, massivelimbs, and a deep-chestedbody. Usually cinnamon-buffin color with many blackspots. Weights ranges from90-300 lbs.Cochise, Pima,Santa Cruz1,600-9,000 ft Found in Sonorandesertscrub up throughsubalpine conifer forest.Also occurs in New Mexico. A jaguarrecovery team was formed in 2010 and iscurrently developing a recovery plan forthe species.Thursday, January 19, 2012 Cochise CountyPage 2 of 8

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSLesser long-nosedbatLeptonycteriscurasoaeyerbabuenaeEndangeredElongated muzzle, small leafnose, and long tongue.Yellowish brown or grayabove and cinnamon brownbelow. Tail minute andappears to be lacking.Easily disturbed.Cochise, Gila,Graham,Greenlee,Maricopa, Pima,Pinal, SantaCruz, Yuma1,600-11,500 ft Desert scrub habitat withagave and columnar cactipresent as food plants.Day roosts in caves and abandonedtunnels. Forages at night on nectar,pollen, and fruit of paniculate agaves andcolumnar cacti. This species is migratoryand is present in Arizona usually fromApril to September and south of theborder the remainder of the year.Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis Threatened Small (

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSNew Mexico ridgenosedrattlesnakeCrotalus willardiobscurusThreatenedSmall 12-24 inches,secretive grayish-brown witha distinct ridge on the end ofthe snout. The dorsalsurface has obscure,irregularly spaced whitecrossbars edged with brown(not a bold pattern).Cochise 5,000-6,600 ft Primarily canyon bottomsin pine-oak communities.The subspecies has been documented inthe Peloncillo Mountains in Arizona.There are only three known records fromArizona. Also occurs in AnimasMountains of New Mexico and Sierra SanLuis in Sonora/Chihuahua.Northern aplomadofalconFalco femoralisseptentrionalisEndangeredRufus underparts, gray back,long banded tail, and adistinct black and white facialpattern. Smaller thanperegrine falcon but largerthan a kestrel. Breedsbetween March and June.Currentlyextirpated fromAZ withunconfirmedsightingsoccasionallyreported inCochise County.3,500-9,000 ft Grassland and savannah Non-essential experimental populationdesignated in Arizona and New Mexico in2006 (71 FR 42298). Species formerlynested in southwestern U.S., now rarelyoccurs. Good habitat has low groundcover and mesquite or yucca for nestingplatforms. Pesticide use in Mexico hadendangered this species but DDT use isnow banned there. Reintroductions areoccurring in New Mexico and Texas. Oneconfirmed sighting in AZ occurred inrecent years.Ocelot Leopardus pardalis Endangered Medium-sized spotted catthat is yellowish with blackstreaks and stripes runningfrom front to back. Tail isspotted and about 1/2 thelength of head and body.Face is less heavily streakedthan the back and sides.Cochise,Gila,Graham, Pima,Pinal, Santa Cruz< 8,000 ft Desert scrub in Arizona.Humid tropical and subtropicalforests, andsavannahs in areas southof the U.S.Little is known about ocelot habitat use inArizona; however, ocelots are typicallyassociated with areas of dense cover.Four confirmed reports of ocelots havebeen received from Gila (one) andCochise (three) counties since 2009.Based on photographic evidence, two ofthe reports from Cochise County weremost likely of the same ocelot.San BernardinospringsnailPyrgulopsisbernardinaProposedendangeredAquatic snail of familyHydrobiidae. Narrow-conicshell; height 1.3-1.7 mm;3.25-4.0 whorls.Cochise 3,806 ft Springs with firm substratecomposed of cobble,gravel, woody debris, andaquatic vegetation.Distribution limited to Snail Spring, GoatTank Spring, and Horse Spring. Criticalhabitat is proposed on 2.013 acres (76FR 20464).Sonoran tigersalamanderAmbystomamavortium stebbinsiEndangeredLarge, light-colored blotchesor reticulations on a darkbackground.Metamorphosed individualsare 1.8 to 5.9 inches in snoutventlength. Aquatic larvaeare uniform dark colored withplume-like gills anddeveloped tail fins.Cochise, SantaCruz4,000-6,300 ft Stock tanks andimpounded cienegas;rodent burrows, rottedlogs, and other moistcover sites.Populations occur within the headwatersof the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers.These include San Rafael Valley and inthe foothills of the east slope of thePatagonia and Huachuca Mountains andFort Huachuca.Thursday, January 19, 2012 Cochise CountyPage 4 of 8

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSSouthwesternwillow flycatcherEmpidonax trailliiextimusEndangeredSmall passerine (about 6inches) grayish-green backand wings, whitish throat,light olive-gray breast andpale yellowish belly. Twowingbars visible. Eye-ringfaint or absent.Apache, Cochise,Coconino, Gila,Graham,Greenlee, La Paz,Maricopa,Mohave, Navajo,Pima, Pinal,Santa Cruz,Yavapai, Yuma< 8,500 ft Cottonwood/willow andtamarisk vegetationcommunities along riversand streams.Riparian-obligate bird that occupiesmigratory/breeding habitat from late April-Sept. Critical habitat was finalized onOctober 19, 2005 in Apache, Cochise,Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Maricopa,Mohave, Pima, Pinal, and Yavapaicounties (70 FR 60886). Revised criticalhabitat was proposed August 15, 2011(76 FR 50542) and includes riversegments in counties currentlydesignated plus those in La Paz, SantaCruz, and Yuma counties. The 2005critical habitat designation remains ineffect until the current proposal isfinalized. Training seminar/permitsrequired for those conducting callplayback surveys.Spikedace Meda fulgida Threatened Small (

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSYaqui chub Gila purpurea Endangered Medium sized minnow (

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSHuachucaspringsnailPyrgulopsisthompsoniCandidateVery small (.06-.12 inches)conical shell. Identificationmust be verified bycharacteristics ofreproductive organs.Cochise, SantaCruz4,500-7,200 ft Aquatic areas, smallsprings with vegetationand slow to moderate flow.Individuals found on firm substances(roots, wood, and rocks). Otherpopulations found on Fort Huachuca.Lemmon fleabane Erigeron lemmonii Candidate A prostrate perennial in thesunflower family. Stems andleaves are densely hairy.Flowers look like smalldelicate daisies, with white tolight purple outer petals andyellow inner petals.Cochise 1,500-6,000 ft Grows in dense clumps increvices, ledges, andboulders in canyonbottoms in pine-oakwoodland.Found only at one site on Fort Huachuca.Northern MexicanGartersnakeThamnophis equesmegalopsCandidateBackground color rangesfrom olive, olive-brown, toolive-gray. Body has threeyellow or light colored stripesrunning down the length ofthe body, darker towards tail.Species distinguished fromother native gartersnakes bythe lateral stripes reachingthe 3rd and 4th scale rows.Paired black spots extendalong dorsolateral fields.Apache, Cochise,Coconino, Gila,Graham, Navajo,Pima, Pinal,Santa Cruz,Yavapai130-8,500 ft Cienegas, stock tanks,large-river riparianwoodlands and forests,streamside gallery forests.Core population areas in the U.S. includemid/upper Verde River drainage,mid/lower Tonto Creek, and the SanRafael Valley and surrounding area.Status on tribal lands unknown.Distributed south into Mexico along theSierra Madre Occidental and MexicanPlateau. Strongly associated with thepresence of a native prey base includingleopard frogs and native fish.Sprague's pipit Anthus spragueii Candidate Small, sparrow-sized bird(10-15 cm in length), withbuff and blackish streakingon the crown, nape, andunderparts. Has a short billwith a blackish uppermandible, a buffy face with alarge eye ring, white outertail feathers and pale toyellowish legs.Cochise,Maricopa, La Paz,Santa Cruz, Yuma

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS DESCRIPTION COUNTY ELEVATION HABITAT COMMENTSYellow-billed cuckoo CoccyzusamericanusCandidateMedium-sized bird with aslender, long-tailed profile,slightly down-curved bill thatis blue-black with yellow onthe lower half. Plumage isgrayish-brown above andwhite below, with rufousprimary flight feathers.Apache, Cochise,Coconino, Gila,Graham,Greenlee, La Paz,Maricopa,Mohave, Navajo,Pima, Pinal,Santa Cruz,Yavapai, Yuma< 6,500 ft Large blocks of riparianwoodlands (cottonwood,willow, or tamariskgalleries).Neotropical migrant that winters primarilyin South America and breeds primarily inthe U.S. (but also in southern Canadaand northern Mexico). As a migrant it israrely detected; can occur outside ofriparian areas. Cuckoos are foundnesting statewide, mostly below 5,000feet in central, western, and southeasternArizona. Concern for cuckoos areprimarily focused upon alterations to itsnesting and foraging habitat. Nestingcuckoos are associated with relativelydense, wooded, streamside riparianhabitat, with varying combinations ofFremont cottonwood, willow, velvet ash,Arizona walnut, mesquite, and tamarisk.Some cuckoos have also been detectednesting in velvet mesquite, netleafhackberry, Arizona sycamore, Arizonaalder, and some exotic neighborhoodshade trees.American peregrinefalconFalco pereginusanatumDelistedA crow-sized falcon withslate blue-gray on the backand wings, and white on theunderside; a black head withvertical “bandit’s mask”pattern over the eyes; longpointed wings; and a longwailing call made duringbreeding. Very adept flyersand hunters, reaching divingspeeds of 200 mph.Apache, Cochise,Coconino, Gila,Graham,Greenlee, La Paz,Maricopa,Mohave, Navajo,Pima, Pinal,Santa Cruz,Yavapai, Yuma3,500-9,000 ft Areas with rocky, steepcliffs, primarily near water,where prey (primarilyshorebirds, songbirds, andwaterfowl) concentrationsare high. Nests are foundon ledges of cliffs, andsometimes on man-madestructures such as officetowers and bridgeabutments.Species recovered with over 1,650breeding birds in the US and Canada.Thursday, January 19, 2012 Cochise CountyPage 8 of 8

COUNTYApacheApacheApacheApacheApacheApacheApacheApacheCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKREPTILE Chrysemys picta bellii Western Painted Turtle PR ARAAD01011 S1SE2 G5T5REPTILE Coluber constrictor Racer A ARADB07010 S1 G5REPTILE Crotalus viridis Prairie Rattlesnake PR ARADE02120 S1 G5REPTILE Lampropeltis triangulum taylori Utah Milksnake 4 ARADB19058 S2 G5T4QREPTILE Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard ARACF12080 S4 G5REPTILE Plestiodon multivirgatus epipleurotusVariable Skink PR ARACH01091 S3S4 G5T5REPTILE Thamnophis eques megalops Northern Mexican Gartersnake C S A WSC ARADB36061 S1 G5T5REPTILE Thamnophis rufipunctatus Narrow-headed Gartersnake SC S S WSC ARADB36110 S1 G3G4AMPHIBIAN Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi Sonora Tiger Salamander LE PR WSC AAAAA01145 S1 G5T1T2AMPHIBIAN Anaxyrus debilis insidior Western Green Toad PR AAABB01062 S3 G5T5AMPHIBIAN Craugastor augusti cactorum Western Barking Frog S S WSC AAABD04171 S2 G5T5AMPHIBIAN Hyla wrightorum (Huachuca/Canelo Arizona Treefrog (Huachuca/Canelo C,DPS AAABC02082 S1 G4T2Pop.)DPS)AMPHIBIAN Rana blairi Plains Leopard Frog S WSC AAABH01040 S1 G5AMPHIBIAN Rana chiricahuensis Chiricahua Leopard Frog LT A WSC AAABH01080 S2 G3AMPHIBIAN Rana yavapaiensis Lowland Leopard Frog SC S S PR WSC AAABH01250 S3 G4AMPHIBIAN Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot AAABF02010 S4 G5BIRD Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk SC S S 4 A WSC ABNKC12060 S3B G5BIRD Amazilia beryllina Berylline Hummingbird ABNUC29080 S1 G4BIRD Amazilia violiceps Violet-crowned Hummingbird S WSC ABNUC29150 S3 G5BIRD Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow SC S S WSC ABPBXA0010 S2N G4BIRDAmmodramus savannarum Arizona grasshopper sparrow S ABPBXA0021 S2 G5TUammolegusBIRD Anas platyrhynchos diazi Mexican Duck ABNJB10062 S4 G5T5BIRD Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit C WSC ABPBM02060 S2N G4BIRD Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle 3 P ABNKC22010 S4 G5BIRD Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron | ABNGA04010 S5 G57

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKBIRD Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 4 A ABNSB10012 S3 G4T4BIRD Basileuterus rufifrons Rufous-capped Warbler ABPBX21020 SAB G4G5BIRD Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed Hawk S ABNKC19090 S4 G4BIRD Buteo nitidus maxima Northern Gray Hawk SC S S PR WSC ABNKC19011 S3 G5T4QBIRD Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk S S ABNKC19070 S3 G5BIRD Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black-Hawk S S A WSC ABNKC15010 S3 G4G5BIRD Calothorax lucifer Lucifer Hummingbird S ABNUC44010 S2 G4G5BIRD Camptostoma imberbe Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet S ABPAE04010 S4 G5BIRD Caprimulgus ridgwayi Buff-collared Nightjar S ABNTA07060 S2S3 G5BIRD Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush ABPBJ18100 S1 G5BIRD Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher ABNXD02020 S2 G5BIRD Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening Grosbeak ABPBY09020 S3 G5BIRD Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western C S 2WSC ABNRB02020 S3 G5U.S. DPS)BIRD Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck WSC ABNJB01040 S3 G5BIRD Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird S WSC ABPBK01010 S1 G5BIRD Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite ABNKC06010 S2B,S2S3N G5BIRD Empidonax fulvifrons pygmaeus Northern Buff-breasted Flycatcher SC S WSC ABPAE33141 S1 G5T5BIRD Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern Willow Flycatcher LE Y2 WSC ABPAE33043 S1 G5T1T2BIRD Euptilotis neoxenus Eared Quetzal S A ABNWA03010 SAB,S1N G3BIRD Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SC S S 4 A WSC ABNKD06071 S4 G4T4BIRDHaliaeetus leucocephalus (wintering Bald Eagle - Winter Population SC S S 2 P WSC ABNKC10015 S4N G5TNRpop.)BIRD Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt ABNND01010 S2 G5BIRD Icterus bullockii Bullock's Oriole ABPBXB9220 S? G5BIRD Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite S A WSC ABNKC09010 S3 G5BIRD Lampornis clemenciae Blue-throated Hummingbird ABNUC34040 S4 G58

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKBIRD Peucaea carpalis Rufous-winged Sparrow ABPBX91080 S3 G4BIRD Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis SC S ABNGE02020 S?B,S2S3N G5BIRD Polioptila nigriceps Black-capped Gnatcatcher WSC ABPBJ08040 S1 G5BIRD Recurvirostra americana American Avocet ABNND02010 S2 G5BIRD Sialia sialis fulva Azure Bluebird ABPBJ15012 S3 G5TUBIRD Spinus tristis American Goldfinch A ABPBY06110 S1B,S5N G5BIRD Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican Spotted Owl LT Y3 A WSC ABNSB12012 S3S4 G3T3BIRD Tachybaptus dominicus Least Grebe ABNCA01010 SAB G5BIRD Trogon elegans Elegant Trogon WSC ABNWA02070 S3 G5BIRD Tyrannus crassirostris Thick-billed Kingbird S S WSC ABPAE52040 S2 G5BIRD Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird WSC ABPAE52010 S3 G5FISH Agosia chrysogaster chrysogaster Gila Longfin Dace SC S S A AFCJB37151 S3S4 G4T3T4FISH Agosia chrysogaster ssp. 1 Yaqui Longfin Dace SC S S A AFCJB37152 S1 G4T1FISH Campostoma ornatum Mexican Stoneroller SC S P WSC AFCJB03030 S1 G3FISH Catostomus clarkii Desert Sucker SC S S AFCJC02040 S3S4 G3G4FISH Catostomus insignis Sonora Sucker SC S S P AFCJC02100 S3 G3FISH Cyprinella formosa Beautiful Shiner LT YA WSC AFCJB49080 S1 G2FISH Gila intermedia Gila Chub LE YP WSC AFCJB13160 S2 G2FISH Gila purpurea Yaqui Chub LE YP WSC AFCJB13140 S1 G1FISH Ictalurus pricei Yaqui Catfish LT YPR WSC AFCKA01090 S1 G2FISH Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonoriensis Yaqui Topminnow LE A WSC AFCNC05022 S1 G3T3FISH Rhinichthys osculus Speckled Dace SC S P AFCJB37050 S3S4 G5INVERTEBRATE Agathymus aryxna Arizona Giant Skipper IILEP87080 S5 G4G5INVERTEBRATE Agathymus evansi Huachuca Giant-skipper S IILEP87110 S3 G2G3INVERTEBRATE Agathymus neumoegeni Neumogen's Giant Skipper IILEP87010 S3 G4G59

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKINVERTEBRATE Anthocharis cethura Desert Orangetip IILEPA6010 S4 G4G5INVERTEBRATE Cicindela oregona maricopa Maricopa Tiger Beetle SC IICOL02362 S3 G5T3INVERTEBRATE Discus shimekii Striate Disc SC IMGAS54120 S2? G5INVERTEBRATE Ellipsoptera nevadica citata Chiricahua Tiger Beetle IICOL02175 S1 G5T3INVERTEBRATE Erynnis scudderi Scudder's Dusky Wing IILEP37070 S1S2 G4G5INVERTEBRATE Eumorsea balli Ball's Monkey Grasshopper IIORT14020 S1 G2G4INVERTEBRATE Neophasia terlooii Chiricahua Pine White IILEP99020 S4 G3G4INVERTEBRATE Psephenus arizonensis Arizona Water Penny Beetle SC IICOL63010 S2? G2?INVERTEBRATE Pyrgulopsis bernardina San Bernardino Springsnail C S IMGASJ0950 S1 G1INVERTEBRATE Pyrgulopsis thompsoni Huachuca Springsnail C S S IMGASJ0230 S2 G2INVERTEBRATE Sonorella neglecta Portal Talussnail IMGASC9440 SH G1INVERTEBRATE Sphingicampa raspa A Royal Moth IILEW0H080 S? G1G2INVERTEBRATE Stygobromus arizonensis Arizona Cave Amphipod SC ICMAL05360 S1? G1INVERTEBRATE Sympetrum signiferum Spot-winged Meadowhawk IIODO61150 S2 G2G3MAMMAL Antrozous pallidus Pallid Bat AMACC10010 S4 G5MAMMAL Baiomys taylori Northern Pygmy Mouse S AMAFF05010 S3 G4G5MAMMAL Bat Colony OBATCOLONY SU GNRMAMMAL Bat Foraging Area High Netting Concentration OBATFORAG1 SU GNRMAMMAL Choeronycteris mexicana Mexican Long-tongued Bat SC S S A WSC AMACB02010 S3 G4MAMMAL Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Pale Townsend's Big-eared Bat SC S S 4AMACC08014 S3S4 G4T4MAMMAL Didelphis virginiana californica Mexican Opossum AMAAA01011 S3 G5TNRMAMMAL Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat AMACC04010 S4S5 G5MAMMAL Eumops perotis californicus Greater Western Bonneted Bat SC S S AMACD02011 S3 G5T4MAMMAL Idionycteris phyllotis Allen's Lappet-browed Bat SC S AMACC09010 S2S3 G3G4MAMMAL Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat PR AMACC02010 S3S4 G510

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKMAMMAL Lasiurus blossevillii Western Red Bat S S WSC AMACC05060 S3 G5MAMMAL Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat NoStatusAMACC05030 S4 G5MAMMAL Lasiurus xanthinus Western Yellow Bat S S WSC AMACC05070 S2S3 G5MAMMAL Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae Lesser Long-nosed Bat LE | WSC AMACB03030 S2S3 G4MAMMAL Mustela frenata Long-tailed Weasel AMAJF02030 S4 G5MAMMAL Myotis auriculus Southwestern Myotis AMACC01080 S3 G5MAMMAL Myotis californicus California Myotis AMACC01120 S4S5 G5MAMMAL Myotis ciliolabrum Western Small-footed Myotis SC AMACC01140 S3S4 G5MAMMAL Myotis occultus Arizona Myotis SC AMACC01160 S3 G3G4MAMMAL Myotis thysanodes Fringed Myotis SC AMACC01090 S3S4 G4G5MAMMAL Myotis velifer Cave Myotis SC AMACC01050 S3S4 G5MAMMAL Myotis volans Long-legged Myotis SC AMACC01110 S3S4 G5MAMMAL Neotoma mexicana Mexican Woodrat AMAFF08070 S5 G5MAMMAL Notiosorex cockrumi Cockrum's Desert Shrew S AMABA05020 S1 GNRMAMMAL Nyctinomops femorosaccus Pocketed Free-tailed Bat S AMACD04010 S3 G4MAMMAL Nyctinomops macrotis Big Free-tailed Bat SC AMACD04020 S3 G5MAMMAL Panthera onca Jaguar LE PP WSC AMAJH02010 S1 G3MAMMAL Reithrodontomys fulvescens Fulvous Harvest Mouse S AMAFF02050 S4 G5MAMMAL Reithrodontomys montanus Plains Harvest Mouse S AMAFF02010 S3 G5MAMMAL Sciurus nayaritensis chiricahuae Chiricahua Fox Squirrel SC S AMAFB07051 S2 G5T2MAMMAL Sigmodon ochrognathus Yellow-nosed Cotton Rat SC S AMAFF07040 S4 G4G5MAMMAL Sorex arizonae Arizona Shrew SC S P WSC AMABA01240 S2 G3MAMMAL Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian Free-tailed Bat AMACD01010 S3S4 G5MAMMAL Thomomys bottae Botta's Pocket Gopher AMAFC01020 S5 G5MAMMAL Thomomys bottae mearnsi Mearns' Southern Pocket Gopher SC PS AMAFC0102G S5 G5T511

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Adiantum pedatum American Maidenhair PPADI030B0 S5 G5PLANT Aeschynomene villosa Sensitive Joint Vetch PDFAB04070 S2? G4PLANT Ageratina lemmonii Lemmon's Thorough-wort PDASTBX0L0 S1 G3?PLANT Allium plummerae Plummer Onion SR PMLIL021V0 S3 G4PLANT Allium rhizomatum Redflower Onion SR PMLIL02320 S1 G3?QPLANT Ammocodon chenopodioides Goosefoot Moonpod PDNYC04010 S1 G5PLANT Apacheria chiricahuensis Chiricahua Rock Flower SR PDCRO01010 S2 G2PLANT Arabis tricornuta Chiricahua Rock Cress S PDBRA06200 S1? G1?PLANT Arceuthobium blumeri Blumer Dwarf Mistletoe PDVIS03040 S1? G3?PLANT Asclepias lemmonii Lemmon Milkweed S PDASC020Z0 S2 G4?PLANT Asclepias quinquedentata Tooth Hood Milkweed PDASC021L0 S2 G4PLANT Asplenium dalhousiae Dalhouse Spleenwort S PPASP020A0 S1 GNRPLANT Asplenium exiguum Sonoran Spleenwort PPASP020D0 S1 GUPLANT Aster pauciflorus Marsh Alkali Aster PDASTEL010 S1 G4PLANT Aster potosinus Lemmon's Aster PDASTE8160 S1 G2PLANT Astragalus cobrensis var. maguirei Coppermine Milk-vetch SC S SR PDFAB0F262 S1 G4T2PLANT Astragalus hypoxylus Huachuca Milk-vetch SC S S SR PDFAB0F470 S1 G1PLANT Atriplex griffithsii Griffith Saltbush PDCHE040S0 S2S3 G2G3PLANT Bouchea prismatica Prism Bouchea PDVER04020 S4 G4G5PLANT Carex chihuahuensis Chihuahuan Sedge S PMCYP032T0 S2S3 G3G4PLANT Carex meadii Mead Sedge PMCYP03870 S3? G4G5PLANT Carex ultra Arizona Giant Sedge S S PMCYP03E50 S2 G3?PLANT Castilleja lanata White-woolly Indian-paintbrush PDSCR0D1L0 S4 G5PLANT Castilleja nervata Trans-pecos Indian-paintbrush S PDSCR0D270 S1 G3QPLANT Castilleja patriotica Tricolor Indian Paintbrush PDSCR0D2F0 S3S4 G412

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Centaurea rothrockii Knap Thistle PDAST1Y0P0 S3 G4PLANT Cheilanthes arizonica Arizona Lip Fern PPADI09030 S2 G4PLANT Cleome multicaulis Playa Spider Plant SC SR PDCPP03080 S1 G2G3PLANT Coryphantha robbinsorum Cochise Pincushion Cactus LT HS PDCAC0X0C0 S1 G1PLANT Coryphantha scheeri var. valida Slender Needle Corycactus SR PDCAC040C4 S3? G4T4PLANT Coryphantha sneedii Carpet Foxtail Cactus SR PDCAC0X0E0 S1 G2PLANT Coursetia glabella Smooth Baby-bonnets SC S PDFAB140B0 S1 G3?PLANT Croton fruticulosus Encinillas PDEUP0H0F0 S1 G5PLANT Dichondra argentea Silver Pony Foot PDCON08010 S1 G4PLANT Draba standleyi Standley Whitlow-grass SC PDBRA112G0 S2S3 G2G3PLANT Echinocereus ledingii Pinaleno Hedgehog Cactus SR PDCAC06066 S4 G4G5T4PLANT Echinocereus pseudopectinatus A HEDGEHOG CACTUS SR PDCAC060P0 S1 G4PLANTEchinomastus erectocentrus var.erectocentrusNeedle-spined Pineapple Cactus SC SR PDCAC0J0E2 S3 G3T3QPLANT Epithelantha micromeris Button Cactus PR SR PDCAC07020 S1 G4PLANT Eragrostis obtusiflora Alkali Lovegrass PMPOA2K150 S3 G5PLANT Erigeron arisolius Arid Throne Fleabane S PDAST3M510 S2 G2PLANT Erigeron arizonicus Arizona Fleabane PDAST3M0B0 S3 G3?PLANT Erigeron kuschei Chiricahua Fleabane SC S SR PDAST3M240 S1 G1PLANT Erigeron lemmonii Lemmon Fleabane C HS PDAST3M2A0 S1 G1PLANT Erigeron sceptrifer Scepterbearing Fleabane PDAST3M520 S1 GNRPLANT Erigeron scopulinus Winn Falls Fleabane PDAST3M4E0 S1 G3?PLANT Eriogonum capillare San Carlos Wild-buckwheat SC SR PDPGN08100 S4 G4PLANT Eriogonum terrenatum San Pedro River Wild Buckwheat S PDPGN08760 S1 G1PLANT Eryngium lemmonii Lemmon Button Snakeroot PDAPI0Z0J0 S3 G4PLANT Eryngium sparganophyllum Ribbonleaf Button Snakeroot PDAPI0Z0T0 S1 G213

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Euphorbia macropus Woodland Spurge SC SR PDEUP0Q2U0 S2 G4PLANT Euphorbia trachysperma Roughseed Spurge PDEUP0D2E0 S4 G4PLANT Fraxinus gooddingii Goodding Ash PDOLE04080 S3 G3PLANT Gentianella wislizeni Wislizeni Gentian SC S SR PDGEN07090 S1 G2PLANT Gentianopsis macrantha Mexican Fringed Gentian PDGEN08060 S1S2 G4PLANT Graptopetalum bartramii Bartram Stonecrop SC S S SR PDCRA06010 S3 G3PLANT Gutierrezia wrightii Wright's Snakeweed PDAST4B0C0 S2S3 G4?PLANT Hedeoma costatum Chiricahua Mock Pennyroyal PDLAM0M0L0 S1 G5PLANT Hedeoma dentatum Mock-pennyroyal PDLAM0M0M0 S3 G3PLANT Heteranthera limosa Mud Plantain PMPON03030 S1 G5PLANT Heterotheca rutteri Huachuca Golden Aster SC S S PDAST4V0J0 S2 G2PLANT Heuchera glomerulata Arizona Alum Root S PDSAX0E0F0 S3 G3PLANT Hexalectris revoluta Chisos Coral-root S PMORC1C030 S1 G1G2PLANT Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot SR PMORC1C040 S3S4 G5PLANT Hexalectris spicata var. arizonica Arizona Crested coralroot S SR PMORC1C041 S1S2 G5T2T4PLANT Hexalectris warnockii Texas Purple Spike SC S S HS PMORC1C050 S1 G2G3PLANT Hieracium pringlei Pringle Hawkweed SC PDAST4W170 S1 G2QPLANT Hieracium rusbyi Rusby Hawkweed S PDAST4W1A0 S1 G2?PLANTHymenoxys ambigens var. A Daisy PDAST530T2 S2 G3?T2floribundaPLANT Hymenoxys quinquesquamata Five Scale Bitterweed PDAST530F0 S3 G3PLANT Hypoxis mexicana Yellow Star Grass PMLIL16030 S1 G5PLANT Ibervillea tenuisecta Texas Globe Berry PDCUC0F020 S1 G4PLANT Ipomoea plummerae var. cuneifolia Huachuca Morning Glory PDCON0A141 S3 G4T3PLANT Ipomoea tenuiloba Trumpet Morning-glory PDCON0A1H0 S4 G4PLANT Ipomoea thurberi Thurber's Morning-glory PDCON0A1K0 S1 G314

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Justicia sonorae Palm Canyon Justicia PDACA0E0K0 SE G4PLANT Laennecia eriophylla Woolly Fleabane PDASTDL020 S2 G3PLANT Leibnitzia lyrata Woodland Sunbonnets PDASTDM010 S4 G5PLANT Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva Huachuca Water-umbel LE YHS PDAPI19051 S2 G4T2PLANT Lilium parryi Lemmon Lily SC S SR PMLIL1A0J0 S2 G3PLANT Lithospermum viride Green Puccoon PDBOR0L0G0 S1 G4PLANT Lobelia fenestralis Leafy Lobelia SR PDCAM0E0H0 S1 G4PLANT Lupinus huachucanus Huachuca Mountain Lupine S PDFAB2B210 S2 G2PLANT Lupinus lemmonii Lemmon's Lupine S PDFAB2B2A0 S1S2Q G1G2QPLANT Machaeranthera riparia Chiricahua Mountain Tansy-aster PDAST641B0 S1 G4PLANT Malaxis corymbosa Madrean Adders Mouth SR PMORC1R020 S3S4 G4PLANT Malaxis porphyrea Purple Adder's Mouth SR PMORC1R0Q0 S2 G4PLANT Malaxis tenuis Slender Adders Mouth SR PMORC1R090 S1 G4PLANT Mammillaria viridiflora Varied Fishhook Cactus SR PDCAC0A0D0 S4 G4PLANT Mammillaria wrightii var. wilcoxii Wilcox Fishhook Cactus SR PDCAC0A0E1 S4 G4T4PLANT Mentzelia lindheimeri Lindheimer Stickleaf PDLOA030U0 S1 G4PLANT Mentzelia oligosperma Sparseseed Stickleaf PDLOA03170 S1 G4PLANT Metastelma mexicanum Wiggins Milkweed Vine SC S PDASC050P0 S1S2 G3G4PLANT Microchloa kunthii Kunth Grass PMPOA40010 S1 G5PLANT Muhlenbergia dubioides Box Canyon Muhly S PMPOA480G0 S1 G1QPLANT Nemastylis tenuis Slender Shell Flower PMIRI0B040 S1 G5PLANT Nissolia wislizeni Arizona Nissolia PDFAB2Q030 S1 G2G4PLANT Notholaena aschenborniana Aschenborn Cloak Fern PPADI0G020 S1 G4PLANT Notholaena neglecta Neglected Cloak Fern PPADI0G0F0 S1 G4PLANT Oenothera havardii Havard Primrose PDONA0C0K0 S1 G415

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Ophioglossum engelmannii Engelmann Adders Tongue PPOPH02040 S1 G5PLANT Pectis imberbis Beardless Chinch Weed SC S PDAST6W0A0 S1 G3PLANT Pediomelum pentaphyllum Chihuahua Scurfpea SC S PDFAB5L070 S1 G1PLANT Pediomelum sp. 1 PDFAB5L0N0 S? GNRPLANT Pellaea ternifolia Ternate Cliffbrake PPADI0H0B0 S2 G5PLANT Peniocereus greggii var. greggii Night-blooming Cereus SC PR SR PDCAC0V011 S1 G3G4T2PLANT Penstemon discolor Catalina Beardtongue S HS PDSCR1L210 S2 G2PLANT Penstemon pinifolius Pineleaf Beardtongue PDSCR1L500 S3 G3G4PLANT Penstemon ramosus Branching Penstemon PDSCR1L7L0 S1 G3G4QPLANT Penstemon stenophyllus Narrowleaf Beardtongue PDSCR1L5V0 S3 G4?PLANT Penstemon superbus Superb Beardtongue PDSCR1L630 S2? G3?PLANT Perityle cochisensis Chiricahua Rock Daisy S SR PDAST70080 S1S2 G1G2PLANT Phyllanthus polygonoides Knotleaf Flower PDEUP130E0 S2 G5PLANT Physalis latiphysa Broad-leaf Ground-cherry S PDSOL0S0H0 S1 G1PLANT Physocarpus monogynus Mountain Ninebark PDROS19040 S4 G4PLANT Pinaropappus roseus Rock Lettuce PDAST78020 S2 G5PLANT Platanthera limosa Thurber's Bog Orchid SR PMORC1Y0G0 S4 G4PLANT Polemonium flavum Pinaleno Jacobs Ladder PDPLM0E0B2 S2 G5T3?PLANTPolemonium pauciflorum ssp. Hinckley's Ladder SC S PDPLM0E0G1 S1 G3G5T2QhinckleyiPLANT Polygala glochidiata Spiny Milkwort PDPGL020J0 S2 G5PLANT Psacalium decompositum Sonoran Indian-plantain PDASTDS010 S2 G4?PLANT Psilactis gentryi Mexican Bare-ray-aster S PDASTE7010 S1 G3PLANT Psorothamnus scoparius Broom Pea PDFAB3C070 S1 G4PLANT Pyrrhopappus rothrockii False Dandelion PDAST7V050 S3 G4PLANT Ranunculus arizonicus Arizona Buttercup PDRAN0L0B0 S3 G416

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Rhamnus serrata Serrate Buckbrush PDRHA0C0D0 S1 G4G5PLANT Rumex orthoneurus Blumer's Dock SC S HS PDPGN0P0Z0 S3 G3PLANT Sagittaria montevidensis Long-lobed Arrow-head PMALI040K0 S1 G4G5PLANT Salvia amissa Aravaipa Sage SC S S PDLAM1S020 S2 G2PLANT Samolus vagans Chiricahua Mountain Brookweed S PDPRI09040 S2 G2?PLANT Schiedeella arizonica Fallen Ladies'-tresses SR PMORC67020 S4 GNRPLANT Senecio carlomasonii Seemann Groundsel PDAST8H3W0 S2S3 G4?QPLANTSenecio multidentatus var.huachucanusHuachuca Groundsel S HS PDAST8H411 S2 G2G4T2PLANT Senecio neomexicanus var. toumeyi Toumey Groundsel S PDAST8H274 S2 G5T2QPLANT Senecio parryi Mountain Groundsel PDAST8H2B0 S4 G4PLANT Seymeria bipinnatisecta Sierra Madre Seymeria PDSCR1T060 S1 G4G5PLANT Sisyrinchium cernuum Nodding Blue-eyed Grass S PMIRI0D0B0 S2 G5PLANT Solanum heterodoxum Melonleaf Nightshade PDSOL0Z0X0 S4 G4G5PLANT Sophora arizonica Arizona Necklace PDFAB3N020 S3 G3PLANT Spiranthes delitescens Madrean Ladies'-tresses LE HS PMORC2B140 S1 G1PLANT Stellaria porsildii Porsild's Starwort S PDCAR0X160 S1 G1PLANT Stenorrhynchos michuacanum Michoacan Ladies'-tresses SR PMORC2B0L0 S3 G4PLANT Streptanthus carinatus Lyre-leaved Twistflower PDBRA2G0C0 S3S4 G4PLANT Talinum angustissimum Yellow Flame Flower PDPOR08010 S2 G4PLANT Talinum marginatum Tepic Flame Flower SC S SR PDPOR080N0 S1 G2PLANT Tephrosia thurberi Thurber Hoary Pea PDFAB3X0M0 S3 G4G5PLANT Tillandsia recurvata Ball Moss PMBRO090E0 S2 G5PLANT Tragia amblyodonta Tombstone Noseburn PDEUP1D010 S1 G4PLANT Tragia laciniata Sonoran Noseburn S PDEUP1D060 S3? G3G4PLANT Trifolium amabile Linda Clover PDFAB40030 S1S2 G417

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKPLANT Tripsacum lanceolatum Mexican Gama Grass PMPOA68030 S2S3 G4PLANTVauquelinia californica ssp.paucifloraLimestone Arizona Rosewood SC SR PDROS1R022 S1 G4T3PLANT Viola umbraticola Shade Violet S PDVIO042E0 S2? G3G4PLANT Xanthisma texanum Sleepy Daisy PDAST9Y010 S1 G5PLANT Zigadenus virescens Green Death Camas SR PMLIL280E0 S4 G4REPTILE Aspidoscelis burti stictogrammus Giant Spotted Whiptail SC S ARACJ02011 S2 G4T4REPTILE Aspidoscelis exsanguis Chihuahuan Spotted Whiptail ARACJ02030 S2 G5REPTILE Crotalus lepidus klauberi Banded Rock Rattlesnake PR ARADE02051 S3 G5T5REPTILE Crotalus pricei Twin-spotted Rattlesnake S PR ARADE02080 S2 G5REPTILE Crotalus willardi obscurus New Mexico Ridge-nosedRattlesnakeLT PR ARADE02131 S1 G5T1T2REPTILE Crotalus willardi willardi Arizona Ridge-nosed Rattlesnake S PR WSC ARADE02132 S1S2 G5T4REPTILEGopherus agassizii (Sonoran Sonoran Desert Tortoise SC S S A WSC ARAAF01013 S4 G4T4Population)REPTILE Gyalopion canum Chihuahuan Hook-nosed Snake ARADB16010 S3 G5REPTILE Heloderma suspectum suspectum Reticulate Gila Monster S A ARACE01012 S4 G4T4REPTILE Heterodon kennerlyi Mexican Hog-nosed Snake PR ARADB17012 S3 G5T4REPTILE Kinosternon flavescens Yellow Mud Turtle ARAAE01020 S1 G5REPTILE Lampropeltis triangulum celaenops New Mexico Milksnake A ARADB19052 S1 G5TNRREPTILE Phrynosoma cornutum Texas Horned Lizard SC A ARACF12010 S3S4 G4G5REPTILE Phrynosoma hernandesi Greater Short-horned Lizard ARACF12080 S4 G5REPTILE Phrynosoma modestum Round-tailed Horned Lizard ARACF12050 S3 G5REPTILE Plestiodon callicephalus Mountain Skink S ARACH01030 S2 G4G5REPTILE Sceloporus slevini Slevin's Bunchgrass Lizard S ARACF14180 S2 G4REPTILE Sceloporus virgatus Striped Plateau Lizard ARACF14150 S3 G4REPTILE Senticolis triaspis intermedia Northern Green Ratsnake S ARADB44011 S3 G5T4REPTILE Sistrurus catenatus edwardsii Desert Massasauga PR WSC ARADE03012 S1 G3G4T3T4Q18

COUNTYCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCochiseCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCoconinoCRITTAXON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ESA BLMHABUSFS NESL MEXFED STATE ELCODE S RANK G RANKREPTILE Tantilla nigriceps Plains Black-headed Snake ARADB35050 S2 G5REPTILE Tantilla wilcoxi Chihuahuan Black-headed Snake ARADB35120 S1 G4REPTILE Tantilla yaquia Yaqui Black-headed Snake S ARADB35130 S2 G4REPTILE Terrapene ornata luteola Desert Box Turtle PR ARAAD08021 S2S3 G5T4REPTILE Thamnophis eques megalops Northern Mexican Gartersnake C S A WSC ARADB36061 S1 G5T5AMPHIBIAN Anaxyrus microscaphus Arizona Toad SC S AAABB01110 S3S4 G3G4AMPHIBIAN Pseudacris triseriata Western Chorus Frog AAABC05130 S5 G5AMPHIBIAN Rana chiricahuensis Chiricahua Leopard Frog LT A WSC AAABH01080 S2 G3AMPHIBIAN Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog S S 2WSC AAABH01170 S2 G5AMPHIBIAN Rana yavapaiensis Lowland Leopard Frog SC S S PR WSC AAABH01250 S3 G4AMPHIBIAN Spea intermontana Great Basin Spadefoot AAABF02030 S3 G5BIRD Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk SC S S 4 A WSC ABNKC12060 S3B G5BIRD Anthus rubescens American Pipit ABPBM02050 S2B,S5N G5BIRD Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle 3 P ABNKC22010 S4 G5BIRD Asio otus Long-eared Owl ABNSB13010 S2B,S3S4N G5BIRD Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western Burrowing Owl SC S S 4 A ABNSB10012 S3 G4T4BIRD Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed Hawk S ABNKC19090 S4 G4BIRD Buteo regalis Ferruginous Hawk SC S S 3WSC ABNKC19120 S2B,S4N G4BIRD Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk S S ABNKC19070 S3 G5BIRD Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black-Hawk S S A WSC ABNKC15010 S3 G4G5BIRD Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture ABNKA02010 S5 G5BIRD Empidonax traillii extimus Southwestern Willow Flycatcher LE Y2 WSC ABPAE33043 S1 G5T1T2BIRD Euptilotis neoxenus Eared Quetzal S A ABNWA03010 SAB,S1N G3BIRD Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon SC S S 4 A WSC ABNKD06071 S4 G4T4BIRD Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle SC S S 2 P WSC ABNKC10010 S2S3B,S4N G519