3-4512345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546473.13.2.4 Alternative 3Alternative 3 would result in aesthetic impacts similar to those described for the PreferredAlternative.3.13.2.5 Alternative 4The visual resources at the Alternative 4 site, including several potentially NHRP-eligiblebuildings, would be modified. Th<strong>us</strong>, these modifications would distract from the aesthetics ofthe ranch site; but the ranch is not visible to the casual traveler, and the resulting impact onaesthetics and visual resources would be minor.3.14 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS3.14.1 Affected EnvironmentHazardo<strong>us</strong> materials and substances are regulated in Arizona by a combination of mandated lawspromulgated by the USEPA and the AZDEQ. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment wasconducted for the Preferred Alternative site in accordance with the American Society for Testingand Materials International standard E1527-05. This <strong>assessment</strong> included a search of Federaland state records for known hazardo<strong>us</strong> waste sites, potential hazardo<strong>us</strong> waste sites, and remedialactivities, including sites that are on the National Priorities List or being considered for the list.No evidence of hazardo<strong>us</strong> materials or recognized <strong>environmental</strong> conditions was detected on-siteor near the site during the field surveys conducted on May 5, 2011, or during the EnvironmentalSite Assessment.The Alternative 4 site does contain ASTs for fuel and abandoned underground storage tanks(USTs) for fuel, as well as numero<strong>us</strong> pieces of heavy equipment, <strong>us</strong>ed oil containers, aircraft,and other hazardo<strong>us</strong> materials in small containers. No immediate concerns for hazardo<strong>us</strong>materials were observed during the May 2011 site inspection.3.14.2 Environmental Consequences3.14.2.1 No Action AlternativeUnder the No Action Alternative no impacts would be expected. Indirect impacts from illegalactivity would continue. More agents would be required to <strong>patrol</strong> the remote eastern zones of theUSBP Douglas Station’s AOR to account for the necessary drive time to their <strong>patrol</strong> areas.Indirect impacts from CBV activities and subsequent USBP interdiction activities would begreater under the No Action Alternative than any of the other alternatives.3.14.2.2 Preferred AlternativeAll hazardo<strong>us</strong> and regulated wastes and substances generated by the Preferred Alternative wouldbe collected, characterized, labeled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance with allFederal, state, and local regulations, including proper waste manifesting procedures. All otherhazardo<strong>us</strong> and regulated materials or substances would be handled according to materials safetydata sheet instructions and would not affect water, soils, vegetation, wildlife, or the safety ofUSBP agents and staff. The fuel ASTs installed at the proposed FOB would be contained withinprotective berms to prevent the release of any tank spills, and fuel trucks would likely be <strong>us</strong>ed toresupply the ASTs at the proposed FOB. Likewise, generator fuel would also be containedwithin a secondary enclosure. Therefore, hazardo<strong>us</strong> and regulated materials and substanceswould not impact the public, groundwater, or the general environment.Douglas FOB EADraftAug<strong>us</strong>t 2011
3-46123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536The potential impacts of the handling and disposal of hazardo<strong>us</strong> and regulated materials andsubstances during construction would be negligible when BMPs as described in Section 5 areimplemented.3.14.2.3 Alternative 2Alternative 2 impacts relative to hazardo<strong>us</strong> materials and substances would be similar to thosedescribed for the Preferred Alternative.3.14.2.4 Alternative 3Alternative 3 impacts relative to hazardo<strong>us</strong> materials and substances would be similar to thosedescribed for the Preferred Alternative.3.14.2.5 Alternative 4Alternative 4 impacts relative to hazardo<strong>us</strong> materials and substances would be similar to thosedescribed for the Preferred Alternative.3.15 SOCIOECONOMICS3.15.1 Affected Environment3.15.1.1 Population and DemographicsThe 2009 cens<strong>us</strong> estimated the population of Cochise County to be 125,518. This is an increaseof 6.6 percent from the 2000 cens<strong>us</strong> population of 117,755 (U.S. Cens<strong>us</strong> Bureau 2009a). Thepopulation trends for 1990, 2000, and 2009 for Cochise County and the State of Arizona arerepresented in Table 3-7.Table 3-7. Population Cens<strong>us</strong> 1990 to 2009Geographic Region 1990 2000 2009Difference inpopulation from1990 – 2009(percent)Cochise County 97,624 117,755 129,518 25.4State of Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 6,595,778 44.4Sources: U.S. Cens<strong>us</strong> Bureau 2009a and 2009bAccording to the 2005 to 2009 U.S. Cens<strong>us</strong> Bureau American Community Survey, the racial mixof Cochise County consists predominantly of Caucasians and persons that claim some other race.Of the Caucasian population in Cochise County, 31.5 percent are Latino or Hispanic. This ishigher than the Caucasian population in the State of Arizona that is Latino or Hispanic (29.8percent). The remainder is divided among African Americans, Native Americans, Asians,Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and people claiming to be two or more races. Cochise County hasa small portion of the population that claims two or more races, including some other race, andtwo or more races, excluding some other race, or three or more races (Table 3-8).Douglas FOB EADraftAug<strong>us</strong>t 2011