Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the Programmatic Environmental 
	 Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring Actions Resulting From Flood, Earthquake, 
	Fire, Rain, and Wind Disasters in California as Proposed by the Federal Emergency 
				 Management Agency

				Mojave Water Agency
		Groundwater Monitoring Wells Replacement Project
			FEMA-DR-1577-CA, Project Worksheet 560
				  October 2006

1.	INTRODUCTION
The Mojave Water Agency (MWA) has applied for funds from the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA), through the State of California Governor's Office of 
Emergency Services (OES), to replace groundwater monitoring wells that were located along 
the Mojave River in San Bernardino County, California (Appendix A). The monitoring wells 
were lost as a result of the severe storms, flooding, and debris flows that occurred in the 
region from December 27, 2004 through January 11, 2005. The natural disaster resulted in the 
presidential disaster declaration FEMA-DR-1577-CA. FEMA is proposing to fund the project 
under the Public Assistance (PA) Program that was implemented in response to the 
presidentially declared disaster.

1.1	SCOPE OF DOCUMENT
FEMA has prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Typical Recurring 
Actions Resulting From Flood, Earthquake, Fire, Rain, and Wind Disasters in California 
(PEA), which assesses common impacts of the action alternatives that are under consideration 
at the proposed project site (FEMA, 2003). The PEA adequately assesses impacts from the 
action alternatives for some resource areas, but for the specific actions of this particular 
project, some resources are not fully assessed in the PEA. 

Therefore, for this project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 
FEMA has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to tier from the 
PEA and fully assess the additional impacts to resources that are not adequately addressed in 
the PEA. The SEA hereby incorporates the PEA by reference, in accordance Title 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1508.28.

1.2	PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 
Public Law 93-288, as amended and Title 44 CFR, the PA Program provides supplemental aid 
to states and communities to help them recover from major disasters as quickly as possible. 
Specifically, the program provides assistance for the removal of debris, the implementation of 
emergency protective measures, and the permanent restoration of public infrastructure. The 
program also encourages protection from future damage by providing assistance for 
mitigation measures during the recovery process. Therefore, the purpose of this project is to 
provide PA funding to MWA to replace the groundwater monitoring wells that were lost 
during the presidentially declared disaster.

MWA manages groundwater in approximately 4,900 square miles of the High Desert in San 
Bernardino County. During the 2004-2005 winter storms, 17 groundwater monitoring wells 
were destroyed and lost from the Mojave River Basin monitoring well network, which is 
managed by MWA. These wells were originally installed from 1995 to 1997, and served as 
regular monitoring points used to obtain water level and water quality information. Therefore, 
action is needed to restore the groundwater monitoring network of the Mojave River Basin.

2.	DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1	NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
NEPA requires the inclusion of a No Action Alternative in the environmental analysis and 
documentation. The No Action Alternative is defined as maintaining the status quo with no 
FEMA funding for any alternative action. The No Action Alternative is used to evaluate the 
effects of not providing eligible assistance for the project, thus providing a benchmark against 
which action alternatives can be evaluated. The No Action Alternative is in conflict with 
FEMA's mission and the purpose of the PA Program. For the purpose of this alternative, it is 
assumed that MWA would be unable to implement a project for lack of federal assistance, and 
the groundwater monitoring network of the Mojave River Basin would not be restored. The 
level and quality of the groundwater would be at risk, which could threaten public health and 
safety. Adverse environmental, health, and safety effects resulting from such hazards would 
not be addressed under the No Action Alternative.

2.2	PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE
As defined in Section 2.3.5 of the PEA, the proposed project falls under the action alternative 
of Constructing New Facilities or Relocating Existing Facilities. MWA is proposing to 
replace the wells that were destroyed in the disaster with wells that are relocated to more 
accessible and less flood prone areas, and that use enhanced well designs. Under this 
Proposed Action Alternative, MWA would construct seven nested groundwater monitoring 
wells at five sites along the Mojave River between the Cities of Barstow and Apple Valley in 
San Bernardino County.

MWA would negotiate a 25-foot by 25-foot easement with the property owner of each of the 
proposed sites to ensure that MWA would have access to the wells into the future. MWA 
would then construct a nested monitoring well, comprised of two or more well casings 
installed within a single borehole, at each site. The boreholes would be 1 to 2 feet in diameter, 
and range in depth from 30 to 855 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Each well casing 
within the borehole would be approximately 3 inches in diameter. The screen interval of each 
well casing within the borehole would be set to different depths to allow monitoring of 
different hydrostratigraphic zones throughout the aquifer system. Table 1 below shows the 
screened intervals and total depths of the casings within the proposed wells.

		Table 1 MWA Monitoring Well Screened Intervals and Total Depths

						Screened Interval 	Total Depth	
Well No.	Owner	   			(feet bgs)		(feet bgs)

1		Bureau of Land Management	   20-30		    35
						   60-70		    75

2		San Bernardino County		   15-25		    30
						   40-50		    55	
						   90-100		    105

3 		Elisabella LLC			   302-312		    317
						   451-461		    466
						   690-700		    705

4		Elisabella LLC			   40-50		    55
						   90-100		    105
						   150-160		    165

5		Riverside Cement Company	   40-50   		    55
						   90-100		    105
						   150-160		    165

6		Riverside Cement Company	   300-310		    315
						   500-510		    515
						   840-850		    855

7		California Dept. of Fish and Game  8-13			    18
						   20-30		    35

A 4-foot by 4-foot well box would cover each of the proposed wells. The well box would be 
set in concrete that would extend approximately one foot from each side of the well box. The 
top of the completed monitoring well would not extend above the ground surface.

During construction, machines such as drill rigs, support trucks, shakers, loaders, pick-up 
trucks, and Baker tanks would be used. The temporary construction area would be 
approximately 150 feet by 150 feet around each proposed well site. Staging would also occur 
within this area. Construction would occur between the months of September and February, in 
order to avoid the breeding seasons of the southwestern willow flycatcher and the least Bell's 
vireo.

The remains of the groundwater monitoring wells that were destroyed during the disaster 
would be abandoned in place.

2.3	OTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORWARD
MWA considered reconstructing the lost wells at the same locations as before the disaster. 
Due to natural changes in the Mojave River, these sites now lie within the riverbed. 
Reconstruction at the pre-disaster sites would leave the wells vulnerable to flood hazard and 
repetitive damage. This alternative does not present a sensible solution to adequately protect 
the facilities and their function. Therefore, the alternative was dismissed from further 
consideration.

3.	AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The PEA has adequately described the affected environment and impacts of the proposed 
action for many resource areas, except for geology, seismicity, and soils; air quality; water 
resources; biological resources; cultural resources; and land use and planning. Therefore, the 
affected environment and environmental consequences for those resources are described in 
this section, which is intended to supplement the information contained in the PEA. Necessary 
avoidance and minimization measures, either stipulated in the PEA, or based on the results of 
the impact analysis in the SEA, that are appropriate for the proposed action, are discussed in 
Section 4. 

3.1	GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
The proposed wells would be located along the upland banks of the Mojave River between the 
Cities of Barstow and Apple Valley. This area is located in the Mojave Desert geomorphic 
province, which is characterized by isolated mountain ranges separated by expanses of desert 
plains. The Mojave Desert is located south of the Basin and Range Province and is bounded 
by the Garlock fault to the north, the Colorado River and the California-Nevada border to the 
east, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and the San Andreas fault to the 
southwest. Other faults in the vicinity of the project area include the Helendale and Harper 
Lake-Camp Rock faults. Due to its proximity to the San Andreas and other prominent faults, 
the project area is considered seismically active.

Widely separated short ranges jutting up from desert plains are the common landforms of this 
region. Isolated mountains and plateaus are flanked by broad alluvial fans, locally extending 
down to dry lake beds (playas) and dunes. Cenozoic nonmarine sedimentary and granitic 
rocks and alluvial deposits and Precambrian rocks of all types can be found throughout the 
Mojave Desert. As can be expected in this hot, dry climate, Aridisols and Entisols are the 
prevalent soil types in combination with thermic or hyperthermic soil temperature regimes 
and aridic soil moisture regimes on foothills and valleys. Thermic or mesic soil temperature 
regimes and aridic or xeric soil moisture regimes can be expected on the mountains. Soils at 
the proposed well sites are generally fine grain sand and silt with rounded gravels (FEMA, 
2006).

Implementation of the proposed action would result in permanent ground disturbance in the 
project area due to the installation of seven wells along the upland banks of the Mojave River. 
To construct the wells, soils and materials would be removed to allow for the installation of 
the groundwater monitoring wells. Depths of the boreholes would range from 30 to 855 feet 
bgs. Each borehole would be 1 to 2 feet in diameter. Excavated materials would be 
permanently removed from the site and disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state, 
and local laws. Project implementation would not alter site topography. Long-term impacts 
from the proposed removal of soils and materials would be negligible.

The project would cause temporary impacts to the ground surface around the proposed well 
sites during construction. Temporary construction and staging areas would be approximately 
150 feet by 150 feet around each proposed well site. The use of heavy machinery on unpaved 
surfaces is expected to disturb the ground surface and could increase local soil erosion. Best 
management practices (BMPs) would be utilized to minimize erosion and prevent runoff to 
the Mojave River. 

FEMA has determined that implementation of the proposed action would not result in 
adverse, long-term impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity with the implementation of the 
avoidance and minimization measures described in Sections 4.1 of the SEA.

3.2	AIR QUALITY
The project area is located within the Mojave Desert air basin, and is under the jurisdiction of 
the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District (AQMD). This basin, located in the 
southeastern portion of California, covers an area of over 18,000 square miles of desert. The 
area is mostly rural with a few sparsely populated urban centers. This basin exhibits a typical 
desert climate. The San Gabriel and San Bernardino mountain ranges block the desert from 
the cool, moist coastal air of the South Coast air basin. It is generally hot and dry in summer 
with mild winters and little annual rainfall (2 to 5 inches per year). The meteorology is 
affected by a moderately intense high-pressure circulation (sinking and warming of the air), 
except during periods of frontal activity during the winter. On average, 20 to 30 frontal 
systems move into the area each winter. Prevailing winds are from a westerly and southerly 
direction with the most common wind direction being west to east.

The primary sources of air pollution within the basin include military bases, highway and 
railroad facilities, cement manufacturing, and mineral processing. The northern portion of the 
basin is heavily impacted by air pollution carried over the San Gabriel and San Bernardino 
Mountains from the heavily urbanized South Coast basin. In the south-central portion of the 
basin, areas below the Tehachapi Mountain pass receive pollution from the San Joaquin air 
basin.

The Mojave Desert air basin fails to meet the federal air quality standards for two criteria 
pollutants under the Clean Air Act: ozone (O3), and particulate matter less than 10 
micrometers in diameter (PM10) (EPA, 2006). For State standards, the basin is designated as 
non-attainment for O3, particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), and 
PM10 (California ARB, 2006). Atmospheric concentrations of the other criteria pollutants do 
not exceed state or federal standards.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in temporary impacts to air quality. These 
would include increases of fugitive dust and equipment combustion emissions that would be 
created by the operation of heavy equipment in the project vicinity. However, no long-term 
impacts to air quality are expected. Emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed the 
threshold levels specified by the General Conformity Rule. Therefore, the proposed action 
qualifies as a General Conformity Rule exemption, and no further analysis is required to 
establish conformity with the State Implementation Plan. Implementation of the avoidance 
and minimization measures described in Section 4.2 of the SEA would reduce temporary 
impacts to sensitive populations.

3.3	WATER RESOURCES
The Mojave River is the main surface water body in the vicinity of the project area. The 
headwaters of the Mojave River are in the San Bernardino Mountains. Historically, the annual 
recharge from the headwaters is approximately 75,000 acre-feet (Lahontan RWQCB, 2005). 
Aside from intense storm events, the majority of the Mojave River channel is typically dry. 
Surface water from the headwaters in the San Bernardino Mountains quickly percolates into 
the porous sands of the young Mojave River alluvium. Thus, groundwater is the primary 
source of water supply in most of the watershed.

The Mojave River has been selected as a priority or "focus" watershed by the Lahontan 
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) because of numerous water quality issues 
associated with urban growth and past and current agricultural, industrial, and military land 
uses throughout the watershed. Because of water quality degradation associated with past 
industrial activities, some waters in the Mojave River watershed are listed as impaired for 
priority organics on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list (Lahontan RWQCB, 2005).

Water quantity is also an issue in the Mojave River Basin. Groundwater withdrawal since the 
early 1900s has resulted in discharge (primarily from pumping wells) that exceeds both 
natural and artificial recharge. This reliance on groundwater has resulted in overdraft 
conditions since the mid 1940s (USGS, 2003). MWA manages the limited groundwater 
supplies of the Mojave River Basin, and uses wells to monitor groundwater levels and quality.

Implementation of the proposed project would have a beneficial effect on water resources in 
the project area by allowing MWA to effectively monitor groundwater resources. Monitoring 
is necessary to ensure that limited groundwater supplies are not overdrawn and to ensure that 
water withdrawn for municipal purposes meets drinking water standards.

Temporary impacts to the Mojave River may occur during construction. The staging and use 
of heavy equipment on unpaved areas may lead to soil erosion, which could result in added 
runoff to the river system. BMPs would be utilized to minimize erosion and prevent runoff. 
Section 4.3 outlines the BMPs that would be implemented at the project site. With 
implementation of BMPs, no adverse impacts to water resources are anticipated as a result of 
construction activities.

3.3.1	Floodplain Management
Two of the proposed groundwater monitoring wells (numbers 5 and 6) would be constructed 
in the 100-year floodplain, as designated by FEMA on Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 
Community Panel Number 06071C 5805F, effective date March 18, 1996. The FIRM shows 
that the proposed sites are located within Flood Zone AE, just outside the floodway of the 
Mojave River. Flood Zone AE designates an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-
annual-chance flood event (or base flood) as determined by detailed methods. Flood Zone AE 
extends at least 1,000 feet in all directions from the proposed well locations. The base flood 
elevation in the vicinity of the site is approximately 2,610 feet above sea level. 

The proposed wells would be installed on property owned by TXI Riverside Cement and 
located off a gravel road, roughly 20 feet from a chain-link fence. The area around the site is 
flat and covered with gravel, and may be used for parking or staging. Although the area is 
mapped as Flood Zone AE, the proposed site was not flooded during the 2004-2005 winter 
storms. MWA has determined that this is the most appropriate location for the monitoring 
wells because the location is close enough to the river to detect changes in the river's flow, is 
easily accessible from the gravel road, and is out of the way of the property owner. MWA 
considered alternate locations outside of the base floodplain (Flood Zone AE), but the 
alternate locations were either too close to existing production wells or too far from the river 
to allow for adequate use of the monitoring wells. Potential for damage to the wells from 
flooding would be mitigated by its installation in an area well outside of the active river 
channel and that was not damaged during the 2004-2005 winter storms. In addition, the wells 
would be completed with protective vaults that are equipped with rubber gaskets to prevent 
damage from surface water flows. The wells would be affixed with expansion locking plugs 
to further protect the wells from surface water infiltration.

The project is not expected to alter the floodplain and does not take place within the floodway 
of the Mojave River. The project, as proposed, conforms to applicable state and local 
floodplain protection standards. Therefore, FEMA has determined that the proposed action 
would not adversely affect the floodplain or be adversely affected by flooding and, 
consequently, is in compliance with Executive Order (EO) 11988, Floodplain Management. 
On July 31, 2006, FEMA published in the Victor Valley Daily Press a public notice regarding 
its intent to fund an action in the floodplain and received no public comment.

3.3.2	Protection of Wetlands
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the 
loss of wetlands. The project area does not contain wetlands. Therefore, the proposed action 
complies with EO 11990.

3.4	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Vegetation within this stretch of the Mojave River consists primarily of cottonwood-willow 
riparian woodland dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and black willow 
(Salix gooddingii), with saltcedar (Tamarix sp.) and an occasional western sycamore 
(Platanus racemosa) within the channel. The adjacent upland banks are typically disturbed or 
developed. In upland areas that are vegetated, desert scrub species such as creosote (Larrea 
tridentate), mesquite (Prosopsis glanduosa), and saltbush (Atriplex sp.) occur in sparse 
association. 

Potential federally listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of 
the project area include the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), southwestern willow flycatcher 
(Empidonax traillii extimus), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus).

The project area is within the historical range of the arroyo toad, but the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) believes that the species has been extirpated from this section of 
the Mojave River due to upland development and construction of flood control levees 
(USFWS, 1999). Therefore, the arroyo toad is not expected to occur in or adjacent to the 
project area and FEMA has determined that the proposed project would not impact the 
species.

The cottonwood-willow riparian woodland found in the project vicinity is suitable for the 
least Bell's vireo and willow flycatcher, but no occurrences of these species in the area have 
been documented. To ensure that project activities would not impact either species, suitable 
habitat would not be removed during project implementation, and construction within or 
adjacent to riparian habitat would avoid the breeding seasons for these species (i.e., 
construction would not occur from March 1 through August 31), as described in Section 4.4 
of the SEA. With these mitigation measures in place, FEMA has determined that the proposed 
action would not impact the least Bell's vireo or willow flycatcher.

In a letter dated July 31, 2006, USFWS concurred with FEMA's determination that the 
proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the arroyo toad, least Bell's vireo, or willow 
flycatcher (Appendix B).

3.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES
FEMA subjected the project area to a cultural resources records review at the San Bernardino 
Museum Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources 
Information System. In addition, the California Native American Heritage Commission 
(NAHC) was contacted for a review of its Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American 
groups and individuals that the Commission believes should be contacted about the project. 
The Sacred Lands File search was negative. FEMA sent letters to those groups and 
individuals listed by NAHC, but no responses have been received to date. An archaeological 
survey of the project area was undertaken on March 27 and May 22, 2006 by a FEMA-
contracted archaeologist. The results of the survey were negative.

No properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified 
through the literature review or pedestrian survey of the project area. Therefore, FEMA 
determined that the proposed project is not expected to have any effect on historic properties. 
FEMA informed the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of its determination in a 
letter dated August 23, 2006, and has received no response to date. In accordance with 
Stipulation VII of the Programmatic Agreement Among FEMA, SHPO, OES, and the 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, FEMA has assumed concurrence, as SHPO did 
not object to FEMA's determination within 21 days. Therefore, the project complies with 
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Minimization and avoidance measures 
are described in Section 4.5 of the SEA and FEMA's letter to SHPO can be found in 
Appendix C.

3.6	LAND USE AND PLANNING
The proposed project sites are located on federal, state, county and privately owned land. 
Installation of the monitoring wells would not require a change in current land use, but MWA 
is negotiating easements with the respective property owners to ensure future access for 
maintenance of the wells. It is likely that future development would not occur at the well sites. 
MWA would comply with all local laws and ordinances and would obtain necessary permits 
for well installation prior to construction.

3.7	CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental 
impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonable future actions 
regardless of the person or group that undertakes the other actions. FEMA knows of no other 
projects planned in the vicinity of the proposed project sites. The project replaces a function 
that existed prior to the 2004-2005 winter storms, and cumulative impacts are not expected to 
occur as a result of the proposed action.

4.	MINIMIZATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES
The following minimization and avoidance measures applicable for the proposed action have 
been extracted from the PEA Section 4, or from measures developed for this SEA based on 
site specific impacts.  

4.1	GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
To avoid adverse impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity, MWA would be responsible for 
implementing construction BMPs to minimize soil loss from the construction and other 
disturbed areas. Examples of BMPs include the following measures: developing and 
implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan, installing and maintaining silt fences 
or hay bales, mulching cleared areas, revegetating with native species when construction is 
completed, covering soil that is stockpiled on-site, and constructing a sediment barrier around 
stockpiles to prevent sediment loss.

4.2	AIR QUALITY
MWA would be responsible for implementing the following BMPs to reduce potential short-
term air quality impacts from construction activities:
o Watering disturbed areas;
o Scheduling the location of the staging areas to minimize fugitive dust;
o Keeping construction vehicles tuned properly;
o Requiring all trucks to cover their loads;
o Sweeping adjacent streets and roads if visible soil is carried over to these areas from 
the construction site; and
o During high-wind periods, curtailing activities to the degree necessary to prevent 
fugitive dust from construction operations from being a nuisance or hazard on- or off-
site.

All construction activities would comply with all Mojave Desert AQMD rules and standards.

4.3	WATER RESOURCES
To avoid and minimize any adverse impacts to water resources, MWA would be responsible 
for implementing construction BMPs that would prevent soils from eroding and resulting in 
sedimentation in the project vicinity. Examples of BMPs include the following measures: 
developing and implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan, installing and 
maintaining silt fences or hay bales, mulching cleared areas, revegetating with native species 
when construction is completed, covering soil that is stockpiled on-site, and constructing a 
sediment barrier around stockpiles to prevent sediment loss.

4.4	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In order to avoid impacts to the least Bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher, 
MWA would be responsible for implementing the following avoidance measures at the 
project sites:
o No riparian vegetation would be removed or disturbed; and
o Construction activities would not occur from March 1 through August 31.

4.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES
If unanticipated resources are discovered during construction, MWA would stop project 
activities in the vicinity of the discovery, take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize 
harm to the property, and notify OES and FEMA as soon as practicable so that FEMA can re-
initiate consultation with the SHPO, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement. If the 
discovery appears to contain human remains, MWA would also contact the San Bernardino 
County Coroner immediately. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his 
or her authority and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American or 
has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she would contact the 
NAHC by telephone within 24 hours.

4.6	LAND USE AND PLANNING
MWA would be responsible for securing maintenance easements with property owners and 
obtaining necessary local permits prior to construction.

5.	REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2006. Area Designation Maps  State and National. 
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Site accessed September 6, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2003. Final Programmatic Environmental 
Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring Actions, Flood, Earthquake, Fire, Rain, and 
Wind Disasters in California. U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region IX.
. 2006. Cultural Resources Technical Report: Groundwater Wells, Mojave Water Agency. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region IX.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2005. Watershed Management 
Initiative Chapter. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/WMI/WMI_Index.htm. Site 
accessed August 25, 2006. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Currently Designated Nonattainment 
Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html. Site 
accessed September 6, 2006.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Arroyo southwestern toad (Bufo 
microscaphus californicus) recovery plan. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. vi + 199 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2003. Geologic Setting, Geohydrology, and Ground-Water 
Quality near the Helendale Fault in the Mojave River Basin, San Bernardino County, 
California. Prepared in cooperation with the Mojave Water Agency.
 
Appendix A: Figure 1 - Regional Location Map

Appendix B is Comment Letter from Carl T. Benz to Sandro Amaglio regarding Mojave Water
Agency Groundwater Monitoring Wells Replacement Project, Mojave River, San Bernardino
County, California (FEMA-1577-DR-CA, Project Worksheet #560)

Appendix C is a letter from Sandro Amaglio to Milford Wayne Donaldson regarding the 
Mojave Water Agency Groundwater Monitoring Wells Replacement Project, FEMA-DR-1577-CA,
Project Worksheet 560
 
 
FINAL SEA: FEMA-1577-DR-CA, PW 560	Page 11