environmental assessment us border patrol, tucson sector

3-371234567891011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041effects, but rather as an indicator of a minimum level of GHG emissions that may warrant somedescription in the appropriate NEPA analysis for agency actions involving direct emissions ofGHGs (CEQ 2010).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 would continue. More agentswould be required to patrol the remote eastern zones of the USBP Douglas Station’s AOR toaccount for the necessary drive time to their patrol areas. Air emission impacts from CBVactivities and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would be greater under the No ActionAlternative than any of the other alternatives.3.9.2.2 Preferred AlternativeTemporary and minor increases in air emissions would occur from the use of constructionequipment (combustible emissions) and the disturbance of soils (fugitive dust) under thePreferred Alternative. The following paragraphs describe the air calculation methodologiesutilized to estimate air emissions produced by the construction of the FOB.Fugitive dust emissions were calculated using the emission factor of 0.19 ton per acre per month(Midwest Research Institute 1996), which is a more current standard than the 1985 PM-10emission factor of 1.2 tons per acre-month presented in AP-42 Section 13 Miscellaneous Sources13.2.3.3 (USEPA 2001).USEPA’s NONROAD Model (USEPA 2005a) was used, as recommended by USEPA’sProcedures Document for National Emission Inventory, Criteria Air Pollutants, 1985-1999(USEPA 2001), to calculate emissions from construction equipment. Combustible emissioncalculations were made for standard construction equipment, such as front-end loaders,backhoes, bulldozers, and cement trucks. Assumptions were made regarding the total number ofdays each piece of equipment will be used, and the number of hours per day each type ofequipment will be used.Construction workers would temporarily increase the combustible emissions in the airshedduring their commute to and from the project area. Emissions from delivery trucks would alsocontribute to the overall air emission budget. Emissions from delivery trucks and constructionworkers traveling to the job site were calculated using the USEPA MOBILE6.2 Model (USEPA2005b, 2005c, and 2005d).The total air quality emissions were calculated for the construction activities to compare to theGeneral Conformity Rule. Summaries of the total emissions for the Preferred Alternative arepresented in Table 3-5. Details of the analyses are presented in Appendix C.Douglas FOB EADraftAugust 2011